User talk:CocoricoPolynesien/Archive 1

Archive 1

Template:French Polynesian elections

Hello CocoricoPolynesien. With regards to your edits at this template:

1. On Wikipedia the word "referendums" is preferred to referenda. You can see this from all the other templates in this series. Also, there is an explanation of why referenda is deprecated here.
2. Indirect elections (such as the French Polynesian presidential elections) are not included on these templates. If there are a series of articles on indirect elections, a separate template should be created (see e.g. {{German elections}} direct elections and {{German presidential elections}} for indirect elections, {{Latvian elections}}/{{Latvian presidential elections}} etc).

Cheers, Number 57 19:53, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I disagree, but duly noted ! Regards, CocoricoPolynesien (talk) 10:56, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

User:CocoricoPolynesien/sandbox

I'd recommend linking to the image, rather than including it directly, if you're working on a sandbox that requires non-free media. Copyrighted media can't be used outside of articles, because the fair use criteria don't apply. See WP:NFCC. Also, note that you'll have to add a fair use rationale to Image:André Zeller.jpg if you intend to use it on Chief of Staff of the French Army. ST47 (talk) 17:12, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the information ! Regards, CocoricoPolynesien (talk) 10:56, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

François Lecointre

Hi! Instead of edit warring or giving warnings, why don't you go to the talk page and discuss the matter?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fran%C3%A7ois_Lecointre 2001:7E8:D3FE:7A01:60F4:711B:E7AC:50DB (talk) 17:49, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

As mentionned in the reverts which you unfortunately don't seem to read, you voluntarily introduce a mistake in articles. You are free to upload a silver-gilt star on the commons to correct this factual inacurracy. Reverting false information does not constitute edit warring. I've also seen that you have been already warned by another user on one of your IPs. I hope this and my response in the article talk page will make your contributions more pertinents. Regards, CocoricoPolynesien (talk) 19:42, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Notice

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.(KIENGIR (talk) 13:59, 22 August 2019 (UTC))

You may stop posting notices that do not correspond and distort reality. I've been perfectly civil the whole debate. Thank you for your restrain. Regards - CocoricoPolynesien (talk) 14:02, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Edit: especially when you are the other party involved and are not objective enough to do so.

?? It would be enough objective to accuse me continously? Sorry, here is the diff ([1]), read please WP:Civility.(KIENGIR (talk) 14:28, 22 August 2019 (UTC))

That doesn't constitute uncivility. I constated that you lied to me and told you so. I really but really can't understand such lack of respect, especially with evidence right under you eyes. Now, you should stop harassing me and resume your activities. Good day and regards - CocoricoPolynesien (talk) 14:43, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

But yes, read the policy again then. I did not lie and if you do not retreat this, that may have conquences (however repeating it is again against WP:AGF and WP:AAGF). I respect you, it seems the opposite is the problem, I communicate with you and take you serious as well the subject, all the evidence I checked and still have questions. I never harrassed you excuse me, seems again the opposite...have also a Good Day & Regards.(KIENGIR (talk) 14:48, 22 August 2019 (UTC))

" I did not lie and if you do not retreat this, that may have conquences": I do not retreat, you lied to me. And you just did it again by saying you respected me. If you truly respected me, you would have apologised. Also, it sounds like a threat. CocoricoPolynesien (talk) 14:55, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

No way, I can only assume with all of my good faith that simply you did not understood properly my English in the talk page of the article. Unfortunately in all of your manifestations and accusations the one may see lack of respect, I take you serious that's why we are still talking, and about "apologies", excuse me, better you should think on your own.

"it sounds like a threat." -> No, that sounded like so that you posted on my talk page marked bold, I just informed you about WP:Civility and the possible consequences, there, to prevent you from any inconvenience. Please try to calm down.(KIENGIR (talk) 15:12, 22 August 2019 (UTC))

October 2019 (WP:BKFIP)

If I remove something from my talk page, you have no right to put it back. Your doing so betrays your ignorance of policy and guidelines, and shows that you are simply aiming to be disruptive. 46.208.236.175 (talk) 12:35, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello, you don't seem to have read any one of these policies, you have been formally warned and as for me, this warning has to stay. You have been reported and given your actions, I expect you to be blocked permanently from editing. Regards CocoricoPolynesien (talk) 12:37, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Edit : you breached at least 3 policies in your recents edits, adding edit warring without consensus. I tried to discuss, you didn't respond.

Which policy do you think allows you to undo an edit I made to my talk page? 46.208.236.175 (talk) 12:48, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

My opinion is that this is not your talk page, it's a public IP talk page. Furthermore, no policy forbids me to do it. Expect no further response until actions are taken. Regards.

Give me a link to the policy or guideline that you think you are following. 46.208.236.175 (talk) 12:56, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

General information : WP:BKFIP

October 2019 (WP:BKFIP)

Thank you for trying to keep Wikipedia free of vandalism. However, one or more edits you labeled as vandalism are not considered vandalism under Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia has a stricter definition of the word "vandalism" than common usage, and mislabeling edits as vandalism can discourage editors. Please see what is not vandalism for more information on what is and is not considered vandalism. Thank you. 46.208.236.175 (talk) 13:16, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

You are the accused and can't be the judge. You are improperly using templates. This will be added to the report. Regards, CocoricoPolynesien (talk) 13:22, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

General information : WP:BKFIP

User talk pages

Just to clarify about removing warnings from a talk page, as you might not have seen this guideline yet, WP:OWNTALK states Although archiving is preferred, users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages. Users may also remove some content in archiving. The removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user. This specifically includes both registered and unregistered users. Schazjmd (talk) 14:34, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi, just saw that. However I did it during a current investigation ; he deleted evidence. Thank you though ! Regards, CocoricoPolynesien (talk) 14:40, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

October 2019 (WP:BKFIP)

It appears that you are not a native speaker of English, and that in the four months you have been editing, you have not been able to understand many important policies. Perhaps you have not even read them. If you wish to contribute productively to an English-language encyclopaedia, you should be sure that your level of English is sufficient to understand the policies of the work. 46.208.236.175 (talk) 14:56, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

What a lovely message. CocoricoPolynesien (talk) 14:57, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

General information : WP:BKFIP

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Page francophone des MGA

Bonjour, je viens de voir votre message dans la liste de modif de la page française des Major General of the Armed Forces (France). Je n'ai pas saisi si le problème venait du code source du tableau ou bien de la liste en elle-même ? C'est moi qui l'ai mise à jour une première fois en novembre et une seconde il y a quelques jours. Quoi qu'il en soit, je vous présente mes excuses si j'ai mal agi. Cordialement. --Ath wik (talk) 17:32, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Bonjour, ne vous inquiétez, j'ai peut être parlé trop vite, ça m'arrive souvent. En fait ce qui me chiffonne est simple : j'ai laissé sur ma sandbox(brouillon) fin octobre un début d'article pour le major général des armées version anglaise. Il se trouve que les ressemblances entre la liste que j'ai établi, au niveau des noms des officiers qui étaient jusqu'à lors non apparents sur la page française et au niveau des décrets de legifrance, et la page française que vous avez mis à jour sont assez troublantes. Je passe sur les photos utilisées qui sont des versions que j'ai moi-même modifiées et qui jusqu'à lors n'avaient que pour seule utilité le dit brouillon d'article.

Ecoutez, je me trompe peut-être, mais ce qui me gêne n'est pas que cette liste ait été mise à jour, bien au contraire il le faut. Ce qui me gêne c'est qu'il semblerait que ça ait été fait avec mon travail, que je passe plusieurs heures de mon temps libre à réaliser, à déterrer des décrets totalement oubliés, de rendre un nom à certains généraux complétement inconnus, et tout ça sans me créditer... Wikipedia autorise à réutiliser du contenu interne, mais la page d'origine doit être mentionnée...

Maintenant, est-ce que je me trompe et s'agit-il d'une énorme coïncidence ? Bonne soirée, CocoricoPolynesien (talk) 18:05, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Ok, j'ai effectivement pris les infos (portraits, grade, identité, dates et décrets) des MGA Coatanéa, Louzeau et Zeller sur le version anglaise de la page ; en ce qui concerne l'amiral Brusson, il était signalé qu'il avait été MGA dans l'article de l'al. Louzeau (Wikipédia ou Wikidata, je ne sais plus). J'insiste sur le fait que je suis allé sur la page anglaise (qui d'ailleurs n'est pas relié à la page française) et en aucun cas sur votre brouillon ; je ne vous connaissez pas jusqu'à aujourd'hui. Pour ce qui est des MGA du gal Voinot à aujourd'hui, j'ai moi-même cherché les décrets.

Je ne savais pas qu'un contributeur devait indiquer lorsqu'il intégrait des infos issues d'un autre wiki. Pouvez m'indiquer comment faire, ou bien me renvoyer vers la page d'aide qui l'explique ? Je réitère mes excuses, cordialement. --Ath wik (talk) 20:28, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Bonjour, au vu de vos dire, il s'agit donc d'une énorme coïncidence et je m'excuse de vous avoir importuné de la sorte. Je vois que vous êtes de bonne foi ! En effet vous avez pris les informations sur la page anglaise après leur publication par moi-même et non avant comme je l'ai initialement pensé.

La règle c'est que lorsque des informations, tout ou partie sont prises d'une page personnelle d'un utilisateur, cela doit être mentionné. Cependant vous les avez prises sur un article et non sur une de mes pages. Donc cette règle ne s'applique pas à vous.

J'ai parlé trop vite et il s'agit d'une coïncidence, je vous présente donc mes excuses, et je vais rajouter un dummy edit au diff de modification pour le préciser. Bonne journée ! CocoricoPolynesien (talk) 10:00, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Bonjour, très bien, content que cela s'achève ainsi. Bonne journée et à bientôt. --Ath wik (talk) 11:31, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Collectivité européenne d'Alsace

Bonjour CocoricoPolynesien. Le ton présomptueux et l'attitude contrafactuelle que tu adoptes ici ne te fera pas beaucoup d'amis. Il est vrai qu'il y a eu une estimation de population pour 2020, faite en 2019. Mais depuis la publication des chiffres officiels du recensement de 2017 par l'INSEE, le 30 décembre 2019, ce chiffre est devenu fantaisiste et cette estimation, obsolète. Étant donné le taux de croissance des départements du Bas-Rhin et du Haut-Rhin depuis 2007, la population totale en 2020 est nécessairement supérieure à celle de 2017, qui est supérieure à l'estimation que tu vénères tant. Abandonne le culte de cette idole. --Edelseider (talk) 10:55, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello,

The behavior you harbored today with your attacks on this history page [2] and this talk page are totally inappropriate and unacceptable. You wrote:

your estimate is not sourced - where is the link to a specific page? - while the official 2017 census is sourced

• It is a completely false statement and bad faith from your part. The diff [3] proves that you did not provide a reference and the diff [4] proves that I did.

Edit war starters usually get their come-uppance sooner rather than later

• WP:AGF, WP:NPA.

Your petulance is only making you look bad. The estimate is already obsolete. Check the meaning of that word: "obsolete"

• I will pass on the attack and just state that wishing a good day is not "petulance". Another wrong statement : the 2017 census dates from 30/12/19 while the 2020 estimate dates from... 14/01/20. That is not what obsolete means. You also didn't provide a link to back up your claims.

The presumptuous tone and counterfactual attitude that you adopt here will not make you many friends.

• I provided referenced numbers, which is a factual attitude. While you... didn't.

It is true that there was a population estimate for 2020, made in 2019. But since the publication of the official census figures for 2017 by INSEE, on December 30, 2019, this figure has become fanciful and this estimate, obsolete. Given the growth rate of the departments of Bas-Rhin and Haut-Rhin since 2007, the total population in 2020 is necessarily higher than that of 2017, which is higher than the estimate that you revere so much

• False statement again. The 2020 estimate was published in 2020 two weeks after the 2017 census. Furthermore, if you had read what you were editing, you would have noticed that the 2020 estimate was already higher than the 2017 census, which is the exact opposite of what you claimed.

Give up the worship of this idol

• Doesn't make any sense. Is this a sort of threat ?

I initialy assumed good-faith from you. However as you added back unsourced data combined with attacks, it became clear you weren't. Good day anyway, CocoricoPolynesien (talk) 13:40, 15 January 2020 (UTC)