Discussion Utilisateur:Sandpiper

Un article de Wikipédia, l'encyclopédie libre.

[Avertissment vandalisme supprimé] - phe
Folken de Fanel 9 mai 2007 à 02:18 (CEST)

As you know perfectly well Folken, restoring legitimate content is not vandalism. Please stop abusing templates. Sandpiper 9 mai 2007 à 04:12 (CEST)
As you know, deliberately reverting my edits, just for the sake of it, when you can't even understand what you're reintegrating, is openly disruptive behavior. Moreover, when you're reintegrating clearly unencyclopedic content and blatant OR, just for the sake of it, it's vandalism. Folken de Fanel 9 mai 2007 à 13:36 (CEST)
I reverted the edits because the content was good and should be included. There is an awful lot missing from these articles compared to those on the english wiki. Sandpiper 9 mai 2007 à 22:26 (CEST)
You reverted my edits because you hate me and you just went ballistic, reverting everything I have done here, even if you don't understand a single word of french, just for the sake of it.
You perfectly know what I reverter was blatant OR (yes, the No OR policy also exists here) and readding it was just disruptive, and blatant vandalism, because you didn't not revert for improving the articles (you can't improve articles if you violate the rules) but only for displaying your hatred toward me.
If you want to add content to the article, then write your own, encyclopedic and rule-compliant content, don't add unencyclopedic content by revert. Folken de Fanel 10 mai 2007 à 00:00 (CEST)

I restored: L'identité de ce personnage fait l'objet de suppositions et de de rumeurs. Selon certains, R. A. B. serait Regulus Black, frère de Sirius Black, décédé. Which is entirely true and sourceable. It has essentially been proven , and pretty damn near admitted by Rowling etc, in referenceable locations (as on en wiki).

Then I restored: À un niveau très spéculatif, une théorie très populaire sur les forums spécialisés affirme qu'Harry Potter lui-même serait un Horcruxe. Cette théorie vient surtout du flou laissé par Dumbledore quant à la nature du cinquième Horcruxe, tandis que ses idées sur les cinq autres sont extrèmement claires. Beaucoup soupçonnent Dumbledore de mentir par omission. Néanmoins cette théorie provoque une incohérence très difficile à surmonter (Voldemort est déterminé à tuer Harry Potter). which is also certainly true,

and: Précision très importante: dans le livre français, Dumbledore affirme qu'il manquait un Horcruxe à Voldemort quand il entreprit d'aller tuer les Potter. Dans la version originale, Dumbledore disait "au moins un Horcruxe". Cela dit, Dumbledore indique ensuite que Harry aurait probablement servi à créer le dernier Horcruxe dans les deux versions. , which I can't check not having french versions of the books. However, it seems other editors also support restoring the sections you deleted since your reversion of me has also been reverted.

So you say, "because you think it's true", then it's not OR and doesn't needs source ? You're delusional.Folken de Fanel 10 mai 2007 à 17:27 (CEST)

Sommaire

[modifier] Second tag for what, exactly?

[Avertissment vandalisme supprimé] - phe
(It means "Don't add unencyclopedic content to WP, it's concidered vandalism") Folken de Fanel 9 mai 2007 à 13:38 (CEST)

I never have. Perhaps you can advise me what is the correct warning to issue to users who persistently misconstrue good faith edits? Which of the two edits above, both of them reversions restoring content created by other editors but deleted by you, constitutes vandalism? Sandpiper 10 mai 2007 à 00:30 (CEST)
As you know, deliberately reverting my edits, just for the sake of it, when you can't even understand what you're reintegrating, is openly disruptive behavior. Moreover, when you're reintegrating clearly unencyclopedic content and blatant OR, just for the sake of it, it's vandalism.Folken de Fanel 10 mai 2007 à 17:27 (CEST)

[modifier] Et voila, troisieme, porquoi?

[Avertissment vandalisme supprimé] - phe
Folken de Fanel 10 mai 2007 à 23:55 (CEST)

This is because I oppose your attempt to delete the article R. A. B., which you proposed for deletion in a version which had the sourced material removed, and only the wilder speculations remaining, claiming it was TI? [1] Then, when I restore the deleted sourced sections, you post this?

It is my intention now to make further edits restoring valid deleted comments to some HP articles. I would be grateful, assuming Folken de Fanel draws this to the attention of administrators, if anyone investigating this will please take action against Folken for disruptive behaviour and attempting to compel editors to agree with him.

Please check my edit history. You will see that all my edits here are valid and appropriate, and only restore information deleted by Folken, or add references to the text. Folken has engaged in similar disruptive behaviour on the english wikipedia.

C'est parce que je s'opposent à votre tentative de supprimer l'article R. A. B. , que vous avez proposé pour la suppression dans une version que le matériel originaire avait enlevée, et seulement les spéculations plus sauvages restantes, le réclamant étaient-elles du TI ?[2] Puis, quand je reconstitue les sections originaires supprimées, signalez-vous ceci ?

Il est mon intention de faire maintenant édite plus loin reconstituer des commentaires supprimés valides à quelques articles de HP. Je serais reconnaissant, supposant que Folken de Fanel dessine ceci à l'attention des administrateurs, si n'importe qui étudiant ceci satisfera agir contre Folken pour que le comportement disruptif et essayer contraigne des rédacteurs être d'accord avec lui. Veuillez vérifier le mon éditent l'histoire. Vous verrez que tout mon édite voici valide et vous approprierez, et reconstitue seulement l'information supprimée par Folken, ou ajoute des références au texte. Folken s'est engagé dans le comportement disruptif semblable sur le wikipedia anglais.Sandpiper 11 mai 2007 à 01:07 (CEST)

-> Pour ton vandalisme sur l'article Horcruxe. Folken de Fanel 10 mai 2007 à 23:55 (CEST)

[modifier] ISBN sur RAB

Thanks for correction to ISBN for 'End of Harry Potter' on RAB. My hardback UK copy is 0575078758, not 057507875 as I posted. Is the ISBN you inserted the paperback? Also, thanks for edits to my user page.

merci pour correction à l'ISBN pour 'End of Harry Potter' sur RAB. Ma copie de livre cartonné est 0575078758, non 057507875 comme j'ai signalé. L'ISBN vous inséré est-il le livre broché ?

Aussi, merci pour des contributions à mon page d'utilisateur. Sandpiper 12 mai 2007 à 00:49 (CEST)

I only saw the isbn wasn't working and fixed it by using the first one I can find for this book, but apparently it's from not the editor you mentionned in the note, I re-fixed it to use 0575078758 - phe 12 mai 2007 à 01:00 (CEST)

[modifier] vandalisme anonyme de noticeboard d'admin

I just investigated why the page is semi protected, and someone had placed an anonymous response to Folken's comment. It was not me. Could you investigate the IP concerned, or pass it on to someone who can? Sandpiper 12 mai 2007 à 02:45 (CEST)

Completly unrelated, it's caused by an old and well known vandal - phe 12 mai 2007 à 02:50 (CEST)

[modifier] Wikipompier

Bonjour Je m'appelle Bapti (d · c · b) et je suis un médiateur sur la Wikipédia francophone. Je vais essayer de résoudre les problèmes sur les articles consacrés à Harry Potter. Merci d'indiquer sur cette page les modifications, ajouts et suppressions que vous souhaitez pour les articles (de préférence en Français).--Bapti ✉ 12 mai 2007 à 15:16 (CEST)

Hello

My username is Bapti and I am a mediator ("Wikipompier" is literally "wiki-fireman" in English) on the French-language Wikipedia. I will try to solve the problems on the articles devoted to Harry Potter. Please indicate the modifications, additions and deletions you wish to see done on the articles on this page (it would be preferable if you wrote in French).--Bapti ✉ 12 mai 2007 à 15:16 (CEST)

[modifier] Horcruxe

Bonsoir,

Merci de ne pas reverter l'article Horcruxe avant les explications de Folken de Fanel ici.
Please, don't revert before Folk's answer here.

Bonne soirée--Bapti ✉ 15 mai 2007 à 21:19 (CEST)

[modifier] et voila quatrième, cinquième avertissant...encore porquoi?...Vandalisme sur R. A. B.??

Même si tu agis entant qu'anonyme, il est très facile de voir que tu es responsable de cette modification.

Comme il t'a été expliqué précédement, il s'agit d'un recyclage demandé par la majorité des votants de la PàS en faveur de la concervation de l'article (voir ici, tu peux toi-même compter les différents avis demandant un recyclage), et, malgré ton attitude insultante, le travail inédit est interdit, même sur le Wikipedia francophone, il est donc tout à fait normal de le supprimer (qui plus est, quand tout le monde le demande), et tu n'y changeras jamais rien.

Ton attitude est donc concidérée comme du vandalisme, puisque tu défigures un article sans raison apparente, que tu ignores des décisions communes prises par une dizaine de personnes, que tu ignores des règles fondamentales de Wikipedia, et que tu ignores les avertissements qui te sont donnés.

Puisque tu as édité la page entant qu'anonyme (mais que tu es parfaitement identifiable, ton IP est basée au UK, tu maîtrises mal le français, tu es intervenu à la même heure sur le WP anglophone), je te donne le plus bas niveau d'avertissement. Mais si tu recommences, puisque tu auras déjà vandalisé la page 2 fois, tu auras le niveau d'avertissement 2.

Et ainsi de suite, jusqu'au dernier niveau d'avertissement. Tu seras ensuite dénoncé à un administrateur, et bloqué.

Folken de Fanel 12 juin 2007 à 01:32 (CEST)

As you well know, the version of RAB which you proposed for deletion was already damaged as much of it had been deleted. The deletion debate included several people who recommended rewriting the article, yes, but they recommended adding to it, and adding sources, not deleting most of it. As the person who proposed the article for deletion you should not have closed the debate yourself, and you should not be the one to interpret what was said in that debate.
Too bad you can't read french, otherwise you'd have seen here that many people for the maintaining of the page said that the article nonetheless needed an original research clean up. I'm merely doing what the majority proposed, and anyway I'm merely following the rules of Wikipedia, which stricly prohibit original research in articles. What are you trying to do ? Do you realize that here, you are clearly violating a policy, without ambiguity ? You realize that the content you're adding IS original research ? Do you realize you CANNOT add original research ? So the matter is over, you'll never touch the article again, because you really have nothing to say: what I do is only what has to be done acording to the rules.
Yes I can close the debate myself, and I have not interpreted but merely counted. Anyway, I don't need your approval to remove stricly forbidden content. Folken de Fanel 12 juin 2007 à 16:51 (CEST)
Comme vous bon savez, la version de RAB que vous avez proposé pour la suppression a été déjà endommagée autant avait été supprimée. La discussion de suppression a inclus plusieurs personnes qui ont recommandé de récrire l'article, oui, mais elles ont recommandé d'ajouter à lui, et d'ajouter des sources, ne supprimant pas sa majeure partie. Car la personne qui a proposé l'article pour la suppression vous ne devrait pas avoir fermé la discussion vous-même, et vous ne devrait pas être celle pour interpréter ce qui a été dit au cours de cette discussion.Sandpiper 12 juin 2007 à 15:38 (CEST)
C'est faux. Tu ne sais pas lire le français, qu'est-ce que tu fais ici, franchement ?
Arrête de mentir immédiatement.
La majorité a demandé un recyclage du travail inédit, et même si ça n'avait pas été le cas, le travail inédit, même sur le Wikipedia francophone, est bel et bien interdit, et donc il est tout à fait normal de le retirer, quelque soient les circonstances. Tu n'as absolument rien à dire, tu n'en as pas le droit. Ce sont les règles de Wikipedia, et tu y désobeis.
Tu n'as tout simplement pas le droit d'ajouter du travail inédit, et je comprends vraiment pas ce que tu cherches, à par déstabiliser Wikipedia.Folken de Fanel 12 juin 2007 à 16:55 (CEST)


Why do you add original research to articles ? You perfectly know it is forbidden. Why are you so obviously trying to disrupt Wikipedia ? Why are you vandalising it ? What does it bring to you ? The rules ARE the rules, and you CANNOT change them, original research IS forbidden in articles, why are you re-adding it when it is so obvious it's original research and that you are violating one of the main policies ? Why ? Folken de Fanel 12 juin 2007 à 16:55 (CEST)


Why don't you stop ? Real life is good, you know ? You should stop spending days trying to vandalize Wiki, you should go out, breath fresh air, see people, you know. Folken de Fanel 12 juin 2007 à 17:02 (CEST)

Why do you keep re-adding unsourced original research when you know it is forbidden by WP rules ? Why do you prevent me to improve the article ? Improving this article implies getting rid of all unsourced and unencyclopedical content, and that's what I'm doing. However, constantly re-adding unsourced and unencyclopedical content and ignoring consensuses, is vandalism. So why do you vandalize Wikipedia ? Folken de Fanel 12 juin 2007 à 17:02 (CEST)

Hello Folken. I never have added 'original research' to wikipedia, in any language. Why do you refuse to acknowledge the widespread interest and discussion about Harry Potter in the wider world? If you wish to post in both languages, please ensure that one is a translation of the other, not entirely different.
Bonjour Folken. Je n'ai jamais ajouté 'la recherche originale 'au wikipedia, en n'importe quelle langue. Pourquoi refusez-vous de reconnaître l'intérêt et la discussion répandus au sujet de Harry dans le monde plus large ? Si vous souhaitez répondre dans les deux langues, assurez-vous svp qu'on est une traduction de l'autre, pas entièrement différent. Sandpiper 13 juin 2007 à 14:42 (CEST)
You have added original research, particularly today on the french RAB article, but also on various english articles.
Why do you refuse to respect the established rules of Wikipedia ?
If you wish to post and edit articles in another language, be sure you can actually read and understand it. Folken de Fanel 13 juin 2007 à 21:35 (CEST)

[modifier] sixième cadeaux de Folken De Fanel


Folken, good faith edits are never vandalism. Placing messages on wikipedia which you know to be untrue is bad faith editing, which may indeed be Vandalism. It is not for you alone to decide what should be in an article. It is absolutely not for you to dismiss material from sources which have been accepted by the community.
traduction: Folken, bonne foi édite ne sont jamais vandalisme. Le placement des messages sur le wikipedia qui vous savez pour être faux est une mauvaise foi éditant, qui peut en effet être vandalisme. Il ne doit pas pour vous seul décider ce qui devrait être dans un article. Il n'est absolument pas pour que vous écartiez le matériel des sources qui ont été acceptées par la communauté. Sandpiper 14 juin 2007 à 10:59 (CEST)
How dare you say "good faith", when you have refused to take into account the result of an AfD debate, when you have ignored a first, a second, and a third time, my warnings that your edits were disruptive, when you reinsterted again, again, and again, blatant unencyclopedical content in an article, when you blindly reverted and imposed your edits by force (pov pushing indeed) without trying to reach a consensus first (and ignoring the previous consensus).
I know that all the messages I placed here are true, because you have indeed added "unencyclopedic content" to articles, and you're doing it again, and again, and again, disrespecting the established rules. It is not for you alone either to decide what should be in an article. There are rules on Wikipedia, rules of notability, rules of reliability of sources, rules of a need to have sources, rules of no original research, which I'm not inventing. These rules have existed since the beginning of WP, and the thousands of users here respect them since the beginning. You cannot come here as a conqueror, and do as you please, ignoring rules you don't like and trying to impose your own views as rules. You simply cannot. I remove original research, that is stricly forbidden on Wikipedia, and you have nothing to say to this.
It is absolutely not for you to add material from unreliable sources or no sources at all
What "community" are you talking about ? External fan-communities do not rule Wikipedia, and you're not a community all by yourself, and you have no decisionary power.
A "good faith" edit is when a editor genuinely didn't know he was breaking a rule, and then accepted to discuss with other and saw his edits were not that good...You just ignore the others, only your opinion, your pov matter, and you don't hesitate to wage revert wars just to see your views imposed, you don't even bother to discuss, you respect nothing, you're merely here to revert, revert, revert, you refuse to reach consensus, indeed you feel you're the only person on Earth, and you're not here to make WP better, you're just here to impose your views.
I've already told you, when you'll stop blindly reverting, and when you'll try reaching consensus with others without touching the articles, you'll be concidered a good faith editor. But now you're just a disrupter, and it's not merely by saying "it's good faith" (how dare you say that when you were warned 3 times that you were adding OR and that OR was forbidden here, and the 3 times you ignored it and refused discussion) that it suddenly becomes true. You have to prove it.
But I'm ready to accept your proof, and if, from now on, you stop altogether your reverts here and on the english WP, and try to discuss and reach consensus first, you'll be concidered a good faith editor, but not before that. So, I'm waiting your proofs, prove me wrong, prove me you're not a disrupter. Folken de Fanel 14 juin 2007 à 11:11 (CEST)
I regret to say that I have never met anyone on who has posted warning messages as often as you. It is completely meaningless for you to claim your own view about good content, supports repeated allegations of vandalism, particularly after the pompier disagreed with you.
Je regrette de dire que je n'ai jamais rencontré n'importe qui sur qui a signalé les messages d'avertissement aussi souvent que vous. Il est complètement sans signification que vous réclamiez votre propre vue au sujet de bon contenu soutient des allégations répétées du vandalisme, en particulier après le pompier était en désaccord avec vous. Sandpiper 14 juin 2007 à 11:41 (CEST)
Edit: see ? You've reverted again, trying to impose your views by force, instead of discussing and trying to reach a consensus. You're definitely not a good faith editor, and you're merely wasting your chances here. Folken de Fanel 14 juin 2007 à 11:14 (CEST)
I see no discussion on the french RAB page, but we have discussed this at very great length on the english wikipedia. On the english wikipedia you accept the content which you delete here.
Moi ne voit aucune discussion à la page française de RAB, mais nous a discuté ceci à la longueur très grande sur le wikipedia anglais. Sur le wikipedia anglais vous acceptez le contenu que vous supprimez ici.Sandpiper 14 juin 2007 à 11:41 (CEST)
Yes, you have not discussed anything on the RAB page before reverting.
Yes, we've discussed various different cases on the english WP, and each time you lost it, everyone was against you and you never managed to prove the quality and necessity of your edits. Other users even declared that you were "trying the patience of other editors" and warned you to go to RFC if you didn't stop.
On the english WP we do not accept content that is unreliably sourced and non-notable. On this WP we do not accept content that is unreliably sourced and non-notable, and we do not accept blatant original research.
And please stop your silly lies, when do you think I have ever "accepted" content from you ? I have always been clear at what was rejected on english articles. So now, don't start pretending things.Folken de Fanel 14 juin 2007 à 11:47 (CEST)
The french RAB contained essentially the same information as the english, yet on the french you requested the entire article be deleted, while in english you have been content to keep the majority of the article. A consensus was reached by three editors for a version of the disputed material which you object to. You have always reverted its insertion. While most people have given up for the launch of the final book, you and I remain slugging away, demonstrating only that wiki agrees with those who are most persistent?
Le RAB français a contenu essentiellement la même information que l'anglais, pourtant sur le Français que vous avez demandé l'article entier soyez supprimé, alors qu'en anglais vous avez été content pour garder la majorité de l'article. Un consensus a été atteint par trois rédacteurs pour une version du matériel contesté. Vous avez toujours retourné son insertion. Tandis que la plupart des personnes ont arrêté l'édition jusqu'au dégagement du livre final, continuons-nous discuter, démontrant seulement que le wiki est conforme à ceux qui sont le plus persistant ?Sandpiper 24 juin 2007 à 18:51 (CEST)

[modifier] Avertissement sans frais

Veuillez consulter WP:POINT et y réfléchir. Grimlock 19 juin 2007 à 16:20 (CEST)

Suite à ma demande ici--Bapti ✉ 19 juin 2007 à 16:43 (CEST)