User talk:Jean-Jacques Georges

Second Sino Japanese War
Reference note and supplementary note are 2 different things, Ref note [1] is a reference for 900 US aircraft in 1945, Supp note 1 on the bottom of the infobox that clearly states: "Chiang Kai-shek led a Chinese united front that included Nationalists, Communists and regional warlords." Look for it. DCTT (talk) 05:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: Prince Vanna Vaidhayakara
Thank you for your question. Well, his full title was His Royal Highness Prince Vanna Vaidhayakara, the Prince Naradhip Bhongsprabandh. His given name was Vanna Vaidhayakara, and the Prince Naradhip Bongseprabandh was his royal title which was given by King Bhumibol Adulyadej, can translate in thai as Krom Muen Naradhip Bongseprabandh. And actually the word Wan Waithayakorn was not correct about naming royal family. The royal family uses the Latino-Indian language style for naming the members of the family. Such as Kitiyakara can translate as Kitiyakorn. And Sirivannavari Nariratana, translate as Siriwanwari Narirat.

And furthermore, the article about Prince Vanna Vaidhayakara is not succesfully completed, we are going to prepare the complete information and biography about him and complete his article soon. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Monarchians (talk • contribs) 16:17, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry we forgot another one, Waiwaidhayakara is not the name or nickname. It was the wrong name with wrong typing in computer, hahaha. His nickname was Ong Wan or Prince Vanna. That you said recently, he was known in the west as Wan. I know it is confused about spelling his name and his spoken name. Anyway, this article is stub, we are preparing all the biography and information about him. And we are going to complete this article successfully.


 * Whatever westerns or easterns, if you would like to know more about the Thai Royal Family, you can come visit Category:Chakri Dynasty, or can also ask us. We update the information every time. We are so appriciate that you are interested in the Royal Family, Thank you.


 * Plaek Khittasangka was his born name, the word Pibulsonggram was his title which was given from King Bhumibol Adulyadej as Lord (Luang) Pibulsonggram so the article shoud be named as his right title. And the most people know him most in his surname. In Thailand, he known as P. Pibulsonggram, which P stands for Plaek, his first name. And about the Prince Vanna's article. If we name the article as Prince Vanna Vaidhayakara, the Princess Naradhip Bongseprabandh, it is not neccessary if writing all his given name and the title, or Wan Waithayakon, it is not much appropriate about his official name. 1 month after he was born, there was the 1st month royal birth ceremony which is performed by the King. King Chulalongkorn wrote his name in the golden paper as Vanna Vaidhayakara, as he wrote according to his book, English in Siamese royal society. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Monarchians (talk • contribs) 18:09, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello, again. We decided to move his article back to Wan Waithayakon, for many references according to his most known name. We will retype Wan Waithayakon (birth name: Vanna Vaidhayakara) .............. So the reader will know all his most known name and his birth name. Thank you for your opinion. It was a good decision. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Monarchians (talk • contribs) 10:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Anti communist volounteer militia
Hi Jean jacques

the MVAC was an organization extended to Montenegro, Dalmatia/Croatia/Bosnia and Slovenia. this organization was created merging precedent ones amongst them the Bande VAC of Dalmatia/Croatia/Bosnia and the White Guard of Slovenia. The article on the Bande VAC was so focused on the dalmatian etc element, so more then a reorganization the problem was of integration of different articles

the italian article about MVAC is more complete but still not yet exaustive

http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milizia_Volontaria_Anti_Comunista

Cunibertus (talk) 21:45, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

re:Quisling regime
Hi Jean-Jacques. With regards to the name of Quisling's government, the reason that I moved it from Norges Rike/State of Norway is that both me and other editors have exhausted our (not inconsiderable) supplies of books looking for the term used in this context, and failed completely in finding it. What I have found is that, according to an encyclopaedia created by a large number of foremost Norwegian experts on the Second World War the official name was the "nasjonale regjering" (National government, from the beginning until the end. Professor Hans Fredrik Dahl wrote that. Still, even though we have the official name most people won't look for that name and I suspect that the correct name of the article, according to WP:COMMONNAME is "Quisling regime", which is most familiar to both Norwegian and English speakers.

"Nasjonal Riksregjering" sounds like something Quisling might have used, but we need further data on that possible use, especially if it was official. The search for sources continues.

Yes, the Monarchy was never fully deposed, Terboven only deposed the current king and Quisling temporarily assumed the powers of the monarchy. I'll write more on that in a little while.

The problem with used a state info-box is that the government was never given any sovereignty, only the promise of being able to rule a free Norway after the end of the war. It was not a state, only a government ready to lead a state and in the meantime trying to exert influence on the Germans, sometimes successfully, sometimes not. In the end it served mainly as a, poor, Norwegian alibi for the German occupying authorities. This is unlike for example the French State which I understand held true power to a certain extent in the unoccupied areas of France.

Thanks for working on the French article, as for any Norwegian article that might happen some day. But it won't be done by me, I do no work over at Norwegian Wikipedia, I don't have the time for that. Manxruler (talk) 11:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem I see with a state info-box is that it gives the impression of an actual state, which was not the case. As you said, Vichy France controlled territory until 1942, Quisling never did, so Vichy France could be considered something like a state. There was a map of Norway included in the info-box, which was incorrect in several ways, the regime never controlled territory, and even if they had then Spitsbergen and Jan Mayen would not be included as those areas were never captured by the Germans. Quisling also never had troops, only his Hird paramilitaries. The Norwegian police is another case, part Nazi-controlled (Statspolitiet), part not (ordniary police), although there is controversy regarding the willingness of the police to help in the deportation of the Jews.
 * Regarding contacting worldstatesmen for their sources, I really see little point in doing that as we have the best sources already available. The work based on these sources, written by authoritative historians, is far from finished yet. Also, I generally don't trust websites, and simply can't trust a website that lists Paal Berg as a king of Norway... Manxruler (talk) 12:13, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * World Statesmen also seems to be a Self-published source Manxruler (talk) 12:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, Norwegian state would be the translation. On page 249 it says that the Party termed the government "the authoritarian state" (Norw.: den autoritære stat). Still, the author of the book has also said, in the sources already used in the article, that the official name of the government was "nasjonale regjering" (National government), thus "the authoritarian state" was an alternative name also used by the Party. That should be included, we'll take care of that. We should keep to the Norwegian names first, with English translations in addition, as the Quisling regime never used English as a working language. Good job on finding the book, it will be useful in the further work. I agree completely that Quisling regime is probably the best name to use for the article, as that will be the most recognizable name. By the way, "Norges rike" is used many places, but we've not yet found it in the context of the Quisling regime, it's a term most often used when referring to the old Norwegian state, pre-ca. 1350, back when Norway was at her greatest size and level of power. Quisling&Co. often looked back to medieval times for inspiration and propaganda, so it's not unlikely that they would have used such a term from time to time, but we do not yet have evidence for this. We shall keep looking. Manxruler (talk) 14:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The country itself had a name during this time as well, it was "Norge" (Norway). The national socialists left out "Kongeriket" (the Kingdom of) in their writings, seeing as they did not recognize a king at that time and the King was a symbol of the exiled pre-war government. Still, the monarchy was only temporarily suspended, with Quisling assuming it's power temporarily. It's important to note that Quisling never wanted to start a new country, just to reform and "improve" the old one. For example, he wanted Lebensraum in the east for Norway. It's all coming to the article in a while. Manxruler (talk) 14:47, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Thanks for the trust vis-à-vis the Norwegian sources. The Quisling book you found in English is quite good, I'll use that where applicable. I'll probably do an update later today, got to go hiking a bit first. Cheers. Manxruler (talk) 15:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. That's a good idea, contacting the archontology people. Manxruler (talk) 15:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Still, they have provided sources here. That the term Norges rike was used on the state seal, to avoid royal connections. Manxruler (talk) 15:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Draza Mihailovic
You don't have to rewrite that page to provide a more balanced picture. I stumbled onto that page a few months back and was aghast at the clearly biased article. The best paragraphs to rewrite, in order to provide a fuller picture of what is clearly not a black and white picture, are the relations With The Partisans and the Relations With The British And Americans ones. I created this version here []. Many of my sourced edits have since been reverted in an effort to downplay Mihailovic's initial anti-Nazi stance and the fact that he was recognized by the British as the official Allied resistance in Yugoslavia. Of course now it only reads that he attacked the Allies, which is misleading to say the least. I'm going to go back in and fix this in the next 24 hours or so, see what you think.Let&#39;sGoO&#39;s (talk) 13:40, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Naval Battle of Casablanca
Thank you for appropriately clarifying the potential misunderstanding regarding German submarine participation. My father was in Algeria during the spring and summer of 1943. He had learned to speak French while living on the Maine-Quebec border before the war. As Commodore Campbell Edgar's staff intelligence officer, he was one of the first French-speaking Americans to visit Foreign Legion posts following the invasion. His lasting recollections of the friendly reception were his best memories of a tragic conflict. I sincerely appreciate your willingness to bring a French perspective to the English Wikipedia during a period when too many Americans have forgotten our long national history of shared values.Thewellman (talk) 20:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I wonder if you might be able to find more information about Vice Admiral Michelier, who appears to have been General Noguès' naval subordinate during the defense of Casablanca. My references indicate he sailed aboard Primauguet as commander of the 2nd Light Squadron.  Admiral Michelier might be a more appropriate infobox listing as commander of this naval battle.Thewellman (talk) 20:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I found exactly what I needed in the marvelous list of references you provided. I was able to interpret the individual articles, but my knowledge of French is inadequate for efficient use of search engines.  Thank you for making this a much better article.Thewellman (talk) 18:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Hungarian State article
First of all, I thank you for creating a French article of this topic by translating it. It can be a pain for someone to see a good article or book in another language but they cannot understand it, so it is very gracious of your to translate it. I did an essay on the Huguenots in the French Wars of Religion, and believe me it was frustrating for me not being fluent in French to have to rely on English-language sources!

As for your question, I myself am frankly confused. I thought that that source mentioned the name "Hungarian State". I believe that there are other sources for the name, as I ran into it. A Hungarian user corrected the translation of "Hungarian State" to "Magyar Állam", perhaps they know it. The best option would be to search the Hungarian name: "Magyar Állam" and see what results come up.--R-41 (talk) 16:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

John of England
I reverted your addition ("John I"), as that is not really his title; there is no other king John (of England), no one else to differentiate him from. The ordinal number is never used except if there is more than one monarch of that name ~ and sometimes not then! Cheers, LindsayHi 20:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
Cheers, LindsayHi 07:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Qing Dynasty
Hi. The succession links in the country template is normally for the official and direct political successor of the state, which most academic timelines and major encyclopedias lists the Republic of China. Not all indpendent states or states proclaiming indpendence need to be listed. For example, the Tibet (1912–1950) article described it as "de facto", so does it have wide international recognition? So why do you think it should be in the template succession box? I'm not absolutely oppose to the idea, but in my opinion a consensus is needed for these links to be in the template. Regards.--TheLeopard (talk) 15:32, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

International Gorillay
Hi,

Regarding Assassinations.

I would have found that original information at the IMDb. So if you have a different, more reliable source for this film, then you need to provide those details inside a footnote.

Thanks, Varlaam (talk) 22:00, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

René Prioux
Hello -- wondering if you could take a look at René Prioux. I'd like to fill in some more information about the end of his career in French North Africa and am also wondering if he was politically active after he left the French Army -- unfortunately, the few sources I have do not have much to say about this phase of his life. Thanks for any assistance. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 13:32, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the reply. I only get to France from time to time and wouldn't even know which libraries to visit for good general wartime references that might present a brief biography of Prioux. Sometimes I get lucky at open-air book markets and book shops, but the kinds of war history titles they sell tend to be limited. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 19:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I always enjoy new bookstores. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 19:09, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Jodie Foster
Excuse me all, but CITE is fairly explicit in what sources are allowed. ''Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources should be used in preference to non-English language sources of equal caliber and content, though the latter are allowed where appropriate. When quoting a source in a different language, please provide both the original-language quotation and an English translation, in the text, in a footnote, or on the talk page as appropriate. This does not'' meet the letter of that directive. That is simply inserting foreign language sources, with no translation attempted. Not acceptable. And there is no valid reason to remove existing sources to insert others. Do not refer to this as vandalism, it is not. It is combatting the insertion of improper referencing and is entirely appropriate. Also, one of your earlier edit summary comments, having heard speak in Italian, I'd say she has more than an understanding of the language, is meaningless here. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:59, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Dude, edit warring can't happen in a vacuum. If I'm edit warring, so are you, except I have valid reasons for reverting your improper insertion of non-English sources. They are not acceptable as you've inserted them. Find the same stuff in English and it won't be an issue. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:12, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * While there appears to be no reason to remove the English language sources, neither is there a good reason to remove the foreign language ones. Yes you are both edit warring. Please stop. Lady  of  Shalott  20:29, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "Find the same stuff in English and it won't be an issue. "
 * Find the same stuff in English and you might have an issue. As it is, CITE is quite clear that a foreign language source can be justified if there isn't a suitable English source. So in this case, there's no problem with using the sources given and as it's a language-related issue it's entirely reasonable to do so. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * WP:V is also quite clear... When citing a source in a different language, without quotations, the original and its translation should be provided if requested by other editors: . . . Therefore, editor Wildhartlivie is within policy to request a translation from a reliable source.
 * &mdash; Paine ( Ellsworth's   Climax )  18:40, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Wildhartlivie did not "request a translation", Wildhartlivie just kept removing over and over several sources because he (she ?) could not understand the language, and hence was not "within policy". I'm the kind of person who will do such things as translate a sentence or two if I'm asked nicely enough, but such was not the case. Now enough of this, please. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 18:46, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

In case you're interested
Well, I decided to be WP: BOLD and add the warbox. Rin tin tin 1996 (talk) 12:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Horthy was removed from power I believe in Hungary
I am fairly sure that Horthy was removed from power in 1944. He was the acting head of state as regent of Hungary, but after he indicated that Hungary would no longer fight alongside Germany, Germany installed the Arrow Cross regime.--R-41 (talk) 14:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Mediation
I filed the request for mediation on Draza Mihailovic article that needs your acceptance Requests_for_mediation. BoDu (talk) 14:35, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Mediation (informal)
I filed a request for informal mediation with the MedCab about Second Sino-Japanese War; It is here Rin tin tin (talk) 20:40, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Mediation request
A request has been made at WP:MEDCAB concerning the Second Sino-Japanese War. If all parties agree, I would be happy to act as an informal mediator. Regards -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 19:24, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Hi Jean-Jacques. Just to let you know that the mediation has begin. Here: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Draza_Mihailovic. FkpCascais (talk) 07:39, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I doubt that any edit of mine will be accepted by direktor, even if completely neutral. It will only provoke an edit-war. It is better to leave you working on it, and see how will they react. They did get me enervate on the mediation, and I am starting to doubt about the honesty of the real neutrality, in it. People there say one thing then do another, and there has not been equal treatement there. But, we have to try, at least. FkpCascais (talk) 10:37, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I obviously could, but I can´t really intervene there, I can just complain on the mediation in case someone decides to revert your edits... (I can´t involve in edit wars there because admins that are friends of direktor would just love to have that as reason to block me, or something...) I´ll try my best, but you can allways see the edit history of the article, and see who did what. Also, don´t forget about the mediation... it is important that you participate (since they want to show me as some crazy Chetnik fan, and discredit my oposition towards the way the article was edited before). It is important to demonstrate that we do have right to be unhappy with the way this, and other related articles, have been edited. And, you are right, you have also seen how all these articles have been sistematically edited and are watched... That is the worste thing that should happend in wikipedia type encyclopedias. FkpCascais (talk) 11:43, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Jean-Jacques, but I had to say some things I did over there. I hope you understand that I much apreciate you, and I do understand that you wanted to "help me", but also, I think you understand now that by participating in the mediation, you are also helping yourself, because that is the only way to have your edits inserted in the article. I lost some faith in it, but that may change acordingly to the further evolution of it. Letting user:LAz17, now blocked for insulting me, participate or ignoring that Tomasevich may not be completely neutral, among some other issues, but mostly the first one, also contributed. I´ll be in touch with you, but I am just not willing to participate and loose time there if my time there isn´t apreciated, or worste, to make a fool of myself. I did choose to defend him there because nobody is, and that fact is good for contributing to the nutrality of the article (just as your participation, as well), but if this is not apreciated, and will just make me loose time and get insulted, I really prefer to go to the beach, or edit something else. With many doubts regarding the good will of the mediation (I have doubts that will be just used to "legalize" all acusations), I send you best regards. I am around and I´ll be watching what happends there. FkpCascais (talk) 18:38, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I was just watching it now. I´m thinking about one issue: How right is to call the movement "Serbian"? I ask this because Serbs, in general, by then, had very much gave up on the "Serbianity" on behalve of "Yugoslavity", and in the movement were welcomed all members of other nationalities that suported the Royal Yugoslavia and the King. I think that they defended the "continuity of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia" whatever its new composition might be, because they were aware of the separatist movements and the unwilingness of some nationalities in continuing as part of some future union with its capital in Belgrade (along with Serbs, and with the King as head of state). See the idea? FkpCascais (talk) 16:01, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, don´t warry, it is just that for time being I agree with all you have. :) I´ll point out whatever I find, like this, Chetniks being exclusively Serbian and Montenegrin idea, that was/is pushed purposly in a number of texts. That includes describing the movement "nationalistic" along with monarchic, but for time being, I´m not 100% sure what sources say about it. Simply monarchic is surely right, but "nationalistic"? I don´t know for sure yet. It is just that some users want to describe the Partisans as "Yugoslav" and Chetniks as "Serbian", when in trouth, had both almost the same composition (Serbs majority, unfortunatelly to some POV pushing editors). For instance, my father family was monarchic (but nobody fought the war), while my mother side were mostly Partisans (my Grandpa fought WWII, and Grandma helped :). The Serbs were most participative in both, so if we say Chetniks were "Serb", well, we could say it for the Partisans, as well, and for Yugoslavia itself... FkpCascais (talk) 16:26, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Hey, I want distract you anymore, you just begin the most important part, that is to demostrate how wronlgy and intentionally distorced the sources have been used. That is the most important. Having in mind what direktor said on Sunray´s talk page, I wouldn´t mind entering into analising the sources with him, the ones that he consideres fit for naming DM Axis collaborator... FkpCascais (talk) 16:35, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Just as end to our previous comments, if the Chetniks were Royalists, why, for exemple, the Danes or Swedes, when defend their monarchy are considered "normal", but when Serbs defend their monarchy, are considered nationalist? We´ll see this more in front, but if this idea is oposed, it should be challenged. FkpCascais (talk) 16:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Sides
Hi, could you explain why you moved the Chetniks from the list of Axis forces in the Yugoslav Wars article? I can maybe see how the issue of a single person, Draža Mihailović, might be "debatable", but certainly not the widespread collaboration of the Chetnik movement. I used to have the impression you were a user striving towards neutrality in this issue. No longer, I'm afraid. And if I may say so, I'm even sensing suppressed antagonism on your part.

All I can do is assure you that your perception of the Chetniks' primary role in the war is deeply flawed, and recommend that you discuss your edits prior to inserting them. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 15:54, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Request for comments on your draft
Thank you very much for completing a new draft of the article. I am asking for participants' comments here. As the owner of the current draft you likely will want to participate in the discussion. If you do, I would just recommend that you don't allow yourself to get overly defensive (i.e., state your view in a neutral manner, but don't engage in further discussion, beyond clarification). IMO your draft helps move things forward. Sunray (talk) 19:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Tomasevic
I wrote some of the reasons why I think that Tomasevic shouldn´t be used as source on the mediation page. What do you think about it? I also wanted to congratulate you for your work, and to thank you for all your effort and help on this. Best regrads JJR! FkpCascais (talk) 17:41, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It looks that other participants want to present this as WP:CANVASING, but I hope you know that I don´t (neither I think I can) influnce you on any question. I know that you do the things in the way you consider right, and that is another reason why I support you, so me asking you an opinion about something is evidently so I can have a better idea about some doubts I might have. It looks that I can´t ask you anything without the other participants wanting to present it as some "dark activities" behind. If I wanted to influnce you, I would have not have asked you something so everybody can see... But, it looks some people are sometimes so brut, and on other ocasions, so sensitive. Sorry if this qustion was problematic, and thank you for answering to me on the mediation. FkpCascais (talk) 18:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Your note on the mediation talk page
Thanks for your further thoughts. I will follow up on them. However, I have (temporarily) moved them to the comments section. The reason for this is that I want to get the reaction of all participants to the current draft. Some people do not spend time on Wikipedia over the weekend, (go figure :)) so I want to make sure everyone has at least had a chance to comment. Then I will take all constructive comments and suggested alternatives and begin trying to find a consensus on each. I will set up a new section for that, including your latest post. Sunray (talk) 16:42, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Picture of Draza Mihajlovic
In my opinion the current photo in the infobox of Draza Mihailovic article is bad. I suggest you should replace the image with in your draft. What do you think? BoDu (talk) 14:15, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I also support that change. That is the picture found on serbian wiki article. There are also other interesting pictures. We could take a look and see which ones would be apropriate to bring into the article. Here is the link to the page . On the article are found pictures of him with the allies. FkpCascais (talk) 18:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Jacques, I saw that you edited the file page, so you know now it is believed that the use of this image may qualify as fair use under United States copyright law. BoDu (talk) 13:36, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

About your plan

 * I follow as (sic) spectator the RfM of Draza Mihajlovitch (or Mihaijlović?) and I wonder, reading your post, if you'd like to re-write, beesides the Chetniks, Yugoslav Front as well as Yugoslavia and the Allies, using the same "draft", even the Bleiburg Massacre article.
 * Cheers, - Theirrulez (talk) 22:15, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes. I definitely give you a hand. - Theirrulez (talk) 11:37, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * No way. Tito's page can't be improved. Tito's fanboys (I can't stop laughing when I read this definition :D) preside the article, raving something about consensus. I'm sorry. - Theirrulez (talk) 20:17, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Latest draft
I really like the work you've done on the latest re-draft of the Mihailović article. I've suggested that participants begin discussing it. Not sure whether the group is ready for that yet, but thanks for opening up the possibility. Sunray (talk) 07:39, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I too think you did a great job. Cheers! Sir Floyd (talk) 10:18, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Appreciable effort in pursuit of neutrality. - Theirrulez (talk) 13:24, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that if you simply present your point of view, others will be able to discuss and decide. Direktor is forthright. Don't take it to heart. He has also shown himself to be reasonable. Consensus ain't easy (especially when one is tired!) but IMO it is worth the effort. Sunray (talk) 18:01, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Fan Bingbing image
The image of actress Fan Bingbing is not her. I have removed it from her page. Thanks! Stormedelf (talk) 23:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The main reason why it's not her is because of her eyes. Her eyes are a tad bit bigger than the one you have uploaded. Here are some pictures of her to compare: Films Cannes 2010 #1 Cannes 2010 #2 Stormedelf (talk) 11:13, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem! ^_^ Stormedelf (talk) 11:16, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Nice! Stormedelf (talk) 07:48, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * As a Chinese, I believe it is her.-- 苹果派 .Talk 10:32, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Josip Broz Tito Puente
Would you agree to ask for a RfM for Tito too? - Theirrulez (talk) 03:33, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Jean-Jacques Georges. I think several of the former Yugoslavia articles would need an RfM. Cheers! Sir Floyd (talk) 01:22, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Hello Jean-Jacques Georges! I would like to know what do you think of Wiki's article on the Bleiburg massacre? Cheers! Sir Floyd (talk) 01:11, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

ARBMAC
Hi,

just for your information, I have absolutely no idea what WP:ARBMAC might be, so this is definitely not "related sniping" (not on my part, at least). cheers, Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 13:53, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Balkan topo en.jpg|30px]] In a 2007 arbitration case, administrators were given the power to impose discretionary sanctions on any user working on articles concerning the Balkans. Before any such sanctions are imposed, editors are to be put on notice of the decision. This notice  is not to be taken as implying any inappropriate behaviour on your part, merely to warn you of the Arbitration Committee's decision. Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 13:55, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks for your answer. I had no idea about this. However, edit wars about the Balkans are not what I seek to obtain. However, they do seem quite frequent, which is why I'd like to restrict my exchanges with some users to a strict minimum and just concentrate on the articles. cheers, Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 14:00, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

About ANI
JJG, just a friendly advice (experience), try to keep your posts there as concise and precise as possible, because if they are too long, not many admins will have the time and patience to read them, and avoid aswering to every provocation. That is exactly the point some users have, just to make a phalse impression that the issue is complicated and has to do about a disputes or other unsolved questions... Just remember, if the story is concise, you have more possibilities in having more admins intervening, if you allow the story to get long, the admins that will intervene are more probable to be only the ones that have simpaties to one of the participants of the report. Avoid getting upset with all this. Nothing of this is surprise anymore. Best regards :) FkpCascais (talk) 16:02, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I know, and I understand you JJG, but that way, you´re letting the bad have his own. On the other hand, we could have had some more cleaver people on that side, althouth the level of arrogance with ignorance and bad faith could very hardly be worste. Just remember, I understand you perfectly: in life, you certainly wouldn´t be dealing with such people, because we normally just choose not to, but here some strange things happend (lobbies), and letting them do whatever just like that is really exactly what they pretend. I am taking a break on wiki this days, and I´m going now to celebrate my selection victory in World Cup with my friends, and have fun this weekend. That is my way of charging batteries. Dont get upset. E-mail me if you can or want. FkpCascais (talk) 16:16, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the update. Take care Jean-Jacques Georges! Sir Floyd (talk) 00:20, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Jean-Jacques Georges! Glad to see things worked out at ANI. Fences and windows assessment of the situation was spot on. Regards Sir Floyd (talk) 02:54, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer granted
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 05:42, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi
Just to say hi and to say to you that I hope you´re having a nice summer. I have been on hollydays already twice, did I missed something? What have you been doing? Bast regards, FkpCascais (talk) 03:33, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Rockerduck
I was trying to add some of the info you provided on Talk:List of Duck universe characters to prove the notability of John D. Rockerduck, but some of the sources are in Italian and other languages. Could you add that information in the "In popular culture" section of the article? Otherwise, the notability of the character in the article would not be established and would be subject to re-merge. Greetings! -- LoЯd  ۞pεth  23:56, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Message amical


Avec un certain retard dû au fait que je ne vous connaissais pas en début d'année, mais jamais trop tard entre amis...

... meilleurs vœux pour 2011 !

"Frania de Lutèce", a.k.a. --Frania W. (talk) 14:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Bonjour JJG,

Oui, je suis aussi sur wiki France sous le même nom. J'y ai mes petites batailles (ce que j'appelle mes "moulins à vent = windmills), par ex. la nationalité française de Frédéric Chopin, dure à avaler pour les Polonais !

Cordialement,

--Frania W. (talk) 15:24, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Parfois, pour me reposer, je corrige seulement les fautes d'orthographe... ça détend !
 * Chordialement !
 * --Frania W. (talk) 22:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

read
Read user talk:DIREKTOR and this ban. You can edit on Bleiburg massacre and related articles so later I will support you.--Mat003second (talk) 10:03, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

just 2 links: Sockpuppet investigations/DIREKTOR/Archive and User talk:Jimbo Wales; DIREKTOR and PRODUCER are sure socks but they ban Mat003second: lies and propaganda always! Hard core of propaganda is in Josip Broz Tito: initial sentence is ridiculous very much Despite accusations of culpability in the Bleiburg massacre; moreover despite long discussion DIREKTOR and PRODUCER trolling on remove all sources and links to Goli Otok, Sveti Grgur, foibe massacres, Istrian exodus, 1944-1945 killings in Bačka were crimes against humanity ordered by criminal dictator Broz Tito! If you can, edit honest section pertinent crimes of Broz Tito--MILAZERO (talk) 15:44, 13 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Btw, Sunray has been calling everyone to see if we can conclude the mediation on Mihailovic (really) and diretor has rejected participating anymore in some strange poker he did with Sunray that ended with Sunray basically sugesting that we should go on without him than. Not knowing how that episode will end (seems finished ), you could/should return, if you can, of course. Whatever you decide, I wanna take this oportunity to send you regards, FkpCascais (talk) 16:23, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * JJG, I am reading books on the issue and gathering sources. I´m finishing another one today, so I touth about asking you which ones would you recoment me? FkpCascais (talk) 06:41, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Mihailovic mediation
The time is now approaching for us to bring this mediation (or at least, this phase of it) to a close. I would welcome constructive comments from all participants as to what could reasonably be dealt with before closing. Please respond on the mediation talk page. Sunray (talk) 20:50, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * You were one of only three mediation participants who commented on what to do before closing the mediation. As there is not much energy to do further work on the mediation page, I am making a new proposal on wrapping it up here. If several participants agree on this approach, the mediation will have more force than an individual's actions. We could then move to the article talk page and continue the discussion on sources there. What do you think? Sunray (talk) 15:02, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The draft article is finally to be moved to replace the article. First, some mediation participants are working out terms of discussion on the article talk page, so as to increase the odds of a focused dialogue. As soon as that is completed, we will unlock the article and proceed. You are invited to join in. Sunray (talk) 22:35, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The draft article has now been moved to replace the former article. Discussion continues on the article talk page. Sunray (talk) 06:13, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Proposed new section
We have two proposals for a section in the Mihailovic article:
 * Ethnic conflict and terror tactics. - First proposal, drafted by Nuujinn.
 * Terror and cleansing actions. - Second proposal with additions (in red) by Direktor.

Would you be able to indicate which proposal you prefer here? Thanks. Sunray (talk) 22:17, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Linda Cardellini
Hey, great shot! Any chance of uploading a new version of it (same image page at Commons) with the EXIF info intact? Also, do you have a Flickr page, and do you plan to blog about your experience at the film festival? Cheers. --Lexein (talk) 04:24, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi,


 * thanks for the appreciation, but I didn't take this picture, nor did I attend the festival ! It was taken by an amateur photographer, with whom I am in contact, and who attends a lot of festivals and premieres in France. I just browse through his blog and facebook accounts, select pictures, ask for his approval, and upload them, then he proceeds to send the appropriate OTRS permissions. I must have uploaded about 1000 of his pictures on commons so far with his most gracious permission. I can ask him if he has a better version of this particular picture, though. cheers, Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 21:09, 15 September 2011 (UTC)


 * (Ah - I had made the incorrect assumption that the Commons username and the photo attribution name referred to the same person (it happens.) Thanks for making the photog's work available. --Lexein (talk) 21:44, 15 September 2011 (UTC) )


 * No problem at all. If you're interested, you can take a look at his pictures on commons (all of them uploaded by yours truly). Lots of pictures from the various Cannes festival (he's been going there since the late eighties). Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 21:59, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Melissa McCarthy?
Any chance our friend Mr. Biard has taken a photo of Melissa McCarthy? (replying here is fine)--Lexein (talk) 18:41, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi. I have absolutely no idea. :) If Ms McCarthy has ever attended a film festival or a premiere in France, and if he has stumbled upon her on that occasion, that may be a possibility. I'll ask him. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 07:15, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Nope, no Melissa McCarthy photo, sorry. :) Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 21:19, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for checking! --Lexein (talk) 23:26, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Mihailović: Draft for new section on "Collaboration"
During the mediation, we agreed to discuss two additional topics on the article talk page: 1) Ethnic conflict and terror tactics, and, 2) Collaboration. The former was completed some time ago. Nuujinn has now drafted a proposed section on the latter subject. I am contacting mediation participants to see if they wish to comment. The draft can be found here. Any comments would be most appreciated. Sunray (talk) 06:04, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

DRN
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Template:Yugoslav Axis collaborationism". Thank you. --BoDu (talk) 10:04, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Yugoslav Axis collaborationism
Template:Yugoslav Axis collaborationism has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. BoDu (talk) 16:26, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Template
Or, we can merge Template:Yugoslav Axis collaborationism, Template:Resistance in Yugoslavia during Second World War and Template:Yugoslav Front in one template about the whole Yugoslavia/World War II context. DIREKTOR is a communist crusader. BoDu (talk) 11:03, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I have no idea of who is a crusader for what, nor do I want to know, but all I can see are the results on the articles, which are IMHO disgraceful. A merger would be the best idea, I think. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 12:36, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Disruption
Repeatedly nominating an article for deletion is disruption. 204.167.92.26 (talk) 22:29, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This is the very first time I nominate this article for deletion. I'd say creating and repeatedly recreating a vanity page is a more severe disruption. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 08:08, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

March 2012
Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/François Asselineau (4th nomination). Such edits are disruptive. Thank you. ''On the English Wikipedia, anon IPs are allowed to register opinions on AfDs. Kindly strike out no more valid votes.''  Ravenswing  10:20, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, I just assumed that only registered/autoconfirmed users were allowed to vote, which is the case in the French wikipedia, and in other projects. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 12:17, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Talk:White Guard (Slovenia) merger
Hi,

I just wanted to let you know that I would like to merge the article White Guard (Slovenia) with the MVAC article in case you wanted to take part in the discussion. Thanks --U5K0'sTalkMake WikiLove not WikiWar 22:51, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Of course I understood....
...but as most of the admin-corps here does not speak French at all, I want him to communicate in English. I did not want to imply that YOU needed to continue discussing with him, the message was for Sebrider alone. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Lectonar (talk) 13:47, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 21
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Daredevil (Marvel Comics), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Frank Miller (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) 10:55, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Whoops, my bad. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 12:28, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Bradley Manning/October 2013 move request
Greetings. Because you participated in the August 2013 move request regarding this subject, you may be interested in participating in the current discussion. This notice is provided pursuant to Canvassing. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:39, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Cate Blanchett Picture
Hi. Hope you're well. I noticed that you originally added the Cate Blanchett Deauville 2013 2.jpg to the Cate Blanchett article. I've been mistakingly using it on the accolades page for Blue Jasmine without knowing whether it's licensed or not. What licence does it hold and if permission is required who would I have to ask? Many thanks for your help.Cowlibob (talk) 14:39, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Template:WW2InfoBox
As your edits have been mentioned in a discussion taking place at Template_talk:WW2InfoBox, you are invited to participate in it. Thank you and welcome. walk victor falktalk 20:37, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * How was the transition back to combatants in 2010? Was it smooth, did it take long time to stabilise? walk victor falktalk 13:59, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * If I'm not mistaken, the discussions were a bit tedious. It might be shorter this time, though. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 15:06, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Please take note that while I do have an opinion, I won't throw a fit about that infobox : life's too short ! :) Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 15:29, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

la france libre
I've been editing "Allies of WWII" recently, and as I was rummaging through the archives to get an idea of the article's evolution, I came across a discussion on the status of France as an ally where you explained the intricacies of the situation in a very good way. You might therefore be interested in participating in the following discussion: Free_French_Forces. Cheers, walk victor falktalk 19:39, 11 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi, I don't think we should let the minor issue of the vichy infobox hinder us from proceeding on more important problems with other articles. I wonder if you have had the time to check "military history of WWII France" further, and what you think of a split? Cheers, <sup style="color:green;">walk <i style="color:green;">victor falk</i><i style="color:green;">talk</i> 08:59, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited John Paul Getty III, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Raúl Ruiz (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) 08:52, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Fifth International‎
FYI, It appears you never listed this on a daily log page, so nobody who looks at AfD debates regularly ever saw it. I've relisted it, so for all practical purposes the "clock" on the debate restarts now. Have a good day. -- Finngall  talk  06:26, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Taïwan listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Taïwan. Since you had some involvement with the Taïwan redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. TheChampionMan1234 00:37, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Titoist POV
You know the matter and can explain it in Administrators noticeboard/Incidents or in talk:Josip Broz TitoTeo Pitta (talk) 10:06, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Caitlyn Jenner
Just a note to let you know that your edits violated MOS:IDENTITY and the specific warning on the edit page for the article, which reads: "The article currently uses female pronouns throughout, as per applicable policy. Please do not change female to male pronouns, or attempt to rewrite all sentences to avoid pronouns altogether. See the talk page for further discussion."

You will want to be aware that editors who violate this may be subject to discretionary sanctions. Please don't do it again. Skyerise (talk) 14:09, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, I was not aware that MOS:IDENTITY was so severe. At the French wikipedia, we are still trying to find an acceptable way to treat such cases. IMHO, the use of female (or in other cases male) pronouns during the person's whole life is not a good idea, as in some cases it just makes him/her look kind of silly. That's especially the case with Jenner's sports career. However, I just don't have the time or interest to debate that. Best regards, Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 14:15, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Service award
You're a few edits short for this, but I figure you'll close that gap pretty quickly. Here's a service award for your work on English Wikipedia. Skyerise (talk) 14:56, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Duh, I had no idea that I was entitled to this, but thanks ! :) Being called a "Grognard" is quitte fitting for a grumpy Frenchman ! Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 14:59, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

If only we could all have your calm!

 * I think you can probably guess the user talk page discussion I mean. Mentioning it more specifically would be hypocritical given the nature of the barnstar. Heh.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  15:49, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Why, thanks, SMcCandlish ☺ ! This is quite unexpected, I must say : on the French wikipedia, I am generally perceived as a quick-tempered grouch ! Either my attitude has really improved, or I am just nicer in English ! :) Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 08:00, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm much nicer when I travel too. Heh.   — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  08:07, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments are requested at Photographs of Alan Kurdi
Hi, It looks like Keep votes are needed to prevent an article from being deleted - Photographs of Alan Kurdi. I guess one can call the voting an advisory voting, since a closing administrator will decide on the merits of arguments and guidelines, more so than the voting, if an article will be kept. Please consider voting, re-voting, or giving a comment in the deletion discussion for Photographs of Alan Kurdi. There does not seem to be a guideline that says that one can not have one article about the Photographs of Alan Kurdi - a set of photographs that has gathered notable reactions - and another article about the boy who is pictured lifeless in the photos, or the events leading to his death. If one has already voted, one can cast a new vote if one desires (and then one should inform that a vote has previously been cast). Burst of unj (talk) 17:34, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Laabs
If you find time for it, please take a look at the article about Gustav Laabs. Any help is appreciated and I will of course add you to the DYK nom for the article.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:34, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, 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!
Hi, 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) 14:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

January 2016
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=700433756 your edit] to Garth Ennis may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:01, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * converted"/> He does admit, however, to a certain liking of Superman and Wonder Woman. http://www.sequentialtart.com/archive/sept98/ennisdillon.html Drinking With the Boys:

Notice
Hello, as you've been involved in discussing the newly presented Donald Trump photos, I wanted to let you know about a poll of support currently happening here. Please state which photo you support at the bottom of the section. Calibrador (talk) 02:54, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Les CAOU
Salut Il faut faire quelque chose. La source que j'ai donné est crédible pour la période 1958-1962 et les trolls CAOU viennent les rejeter par des arguments bidons et sortent des sources d'avant 1958 ou d'après 1962. Il faut faire quelque chose. Et l'autre ignorant d'admin Yann vient me bloquer pour des insultes imaginaires juste car l'un des CAOU coordonées l'avait demandé et que je lui ai écrit sur sa PDD. Ca commence à bien faire. Et Ms10vc, banni de fr wiki, donne des instructions à ses sbires pour modifier les pages francophones qu'il ne peut modifier. Que faire ? Je suis à bout. --Panam2014 (talk) 10:32, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * quel est exactement le problème ? De quelles modifications s'agit-il ? Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 10:56, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Le passage en force était sur cette photo, il est l'oeuvre de ces trolls. Ils rejettent ma source tout à fait valable et ils balancent des citations sur l'origine du drapeau de 1945. Pour le reste, ils mettent des photos alors qu'elles ne sont pas censées prouver quoi que ce soit, vu que ce sont des sources primaires. Et là, Ms10vc contourne son blocage ici par exemple, et là par exemple. Pour le reste, ce compte est provisoire, je compte revenir d'ici janvier mais en usant d'une nouvelle démarche. Même si le blocage d'octobre était injuste. --Panam2014 (talk) 11:23, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * "A Committee for the Liberation of the Maghreb was created and later a National Committee of the Algerian Revolution. Deriving from the latter, an Algerian government in exile (Provisional Government of the Algerian Republic, Gouvernement provisoire de la République algérienne) was officially created in Cairo 19 September 1958, under the presidency of Ferhat Abbas, who on 27 August 1961 was replaced by the leftist Yusef Ben Jedda.

The flag of the GPRA appears in a photo of 3 July 1962, when, with Yusuf ben Jedda in front of it, it arrived at the Algiers airport (Enciclopedia Europeo Americana, Appendix 1961-1962). Observe that the points of the star are shaped similar to those in the present flag, penetrating slightly into the green. The area of the crescent moon and star is somewhat less (a third of the hoist, while now it is half), and the width of the white is approximately twice that of the green. Jaume Ollé, 24 December 2001, translated from Spanish by Joe McMillan". Ma source est claire, mais les trolls sortaient des arguments truqués pour la décrédibiliser. Et au même moment, ils donnent des sources qui ne parlent pas du GPRA et de la période 1958-1962. Et leurs preuves qui sont des photos sont donc des sources primaires et ils les ont déjà manipulés il y a quelques mois. Pour le reste, le but est de faire croire que le drapeau algérien n'a pas changé car si ils admettent que la forme actuelle date de après 1962, leur thèse de drapeau identique depuis 1945 ne tiendrait plus la route et seraient obligés de le retirer de la page "massacre de Kherrata, Guelma". Et ensuite ce qui me dégoute c'est que l'admin de commons prend le parti du banni Ms10vc et il ne me répond pas à mes deux messages. Ensuite, Ms10vc rameutait les trolls pour sa RA (ce qui est interdit, d'autant qu'il participe lui-même au conflit], je réponds de manière musclée face à tant de mauvaise foi, mais aucunement, je ne suis insultant. Ensuite, l'un des trolls vient faire sa victime, et ce Yann m'avertit en une ligne sans prendre la peine de me répondre puis il me bloque après que je lui ai écrit la deuxième fois et que j'ai exprimé mon ras le bol. Perso, je suis usé face à tant de mauvaise foi et de foutage de gueule, entre des CAOU/trolls coordonnées sûrement en dehors de Wikipédia et un admin qui ne veut rien voir et traite machinalement une RA sans prendre la peine de la lire. Je ne sais que faire. Que me conseillez-vous ? Pourrions-nous parler par mail ? Bien cordialement. --Panam2014 (talk) 16:34, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * J'ai une grande estime de vous, après toutes ces années et j'apprécie vos conseils. Je vous en supplie de bien vouloir m'aider, même si la décision vous revient. --Panam2014 (talk) 16:50, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Cf mail. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 19:59, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * On continue là-bas. Merci encore. --Panam2014 (talk) 10:13, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Pourrais on continuer la discussion ? --Panam2014 (talk) 19:53, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Oui, éventuellement, par mail. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 20:17, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Je vous ai écrit. --Panam2014 (talk) 10:14, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Apparemment pas... Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 10:20, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Et maintenant ? --Panam2014 (talk) 11:07, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * J'ai du changer l'adresse mail après des problèmes techniques. Ca devrait etre réglé. --Panam2014 (talk) 20:57, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Aidez-moi. Le non moins machiavélique Ms10vc se met à me chercher noise sur Commons. Pourriez-vous faire quelque chose svp ? Un mail vous attend. --Panam2014 (talk) 13:04, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Excusez-moi. Pourrons nous parler par mail en urgence ? Et Yann continue ses blocages arbitraires et partisans, et nouveauté, sont désormais disproportionnés, comme s'il s'agissait d'un règlement de compte face à la ténacité d'un adversaire qui surveille son langage. --Panam2014 (talk) 16:04, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Review
Hello, can you review this page please https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Darbos ? (BLP sources) Thank you. Advim (talk) 19:59, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * hello. I'm sorry, but I have no idea who this is. I am not that well-versed in "Internet celebrities", though. I may try to look him up... Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 05:52, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Ok no problem :) I just wish you removed the BLP Advim (talk) 20:02, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * why should do I this, since I have no opinion whatsoever about this person's notability or lack thereof ? I'm sorry, but I've been busy and I did not have the time to look him up. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 08:44, 16 June 2018 (UTC)