User talk:Mauvaisegraine

Thank you for your input on Pied-Noir. Could you please provide some sources for your claims? See WP:RS and WP:V? Thanks, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 23:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Pied-noir removal of text
You have the right to make all the points you make, but you should not place them in the body of the article. Discussion pages are provided for that purpose. Your comments are being taken seriously, though you have been asked to provide sources for your claims. The article's main editor is also anxious to engage with you. But please let this be through the article's discussion page. (Also, it's best to put messages on my talkpage at the bottom, where I'll see them). Regards, Brianboulton (talk) 23:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I see that you are still placing your criticisms within the body of the article. They do not form part of the article, and cannot be considered as normal edits. Please allow these points to be debated and resolved on the article's talk page, or as part of the current peer review. Brianboulton (talk) 22:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I have not deleted your criticisms, I have placed them where they can properly be considered - on the article's talk page. I am trying to promote discussion of these points with the article's editors. By insisting on placing your material in the article you are preventing this discussion. I assume you want your points considered, so please work within the process. Brianboulton (talk) 22:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Please reconsider your actions
Hi Mauvaisegraine, please realize that Wikipedia has policies and guidelines which you are expected to follow, and which are entirely separate from you complaints about the Pied-Noir article. While I take your complaints about the Pied Noir article very seriously and want to see the issue resolved, your current behavior is violating Wikipedia's policies. The place to discuss articles and their content is the article talk page, specifically Talk:Pied-Noir. I also want to caution you not to make comments which could be seen as attacks on other editors - see No Personal Attacks. Please discuss content, do not attack the editor or question their motives. If you persist in inserting the material into the article and not the talk page, that will be considered vandalism. Repeated vandalism can lead to blocks, which none of us want. Thanks, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 23:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi there again (I left a message for you before you got a username). Thanks for registering, it makes it much easier to communicate. So, I've read and re-read your edits to the Pied-Noir article. I notice that you mention an article in L'Express. Do you happen to have a copy, or a reference to it so that it could be confirmed? I would be interested in reading it. On the other hand, some of the edits appear to be Original Research, although they do seem to have worthwhile points. These would be good to have access to if you could find a source for them, id est, a published source. So, please let me know what you are able to dig up and feel free to comment on the article's talk page as well. Kindly, Lazulilasher (talk) 00:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Mauvaisegrain, I just saw your comments on the article's peer review. I must say that I am slightly disappointed. I replied to you, but I mainly wanted to say that we are removing the edits mainly because they are unsourced and/or original research, not because we doubt you. Wikipedia requires that edits have citations to reliable, published sources. The removal of your edits is not because of you or because we doubt the validity of your claims -- only because we require reliable sources. Lazulilasher (talk) 00:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi again Mauvaisegrain - the relevant policies and guidelines for adding material to an article are WP:V on verifiability, WP:RS on reliable sources, and WP:NOR on no original research. L'Express would be a reliable source, but it also needs a date and page number for the article to be verifiable. While I am in no way doubting your personal experiences, just writing about them on Wikipedia without references to reliable sources constitutes original research. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 00:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I took what you added to the article and moved it to the talk page. Your grandfather is not a relaible source unless he published his memoirs and they are a WP:RS. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 01:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)