User talk:Tdebouches

Nomination of Exonucleophagy for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Exonucleophagy is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Exonucleophagy until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 09:55, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

October 2017
Please do not add or change content without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Jac 16888 Talk 20:00, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Exonucleophagy


The article Exonucleophagy has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Non-notable; term does not exist in English; no attestations in English outside wikis and other user-provided content; one Croatian journal ref has it double-quoted as a neologism in the article."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

Nothing has changed since two years ago; this term still doesn't exist in English. Mathglot (talk) 23:46, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Possible COI and use of non-RS sources
Hello, Tdebouches,

I wanted to raise three issues with you:
 * 1) concerning Wikipedia's requirements for verifiability and use of reliable sources, which in the case of articles related to medicine, have special standards (see WP:MEDRS), and
 * 2) Wikipedia's guidelines concerning conflict of interest, and
 * 3) Usage of multiple accounts.

I have noticed in several articles relating to odontology, that whenever sources by Mark Bonner are inserted into one of these articles, more often than not it is either by you, such as this edit at Periodontitis; or by User (and likewise by French user Mark Bonner dmd at French wikipedia.)  This is especially in connection with a book by Bonner published by Amyris Editions. Amyris is a publisher of texts in holistic medicine in Brussels, and their works have unrecognized isbns, and generally are not found in Google Books or in WorldCat, see e.g. the oldest version of Trichomonas tenax. I'll let specialists in MEDRS, which I am not, comment on this.

The "French connection" here suggests that your username is a reference to one of Bonner's books, entitled, Tant de bouches à guérir. This, and the history of insertions by you makes me wonder if you have some connection with Bonner that should be disclosed, to conform with Wikipedia's policy on conflict of interest. I'll add the standard boilerplate about this in a follow-up shortly (and apologies in advance for templating).

I will add some additional diffs on this later. Cordially, Mathglot (talk) 04:38, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * More Diffs:
 * Your creation of the article Exonucleophagy, including a Bonner reference in its first version. (Article is now a redirect to Entamoeba gingivalis, following a deletion discussion.)  Mathglot (talk) 07:04, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Your addition of refs (since reverted) in Entamoeba gingivalis to YouTube videos, all marked by YT as uploaded by a 'Mark Bonner':
 * in rev 592451634:
 * in rev 592475932:
 * in rev 592477986:
 * in rev 592452076:
 * in rev 592477772:
 * An addition by French user Institut International de Parodontie at fr:Exonucléophagie, and their connection to Bonner

So, here's the promised COI info: Hello, Tdebouches. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. Editing for the purpose of advertising or promotion is not permitted. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:


 * avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, company, organization or competitors;
 * propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the request edit template);
 * disclose your COI when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
 * avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
 * do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. To be more specific: can you disclose if you have some kind of connection with author Mark Bonner, or with Wikipedia User or Institut International de Parodontie, or with ? You don't have to disclose the nature of the connections if you don't wish to (although you may), just whether you do, or don't have some connection with Bonner. Feel free to elaborate, though, if you wish to.

Finally, you should be aware of Wikipedia's guidelines on usage of multiple accounts. The general rule is, one editor, one account. There are some legitimate reasons for use of multiple accounts, and if that is the case for you, this page explains how to disclose these, to avoid giving the impression of being a sock puppet, that is, a deceptive user of multiple accounts? If you have other accounts registered at Wikipedia, please disclose them now. Mathglot (talk) 08:51, 8 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes disclosure would be good. Agree it looks like they may have started with an account that used their name and now moved to one that does not. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 14:46, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * this diff is somewhat of a disclosure - it was signed Mark Bonner dmd for Tdebouches. Jytdog (talk) 01:51, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I see that rather than address this, you've instead subsequently used your sandbox to your "Exonucleophagy" article, including a reference to Bonner's book in the very first version, and submitted it to Afc. Putting the best possible interpretation on that would be that you're attempting to follow WP:MEDCOI, but in a back-handed way by skipping the disclosure part, which is a necessary part of it. (The Afc evaluator was certainly not aware of it.) It looks to me like you're (barely) paying lip service to guidelines, but are essentially not here to build an encyclopedia, but maybe to boost the PageRank of pages that mention Mark Bonner. Any comment? Mathglot (talk) 02:34, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (January 8)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Curb Safe Charmer was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:Tdebouches/sandbox and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to User:Tdebouches/sandbox, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "db-self" at the top of the draft text and save.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=User:Tdebouches/sandbox Articles for creation help desk] or on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Curb_Safe_Charmer&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=User:Tdebouches/sandbox reviewer's talk page].
 * You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 21:05, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Edit war warning
Your recent editing history at Periodontitis shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jytdog (talk) 01:47, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

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. Jytdog (talk) 23:13, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Periodontitis
We put years ago text on micoscopy of biofilm in periodontal disease. This is medecine reality of the disease. Somebody remove this knowledge regularly for years. It does hide medical reality of the disease known from 1849- 1914- 1927- 1980- 2003- 2011- 2015 references and medical biologic facts. Impact is important as 2 billions humans are affected by this infection and are unaware of their condition. We ask to leave this information « biofilm microscopy » about the disease. Hiding this information should be considered criminal. Cordially Tdebouches (talk) 00:27, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You may be blocked from editing Wikipedia if you won't agree to stop reverting at Periodontitis. There may still be time for you to reply at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 00:57, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I've closed this report with the following: ", while edit warring, hasn't technically violated WP:3RR and has posted to various talk pages. They are warned they may be blocked without further warning if they make similar types of edits on this article unless they get consensus on the talk page." --Neil N  talk to me 15:22, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Change "make similar types of edits on this article" to "make similar types of edits on this or any other article". --Neil N  talk to me 19:21, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Refs
You continue to use refs that are dozens of years old and continue to link to source by yourself. Can you please stop. Thank you. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:33, 10 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Adding context: comment above apparently in connection with this edit by Tdebouches at Entamoeba gingivalis, subsequently reverted by Doc James at 14:31, 10 January 2018.  Mathglot (talk) 21:52, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

January 2018
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Neil N  talk to me 15:36, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Next block will be a lengthy one if the same behavior continues. --Neil N  talk to me</i> 15:38, 11 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you should take a look at the behaviour of Jytdog too as he is making false accusations of edit warring. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 18:12, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Help request on periodontitis
I would like some help. There is a dispute on Periodontitis. After edit war, I was asked to do it bold so to reach consensus with I do not know who! I did changed the edition, and tried to find different whriting. But I have been removed my new editing again I do not know what for... and block 72 hours ! I do not understand... Does not Bold edition be ok??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tdebouches (talk • contribs) 16:50, January 11, 2018 (UTC)  Moved to bottom of page, signed, section title added; by Mathglot (talk) 19:38, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Tdebouches, you have come to Wikipedia to write about what you know.  That is not what we do here.
 * What we do here is find recent literature reviews on the topic, and summarize what they say. The sources come first.  They are not stuck on afterwards.
 * The kinds of sources that we use, are described in WP:MEDRS. Would you please read that document, and reply here when you have? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:59, 11 January 2018 (UTC)


 * It seems you are not clear what you are being asked to do. Above, you were told  by NeilN to "get consensus on the talk page" before making "similar types of edits on this article" (later expanded to, "this or any other article"). My understanding of what NeilN said (correct me if I'm wrong), in the context of my understanding of Wikipedia policy and guidelines, is this:
 * this article – means, Periodontitis. "this or any other article" – means any article on English Wikipedia.
 * similar types of edits means, changes or reverts to get your own way, to install your preferred version of text into the article in the face of reverts or other opposition by other editors. See WP:EDITWAR.
 * get consensus on the talk page, means to get consensus at Talk:Periodontitis, in the case of the Periodontitis article; or on the Talk page of any other article, respectively. I think you already know where to find a talk page for a Wikipedia article: just click the "Talk" tab at the top of the article. Adding your comment to the WT:BRD policy page was not the right place; use the talk page for the article in question.
 * get consensus – means, discuss the change you'd like to make to the article with other editors, before you make the change. See if other editors agree; if they do, go ahead and make your change.  If they don't, talk it out on the Talk page and see if you can reach some agreement. There are additional techniques for dispute resolution if that doesn't work.
 * You said you were asked, "to reach consensus with I do not know who!" You are being asked to reach consensus with other volunteer Wikipedia editors just like you, who display an interest in the Periodontitis article, or other article, and who may respond on the Talk page of the article concerned.  By the way, you are not being singled out: all editors on Wikipedia are asked to do this in case of edit wars or content disagreement.  The way to start, is to go to the article talk page, say, Talk:Periodontitis, click "Add a new section", and then type something like, "I would like to improve the article by adding (or removing) the following text," then quote the change you'd like to make, sign your post, and save it.


 * Does this make more sense now, and do you understand what to do?


 * Finally: although this is the English Wikipedia, and the policy is to use English to communicate with other editors so comments may be comprehensible to the community, if you believe that a language difficulty is impeding your understanding or your ability to say what you intend, please feel free to comment here in French, and I will translate your comments, and then I or someone else may respond. Hope this helps, Mathglot (talk) 20:31, 11 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Vous vous rendez compte que vous n'êtes plus bloqué, n'est-ce pas? En tout cas, vous pouvez toujours répondre ici sur votre PdD, même en étant bloqué ailleurs. Bien cordialement, Mathglot (talk) 07:54, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Biofilm microscopy
For more than a century, Entamoeba gingivalis has been described in active periodontal infections. This suggests from the microscopic examination of the sulcus biofilm a high correlation between the presence of the amoeba Entamoeba gingivalis and the active periodontal disease called then pyorrhea[52]. This notion was highlighted half a century later and corroborated by demonstrating that the biofilm of gingival health is constituted for the most part by nonmotile bacteria. Gingivitis on the other part predominantly contains motile bacteria of the bacillus, spirilla and vibrios type, accompanied by a significant number of PMN leukocytes. Finally periodontitis proceeds from a bacterial state similar to gingivitis but adding the frequent presence of the protozoan Entamoeba gingivalis, sometimes that of Trichomonas tenax and a more than significant number of granulocytes[53]. This view point, applied in the 1980s by a Canadian dentist, confirms, according to him, periodontal healing including bone regeneration by finding, through hygiene and pharmaceutical medical methods, a commensal biofilm made up for the most part of cocoid bacteria and various immobile filaments, and absence of leucocytes[54][55]. Entamoeba gingivalis has displacement capacity, apparent adherence to blood cells, stops PMN granular activity of PMN and clearly phagocytize PMN nucleus which makes it a potential aggressive pathogen[56]. This microscopic correlation has recently been confirmed with PCR molecular biology studies on the presence of this protozoan in cases of periodontal active disease and its absence in the gingival, even local, situation[57]. This antiparasitic technique proposed as an effective therapy to overcome periodontitis is based on the process of stopping phagocytosis of the leucocyte nucleus PMN by the amoeba, thus releasing an enucleated cell, discharging its content of proteolytic enzymes onto the surrounding tissues in the image of the amoebic abscess of the liver from Entamoeba histolytica considered pathogenic in amoebic dysentery[58]. It has the advantage of eliminating the pathogenic bacteria concomitant with the protozoa and may, at minimum, be seen as targets easy to visualize by the dentist and the patient on phase contrast microscopy on a saliva mount. This so-called exonucleophagy would be the cause of local deterioration beyond the control of the immune system in the periodontal pocket and possibly peri-implantitis, as a result of systematic presence of the protozoan. The phantom released PMNs cells hollowed out of their nucleus than are unable to continue their defense activity "NETS [archive]" nor normal apoptosis. Flagellate Trichomonas tenax pathogen is also present in about 5 to 20% of active periodontitis and seems to render periodontitis more aggressive[59]. Early data on such an antiparasitic treatment appear to be effective in healing the periodontal sulcus[60]. Microbes and white blood cell identification gives a new target for therapeutic attempts against this disease.Tdebouches (talk) 13:21, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Biofilm Microscopy
For more than a century, Entamoeba gingivalis has been described in active periodontal infections. This suggests from the microscopic examination of the sulcus biofilm a high correlation between the presence of the amoeba Entamoeba gingivalis and the active periodontal disease called then pyorrhea[52]. This notion was highlighted half a century later and corroborated by demonstrating that the biofilm of gingival health is constituted for the most part by nonmotile bacteria. Gingivitis on the other part predominantly contains motile bacteria of the bacillus, spirilla and vibrios type, accompanied by a significant number of PMN leukocytes. Finally periodontitis proceeds from a bacterial state similar to gingivitis but adding the frequent presence of the protozoan Entamoeba gingivalis, sometimes that of Trichomonas tenax and a more than significant number of granulocytes[53]. This view point, applied in the 1980s by a Canadian dentist, confirms, according to him, periodontal healing including bone regeneration by finding, through hygiene and pharmaceutical medical methods, a commensal biofilm made up for the most part of cocoid bacteria and various immobile filaments, and absence of leucocytes[54][55]. Entamoeba gingivalis has displacement capacity, apparent adherence to blood cells, stops PMN granular activity of PMN and clearly phagocytize PMN nucleus which makes it a potential aggressive pathogen[56]. This microscopic correlation has recently been confirmed with PCR molecular biology studies on the presence of this protozoan in cases of periodontal active disease and its absence in the gingival, even local, situation[57]. This antiparasitic technique proposed as an effective therapy to overcome periodontitis is based on the process of stopping phagocytosis of the leucocyte nucleus PMN by the amoeba, thus releasing an enucleated cell, discharging its content of proteolytic enzymes onto the surrounding tissues in the image of the amoebic abscess of the liver from Entamoeba histolytica considered pathogenic in amoebic dysentery[58]. It has the advantage of eliminating the pathogenic bacteria concomitant with the protozoa and may, at minimum, be seen as targets easy to visualize by the dentist and the patient on phase contrast microscopy on a saliva mount. This so-called exonucleophagy would be the cause of local deterioration beyond the control of the immune system in the periodontal pocket and possibly peri-implantitis, as a result of systematic presence of the protozoan. The phantom released PMNs cells hollowed out of their nucleus than are unable to continue their defense activity "NETS [archive]" nor normal apoptosis. Flagellate Trichomonas tenax pathogen is also present in about 5 to 20% of active periodontitis and seems to render periodontitis more aggressive[59]. Early data on such an antiparasitic treatment appear to be effective in healing the periodontal sulcus[60]. Microbes and white blood cell identification gives a new target for therapeutic attempts against this disease.Tdebouches (talk) 14:40, 24 January 2018 (UTC)


 * At 18:42, 25 January 2018 you left me a message at User talk:Mathglot, concerning, I believe, the text above. I'll copy your message below, and add my response. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 00:46, 26 January 2018 (UTC)


 * The following message copied here from my talk page. Mathglot (talk) 00:46, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I did put different text with some changes and removed Youtubes. Now, can I use this text as added section of periodontitis??? Without it being removed by I do not know who! And not starting a edit war for which I am always the looser for many years? How come the other part can remove it and I be the looser and I presume others don not know anything in science about microscopy of biofilm in periodontitis???? ThanksTdebouches (talk) 18:42, 25 January 2018 (UTC)


 * J'ai un peu de difficulté de comprendre votre anglais, mais tant que je vous comprenne, vous parlez du texte que vous avez ajouté sur la PdD de Periodontitis,  n'est-ce pas?  Pour répondre, en partie:
 * Q: Without it being removed by I do not know who!
 * A: You can consult the history of contributions of the article to find out.
 * Q: How come the other part can remove it and I be the looser..?
 * A: There are various policies and guidelines that govern article content at Wikipedia. The reason that some editors removed your text additions, is that they believe either that your change doesn't represent an improvement to the article, or doesn't conform to the policies and guidelines.  From what I've seen, your additions sometimes fail to include references from reliable, medical sources.  In addition, there may be conflict of interest issues, with some of the references you use.
 * Q: I presume others don not know anything in science about microscopy of biofilm in periodontitis?
 * A: I can't answer for what others know or don't know, but if you have a question about that, you should raise it at Talk:Periodontitis.
 * Pretty much all of this has been explained to you repeatedly, and in detail here on your Talk page, but you have never responded there. I have to wonder if, given your level of English, you understand what people are trying to say to you.  Do you understand what I'm telling you now, in English?   Est-ce que vous comprenez toutes les messages que plusieurs utilisateurs et administrateurs vous ont laissé sur votre PdD?  Pourquoi vous ne répondez jamais a ces commentaires et propos?  On a l'impression que soit vous ne comprenez pas, soit vous n'avez aucun interêt de les écouter. Si besoin est, répondez en français, et quelqu'un (moi, dans l'occurrence) les traduira. Mathglot (talk) 00:54, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Dites, donc...
Est-ce qu'il y une raison pour laquelle vous ne répondez jamais vos messages laissés ici par des autres utilisateurs? Bien cordialement, Mathglot (talk) 02:22, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Bonjour. Je ne vois pas trop ces messages don't vous me parlez. Et des mails je sombre dans des centaines par jour! Et je ne suis pas informatitien mais dentiste chercheur! J essaie de contribuer, mais vous etes trop conservateur et standard! De toute facon vous detruisez tout ce que je propose de mon savoir. Alors oubliez moi, je vais arreter de contribuer a Wiki. Je laisserai les autres ecrire mes connaissances dans une decennie. Juste dommage pour la population malade! Vous etes trop compliqué, et pour enlever ce que j ai fait il doit surement y avoir des sous derriere! Désolé. Bon Wiki Tdebouches (talk) 12:48, 8 February 2018 (UTC) <div style="width:88%; background-color:lightyellow;margin-left:2em;padding:0 1em; border:thin solid gray"> Hello, I really don't see those messages you're talking about. As far as emails, I'm inundated by hundreds of them a day! And, I'm no programmer, but just a research dentist! I try to contribute, but you are too conservative and standardized. In any case, you are wrecking everything I'm putting out there from my own expertise. So, just forget me, I'm going to stop contributing to Wiki. I'll let the others write about what I know now in a decade from now. It's just a pity for those who are sick! You are too complicated, and for someone who's removing stuff that I did, there's gotta be money behind it all. Sorry. Happy wiki-ing, /sig/ User:Tdebouches 12:48 8 February 2018 (UTC) &mdash; transl. Mathglot (talk) 13:11, 8 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Pas compliqué du tout, et pas de sous non plus; on est tous des bénévoles ici. Mais je comprend, qu'en tant que dentiste-chercheur, vous n'avez pas probablement le temps d'apprendre comment ça marche, ici.  Tout est basé sur les politiques de base de Wikipedia, et parmi eux, il y a surtout la Vérifiabilité, et l'utilisation des sources fiables. Pour des articles conernants les sujets medico-dentales, la politique est plus stricte encore sur la question des sources; on pourrait la consulter sur la rubrique WP:MEDRS.  C'est plutôt là, ou vous avez tombé sur des problèmes, qui a provoqué l'enlevement de vos editions.
 * Mais, il y a peut-être une solution. Avez-vous un secretaire bilingue, qui pourrait eventuellement rediger les articles sur Wikipédia de votre part, sous votre direction? Ça vous eviterait toutes les complications d'apprendre les démarches ici. J'imagine bien que vous avez quelqu'un qui vous aide en vos editions, car quand je regarde vos editions dans les articles, ils sont écrits dans un anglais parfait, par éxample, le texte qu'on trouve dans la section  ci-dessus; pendant que vos messages en anglais sur les PdD est moins bien. Donc, je suis sur que vos redactions sont faites par quelqu'un d'autre, ou, au moins, redigées par quelqu'un, apres.  Peut-être vous pourriez démander cette personne d'agir de votre part sur Wikipédia aussi?  Juste une idée. Je suis bien a votre disposition, pour toute renseignement complémentaire.  Mathglot (talk) 10:08, 9 February 2018 (UTC)