Jump to content

User talk:Mouloud47/Archives

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Majandra_Delfino

Hello:

I just deleted the part where it says that she is half Venezuelan and half Cuban Which is totally incorrect.

She is a dual citizen Venezuelan U.S. American, born in Venezuela and her family relocated to the U.S. when she was 3 years old where she adopted the U.S. nationality by naturalization.

You are the one who should list a reliable source where it says she is Cuban because I deleted the part, and you added that part again. Remember the wikipedia rules, you need a reliable source to show proof of your edits.

Do you have proof of her Cuban citizenship? --Bono983 (talk) 00:04, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

The source you deleted clearly states she is half Cuban and half Venezuelan:

H: What problems, if any, have you two encountered when auditioning for roles either individually or as sisters? MAJANDRA: In either situation the problem is that since we’re half Venezuelan and half Cuban, whenever we want to play an ethnicity we’re either not ethnic enough or we’re too ethnic.

I don't say you are wrong but when you delete a source on Wikipedia, you need more than just being deeply convinced it is "totally incorrect".
At least, you should provide a more reliable source to support what you claim.
Let me know if you have any other questions. Best regards. Mouloud47 (talk) 00:19, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Armoiries république française.svg

I question that validity of the licensing tag on [[File:Armoiries république française.svg. The license states Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 France license. but this cannot hold to be true. The design of this image was by Robert Louis (1902–1965), a heraldic artist. This person died in 1965. 1965+70 years means that it is not open until 2035 for public domain. --Bob (talk) 19:04, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

You are absolutely right. I didn't saw that. I will check Wikipedia policy to see if drawings in SVG of a copyrighted image can be licensed under CCA, but if it is not the case, we will have to change the license. However, I think my point remains valid: this Coat of Arms helps the reader to identify quickly the subject and such a Coat of Arms is commonly used in the header of numerous Armed Forces articles.
And again, thank you for reporting that Non-free media use. Best regards. Mouloud47 (talk) 19:33, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Just to be sure, it is not a coat of arms, but an emblem, so Commons:Commons:Coats of arms doesn't apply. --Bob (talk) 19:42, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Ok, I looked up, and I'm not quite categoric about the fact it is not a coat of arms (but I agree with you on the fact that it is not an official coat of arms). This drawing has a lot of different versions: see [languedoc-france.info/06141215_arms.htm here] under the section The Modern Arms of the French Republic

Variations on the same basic theme also exist. For example the design on the left was used in the nineteenth century, and the one on the right is still in use today. They both feature the fasces and olive and oak branches. The one on the left features the cypher FR and the tricolore, and the one on the right the motto of the French Republic.

Other versions can be found here, where the "emblem" has been painted in blue and adapted as a logo for the French Presidency website, and on the brand new biometric passport here, where we can see that the two letters of the monogram (=the cypher) FR are not overlapping each-other, contrary to what we can find here for example.
Furthermore, this symbol seems to have been originally conceived by the sculptor Jules-Clément Chaplain (1839-1909), and the work of Robert Louis seems to have consisted in some kind of derivative work to adapt it in order to make it comply with some of the rules of the heraldic( see [languedoc-france.info/06141215_arms.htm here] and [wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Emblem_of_France here].
Moreover, even if the official site of the French Republic designates it as an "emblem", it does recognize that it has a definition (like other coat of arms)

« d'azur au faisceau de licteur posé en pal, sur deux branches de chêne et d'olivier, passées en sautoir, le tout d'or, lié par un ruban du même, chargé de la devise en lettres de sable Liberté-Egalité-Fraternité »

So I think we should be carefull about this, because we could simply consider this SVG image like a yellow, slightly manga, version of a symbol which already has a lot of existing representations. I really reckon that we need to further investigate on this before changing the license. Best regards. Mouloud47 (talk) 00:07, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

FYI the image we discussed above is up for deletion on Commons: [1]. --Bob247 (talk) 00:15, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello Bob247! Thank you for warning me about this deletion case. I will inform them of my opinion about it and vote for keeping it. Best regards. Mouloud47 (talk) 00:40, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Capitalization of "Legion"

I understand that members of the Foreign Legion like to capitalize it. In the same way, (American) marines capitalize 'marine.' The US Air Force capitalizes AIr Force when it applies to the USAF. Now the US Army is attempting to convince us the word 'soldier' requires a capitalization. While at some point common usage might require a change to our grammar, we are not yet at that point. I direct you to the Wiki Manual of Style, which does not call for capitalization in these case. It is a minor thing, but I hope you will forgive me my tiny obsession. In any case, I hope you will not revert without a cite that using the standard forms of English is not called for. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 08:04, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello again, and thank you for being willing to contribute to the article French Foreign Legion.
However, even if I do not know if the members of that unit "like to capitalize it", I do know that the capitalization of the word "Legion" is the broad usage since it is very often under this name that the unit is referred to. It seems sensible to me that when you use the name of a specific institution, the word needs capitalization.
I disagree with you over the interpretation of the guidelines MOS:CAPS as it states clearly:

The general rule is that wherever a military term is an accepted proper noun, it should be capitalized. Where there is uncertainty as to whether a term is generally accepted, consensus should be reached on the talk page.

And it seems, indeed, accepted as a proper noun, and here, the normal English usage and the common usage seem to be the capitalization of the word. We can see it in this article of The Telegraph, in this article of the Guardian, in this article of The Washington Post, in this article of Le Monde, in this article of Le nouvel Observateur, in this article of USA Today,....
And we can also see it is the common usage in a great amount of articles on Wikipedia, such as the German article, the Greek article, or the Spanish article...
Moreover, it is equally the rule and the common usage in numerous articles on the English Wikipedia referring to this unit, such as Lang Son Campaign, Outpost in Morocco, or Siege of Tuyen Quang,...
Also, I would like to warn you about the fact that a discussion was opened in the talk page. Hence, I strongly advise you to establish a consensus in the talk page, as recommended by the guidelines, on that controversial issue if you really think that you have a valuable reason (and ideally, reliable sources to support what you claim) to change the capitalization.
Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any further questions or remarks. Best regards. Mouloud47 (talk) 14:26, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Gosh, I am surprised to get in a revert war over this of all things. Let's move the discussion to the talk page and allow some neutral third party to step in. (I hate to think I might have to go back and re-do all those corrections if the discussion goes my way, but so be it.) Paul, in Saudi (talk) 16:59, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Ok, I just want to point out that I am not a vandal and I will not throw myself into an edit war. But your proposition sounds reasonable since we clearly don't agree on this. I will move the discussion to the talk page. Best regards. Mouloud47 (talk) 17:17, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
I fear we have sown confusion on the FFL page. We now have two discussion of my one-man holy war on excess capitalization. This will lead to people reply in one place or another. Could you please sort it out in whatever manner you feel best? Paul, in Saudi (talk) 17:28, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Ok, I tried to sort it out. Does it suit you? Best regards. Mouloud47 (talk) 17:39, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
I fear we have reached a strange impasse. We are concerned about a point of grammar and it seems no other editor is willing to step in. How ought we to proceed? Paul, in Saudi (talk) 04:10, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Hello Paul. Indeed, we seem rather embroiled in this issue. If I refer to WP:NEGOTIATION, I think we have reached the point in the negotiation process where it is necessary to find a compromise. So I can propose you a middle-ground. We could simply replace all the "Legion" by "Foreign Legion". This way, I think that there will not be any ambiguity whatsoever about the fact that the term designates only the "French Foreign Legion", and so, about the fact that it is a proper noun, since it is the real translation of that unit's name. I hope this will help to solve this issue. But if you have other ideas or remarks feel free to leave a comment. Best regards. Mouloud47 (talk) 14:14, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Absolutely, that would be just ducky. Tell you what, make a pass at making changes along those lines and then let me look at it. I think we can agree whatever we do, we ought to be consistent through the whole article. (Heck of a large article, isn't it?). Paul, in Saudi (talk) 03:47, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
It is done (in fact, I use a software to do it automatically so it does not take a lot of time). I wait for your remarks. Best regards. Mouloud47 (talk) 06:15, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Request

Can I ask you something?Ahmad4d (talk) 18:38, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes of course. Mouloud47 (talk) 18:43, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Translate

Please translate this article:http://ceism.net/ to Français.Ahmad4d (talk) 18:59, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

That's not a question, that's a request. Translating material directly from Internet is strictly forbidden in Wikipedia because such material is often copyrighted. If you have a translation request for an article on other Wikipedias, you can ask here: Wikipedia:Translation. Mouloud47 (talk) 19:05, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Battle of France

Hello Mouloud47

Thank you for your mail. I did participate to the discussion in Talk:Battle of France a long time ago, and I proposed this picture but noone has answered me for months. So, I decided to load it on my own. Yet, you ask for my explanation and I'm glad to give it to you.

The picture of the German army passing the Arc de Triomphe is irrelevant. It is nothing about the Battle of France itself. The parade even happened after the 17 June 1940 (when Pétain put an end to the battle, begging for an armistice). This picture, I guess, is rather a way to mock the French again and again, showing the Battle would have been only a parade. The statements that some wikiusers have made in the Talkpage are hardly acceptable in wikipedia, especially those by DIREKTOR.

I propose this picture about a knock-out tank. It was taken during the battle, it is much relevant to the topic and it is not as biased as the first picture.

I thank you for your mail and the interest you have shown for my request.

PL — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.85.95.144 (talk) 19:21, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, I will answer you on the talk page. Best regards. Mouloud47 (talk) 20:00, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Ordinal suffixes - Chief of the Defence Staff (France)

Hello Mouloud47, thanx for your work and please look at this:

We do not use the superscript. The superscript of the most common text fonts and computer systems is not the same as the traditional typography for ordinal suffixes. The superscript breakes the text-line far and ugly to next upper text-line. And the source code is wasted by sup/sup.

Keep it simple!

And 21th is a senseless character string, it should be 21st (22nd, 23rd, 24th, 31st ...) --Diwas (talk) 18:17, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello Diwas!
Of course the superscript should be avoided. Sorry for that, I was a little tired. Best regards. Mouloud47 (talk) 18:34, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Sorry for my superfluous talk, but I guess, some users (not you, now I know) do not know that the simple way is better and they do unneccessary work for superscripting and some not native english users do not know the english ordinals very well. And some search engines can't find (and replace) an ordinal when it is trunked by sup/sup. Best regards. --Diwas (talk) 18:53, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Battle of France

Hello Mouloud47,

You should enter the diplomatic corps, you have the skills (though you don't know how to solve a Rubik's Cube, and I do :)
Good luck, Naevus 21:56, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Naevus. Unfortunately, I'm quite absorbed in my studies right now, but I will think about it. Best regards. Mouloud47 (talk) 13:38, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Fireplace.JPG missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as:

is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 15:53, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mouloud47/Archives&oldid=869760634"