User talk:Herve.toullec

Edit-warring at The Little Prince (2015 film)
The edit war you have been engaged in for weeks at The Little Prince (2015 film) is disruptive. You should have opened a discussion on the talk page at the first sign of conflict. The page has been protected. When it is unprotected, you are prohibited from making changes to the film's nationality until you have achieved consensus through discussion. Thank you. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:12, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi ! Thank you for your message. You're right and I hope you said this to my "opponent" too ;) But it did not expected my opponent would be so stubborn despite the proofs I indicated. Or that someone would have helped me, or prevented him from making those changes. If it is prohibited, why as he allowed to add "Canada" ? Now I found the ultimate solution : I contacted on Twitter Dimitri Rassam, producer of the film and he answered to me clearly. I've put the screenshot on Casimages : http://www.casimages.com/i/160127042127897324.jpg.html Have a good day and thank you for helping me pu right information on Wikipedia (sorry, English is not my mother language !) Herve.toullec (talk) 15:19, 27 January 2016 (UTC) Cyphoidbomb (talk)

July 2017
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:05, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:32, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Original research
Please don't add your own original research, as you did in. It doesn't matter what nationality the production companies are; we go by what reliable sources state, and, in this case, a trade magazine has labeled the film as solely an American film. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:07, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

August 2017
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:45, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I told you that I was going to block you if you continue blanking sourced content, and yet you've . Enough is enough. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:48, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello, NinjaRobotPirate (talk) Yes, you told me that, I read your message. I am not sure you read my last message on your page. It was my answer after you accused me of making changes based on my personal opinions. I think someone who has responsabilities like you on Wikipedia has to help contributors add right informations. Currently I'm not helped. If I don't do things the way they should be done I am sincerely sorry. But everything I do is to put true infos. The thing is that we have a real problem with what many "sources" say. Cinema magazines are reliable sources but on the particular point of the country of origin and other technical aspects, they're more less reliable because they don't pay attention to these details, because it has not a big importance for big public. They often just complete these items with intuitions and what they find at the first click on the web. And if there is a mistake on Wikipedia or IMDB, the mistake is reproduced by press articles. You can't ignore now that there is a true problem in articles abouts films towards the country of production. I can give you the list of 40 films that used to be described as American or American co-productions without any reason (Colombiana, Le Petit Prince, Taken films, Arthur and the Invisibles films, The Artist, Renegades, A Monster in Paris, etc) and now it is clear for everybody as far as these films are concerned. But if I did not intervene to make the correction, they might still be described as American, what would be a serious failure of Wikipedia for facts and objectivity. This problem with French films does not exist with Wikipedia in other languages. And this is understandable as France and the US are the two countries that most export films in the world, with of course a huge gap between the two. Frenhch films are shot in several languages and the main foreign language is English. So when a Wikipedia contributor, a blogger, or a journalist decides to create a news article about an upcoming film like these ones, they don't even ask themselves... "There is an international cast, it is shot in English, the majority of films around the world are American... Well this new film must be American too... " A few times I was wrong and I did not stubborn. But now let's have a look to Unifrance. If you're interested in cinema and if you did not know this organism before, I'm sure you will be curious to see what it is. Like the US and the UK have their official cinema institutions/organisms/associations, Unifrance is the most important and is linked to the CNC. Actually, from the fact that a film is listed on Unifrance, it means that this film is a French production or coproduction, and everything is explained, even which country had the main role in the film's production. And the website even has an English version. I think you blocked me after my change on Babylon AD. It used to be written it is a French film and then someone changed that, and nobody reacted : why ? For that film, Unifrance is very clear and they have all production documents in their hands : it is written it is a 100 % French film. Maybe American and British companies were involved, maybe these companies are production studios. But obviously, they were not involved in that film as producers. A financer is not a producer. An executive producer is not a delegate producer. Wikipedia has to be accurate about all this for users who are looking for serious informations on Wikipedia. I hope you don't have doubts about my good faith and I really hope you will have a close look to this generalized problem on the English Wikipedia to make it more trust-worthy. Valerian was a good illustration of it. There was a debate on the possibility the film could be American. There is no other Wikipedia (language) that had such a debate ! Thank you for having read until the end ! Herve.toullec (talk) 13:20, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I recommend you read WP:THETRUTH and WP:RGW. This is what you're doing.  It's disruptive, and you need to immediately stop.  If you continue changing sourced content or removing citations simply because you disagree with them, you will eventually end up indefinitely blocked.  I honestly don't care how trade magazines, such as Variety, label what countries produced a film.  The important thing is that they have done so.  I don't know how other language Wikipedias work, but English Wikipedia is based on what reliable sources say.  Not your personal analysis, not what countries the production companies are from, and not "the truth".  I don't know if Unifrance is a reliable source.  You could bring up the subject at WikiProject Film or the reliable sources noticeboard and see what they think.  Right now, infobox film says this: "For reasons explained below preference is given to reliable databases like BFI, AFI, or trade publications such as Screen International and Variety."  If you don't like this, make your case at WT:FILM, Template talk:Infobox film, WT:MOSFILM, or some other appropriate forum.  When sources conflict with each other, the template suggests discussing things on the talk page or listing only the shared countries.  Removing one citation because you disagree with the conclusions found in it, and replacing it with a cherry-picked source that you agree with is also kind of disruptive, so you shouldn't do that, either. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:42, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello, NinjaRobotPirate (talk) Thank you for these advices. Please don't say I am "removing citations simply because you disagree with them" : it is just absolutely not the case. Saying "I don't know if Unifrance is a reliable source" is like me saying "I don't know if the BFI or AFI is reliable". In the case of the 40 films articles that used to contain a mistake, contributors had put a cherry-picked source or no source at all, probably thinking it was not necessary. Why was it so easy for them to do that ? Fortunately I was there to put the proper (information that all common sources support). Let me add that if I may have a personal opinion about that : I wish most of these films were not French because I personnaly find them not interesting and just not good. Thanks again for telling me the ways thins can be discussed aboout sources. Herve.toullec (talk) 09:47, 27 August 2017 (UTC)