User talk:Tallard/Archive 1

Your contribution to Lactose intolerance
Hello,

Your contribution to said article contains some unsubstantiated "facts" regarding the prevalence and chemical properties of lactose in food products. Some seem to me highly unlikely, for instance, the claim that 90% of margarine products containing lactose.

In accordance with Wikipedia's policy of Verifiability, I kindly ask you to provide with sources for your claims.

Thanks,

--Sagie 14:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * (Replying to your reply in my talk page)
 * Hello,
 * I understand you've been having certain problems with certain products, and I could argue about some of the claims you make, but I'm afraid none of these pertain to the point, which unfortunately makes most of your long reply irrelevant to the matter.
 * The issue here is Wikipedia's policy of Verifiability. What is relevant in your reply is the last paragraph, where you say:
 * Finally, it is written that the purpose of the verifiability rule in Wikipedia is to prevent quacks from publishing alternate theories. This section (as is the case of many other sub-sections in Wikipedia) should not be subjected to a harsh enforcement of the rule as it is not it's purpose to present a new or alternate theory...'
 * First, I've seen nowhere any sentence resembling that "the purpose of the verifiability rule in Wikipedia is to prevent quacks from publishing alternate theories" (and while we're at it, what assurance do I have that you're not a quack yourself?), and it is not for you to decide whether "This section ... should not be subjected to a harsh enforcement of the rule".
 * Adding to this, you are encouraged to see for yourself in What_Wikipedia_is_not, section 1 (Primary (original) research), that it is clearly stated that Wikipedia is not a place to publish your findings.
 * I understand that your intentions are well, but understand that this is not the place to publish these things.
 * Please provide sources for your claims, or otherwise remove them.
 * Thanks,
 * --Sagie 14:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC).
 * Thanks,
 * --Sagie 14:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC).


 * (Replying to your reply in my talk page)
 * Regarding your reply, I could not find any sentence in the policy liberating anyone from providing sources. Kindly quote the paragraphs that to your opinion liberate you from this burden.
 * Regarding your concern about the validity of "someone provides a weblink to a piece of information", this is clearly explained in WP:V, "Sources of questionable reliability".
 * The fact that this data is unverifiable makes it invalid in Wikipedia, by its policy, which were set not by me, neither by you.
 * I am not concerned "with splitting hairs in 4"; I am concerned with following the rules in this collaborative, educational, project; I'm concerned with the misinformation you seem to be spreading; and I could be concerned with a possible hidden agenda you may have against certain industrial products, some of which are mentioned by their name. I say that, not to implicate you with any such agenda, but rather to show you how your actions could be perceived.
 * --Sagie 18:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Melon slang
A tag has been placed on Melon (slang), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

WP is not a WP:DICT

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet very basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add  on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. WebHamster 21:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Carleton-sur-Mer, Quebec
I have removed the you placed on this redirect. Over 50 articles link to Carleton-sur-mer via that redirect, to delete it would break those links. If you want to edit those articles to make the link directly to Carleton-sur-mer then nominate it, that is no problem, but redirects are cheap and there is no reason to fix what isn't broken. Carlossuarez46 21:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Well my main concern is that other people may come around and want to add content once again to the carleton page. What is the process you mention of «nominate it»? I am not familiar with that.--Tallard 07:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Generally, if someone clicks on Carleton, Quebec they will be taken to Carleton-sur-mer, Quebec (should "mer" be capitalized by the way?) so its unlikely that someone would add content there. Typically, former names of places are left as redirects because (a) some people may remember it the old way Bombay -> Mumbai and just type in the old version and at least are taken to an article rather than a blank space just waiting to have content (see "c" below); (b) some information is copied verbatim from older sources (e.g., 1911 Britannica or the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia) which have old versions of a name so by wiki-linking names in the sources - particularly so when the place has changed hands in the intervening years: Königsberg -> Kaliningrad; and (c) we just would rather group all possible variations pointing to one article - this goes with variations in Romanization of names, variations of the name from various periods of times or variations on spellings, to avoid someone not seeing İstanbul or Stamboul and wanting to write an article on that obviously important city when a perfectly good article exists at Istanbul. So in some sense, deleting the redirect is more likely to invite creation of new (and duplicate) content at the Carleton, Quebec page than keeping the redirect. Carlossuarez46 17:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I did the move for you. As for the location graphic unfortunately these are wiki-language dependent I spent a huge amount of time trying to get things to work for Turkish provinces, but alas failed. However, the good news is that there is a user User:Earl Andrew who has uploaded various maps of Quebec divided into municipalities (see Montreal) and he may help out - I haven't approached him but he seems capable of the task, willingness is something for which I cannot vouch - you should ask him on his talk page. Carlossuarez46 18:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I think I fixed it, please advise if I haven't. Carlossuarez46 19:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Quebec nation issue
Hi! I've noticed you have added to the discussion on Talk:Quebec and, in response to the discussion regarding whether or not Quebec is a nation, I have replied with this. I would like you to read the discussion on the Talk:Quebec page, then read my response and leave your comments on it's talk page! Thanks for your input.  Andrew 6 47 02:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Agar Spam?
To answer your question about appropriate links in Agar, I concur that listing links to recipies is not helpful to the article. The guidelines that apply are external links: do recipes add "meaninful relevent content" that enhance our understanding of the topic? (no), is the site directly related to the article's subject? (no) and what Wikipedia is not: Wikipedia is not a repository of (recipe) links nor is it a how-to guide (which includes recipes, and by extension links to recipes in most cases).

In addition, the links to Rose's Kitchen have been added by an editor who seems to be here only to add links to that site. That site is supported by google adsense advertising, using the id pub-2740607705270813. There is a huge problem with conflict of interest editors trying to drive people to their adsense supported websites. This appears to be one of them.

Science Buddies appears to be an informative, on-topic site and the kits for sale are not objectionable; it was added by a good-faith editor. I leave it to people such as you who are more familiar with the topic to evaluate whether it enhances the article content. ✤ JonHarder talk 11:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Just a quick explanation re: Talk:Quebec
I've allowed myself to correct your spelling of "conquer" to "concur" (i.e., agree), as it was manifest to me that this is what you meant to say, but also fairly obvious that some editors might have a hard time figuring out the correct spelling and therefore the meaning of what you said. As correcting other editors' contributions on talk pages is usually frowned upon, I decided to at least give you an explanation of why I nevertheless did it, so that you can appreciate it was done in good faith. Regards, --Ramdrake 19:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I also think that thinking about this issue in terms of "us versus them" may not be constructive enough. I am assuming here from your writings that you are identifying with the French-speaking majority of people in Quebec. It is in my mind rather clear that a precise enough formulation of Quebec's nationhood can be forged to accomodate a majority of editors, if maybe not all of them — and consensus doesn't need unanimity.--Ramdrake 20:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

A decade of bombings... resulting in at least five deaths
Not sure who proof-read that, but it makes the FLQ people sound like the most inept bombers in history, or that whoever wrote it had a very definite POV. I believe that the death toll of people dying from being struck by thunder in Quebec alone for those ten years was way higher... Thanks for pointing that one out, I had a good chuckle.--Ramdrake 20:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Re:Arame
(1) I don't think there's a stub banner policy, but I usually see stub banners placed on the bottom of the article page. (2) See this. M&amp;NCenarius 13:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Quebec Stuff
Hello there. The reason it looks like this is two-fold: when you answer someone, you should try to put your post as close as possible to the post you're answering, but without breaking it up. When several people all answer the same post, it can however look like a bloody mess. As far as 3RR enforcement is concerned, it's only enforced if someone reports it. If no one chooses to enforce it (for any reason), well it doesn't always get enforced... What can I say?--Ramdrake 20:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Fine, thanks for the permission. I remember that Soulscanner took great exception to anyone doing that.--Ramdrake 20:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you From the apostrophe abuser
Thanks for correcting me, I know better, but my fingers disobey me when I'm typing on my laptop :) yeah I know, excuses, excuses...Cheers--Tallard 05:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Hee! Don't feel bad; we all make typos. :) I usually spend one day a week just cleaning them up, or they start getting out of hand. Best wishes and happy editing, Firsfron of Ronchester  06:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)