User talk:Sarreau

Welcome to Wikipedia!!!

Hello Sarreau! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Below are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. Happy Editing! Kukini 15:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
Wikipedia Tutorial How to edit a page The five pillars of Wikipedia Manual of Style Be bold in editing How to write a great article WikiProjects
Getting your info out there
Cite your sources Neutral Point of View Point of View Verifiability Uploading images Image use policy
Getting more Wikipedia rules
Policy Library

Getting Help
New contributors' help page Where to ask a question Help Desk Frequently Asked Questions
Getting along
Wikiquette Civility Sign your posts Wikipedians Conflict resolution
Getting technical
Pages needing attention Peer review Utilities Village pump

I am already very frustrated: I joined because of current events articles that I felt missed some points. I face another user that removed my points and sources and changed the article to his own POV. After discussion, he did it again. I don't intend to spend time on wikipedia to fight, and even though the current article is dumm, I feel writing is useless and I better give up this place. Anybody has a suggestion?Sarreau 00:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is this user a user logged in or a user who has an IP adress? If he keeps doing this you need to post on his/her talk page explaining your thoughts. If he/she is vandalizing a page (it sounds like he is because he wants his own version) you ought to post to his talk page telling him to use the sandbox. Keep reverting unless this user's edits in less he/she says he/she has a good idea what he/she is doing. Bottom line: Post to this user's talk page. You might wish to alert an adminnistrator about blocking him if he keeps doing it. Yoy may wish to give me this user's name. ForestH2

You are quite right to not get into an edit war, they don't achieve anything. Can I suggest your look at dispute resolution for some ideas, the usual best place to start is messages on the articles discussion page to try and get people talking. --pgk^(talk) 00:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like PGK's Idea also. I suggest you look at it. I just looked at it. It's very helpful. ForestH2

Hi guys and thanks. We actually started discussion on the article's discussion page. The article is Contrat nouvelle embauche. To me, it is not balanced, and looks more like propaganda than explanatory article. It is so loaded that I don't dare to try to improve the edit anymore as I would have to remove his entire overweighted paragraphs. I first tried discussion and started editing including his views, but he kept removing my sources and points, etc... There's only the two of us here, so I guess a third party would be welcome, or even better, more people should join in. I did ask for 3rd party. If you care to have a look at the article's history and talk page, just let me know how you feel here. I created the article and bothered to start discussion, but at that point I don't see why I should lose time fighting... What's more, I only intervened on two articles so far, and had to face the same guy on both!Sarreau 22:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I may as well comment although there has been to many vandalized pages on the Drake and Josh site I'm taking care of that right now. Is Lapaz the user? The article needs to be enclyopedic, and after taking care of the vandalized pages I'm going to try to upgrade the article. Does anybody else know about this article? ForestH2

Sarreau, check out the page now. I scanned through it and it doesn't look encylopedic. Do you think it is? Please let me know. ForestH2

Encyclopedic? I am not sure I get what you mean, but compared to not so long ago, a lot has been added, or more precisely copied and pasted from somewhere else, creating paragraph building up his own point. And, I feel, making it a biased article. Also, you might want to check the talk page.Sarreau 22:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an encylopedia and any pages that are not encylopedic with stuff up to date etc. needs to be improved or nominated for deletion. I have posted to the talk page and any more arugments from both of you are not going to happend. I will nominate this article for deletion if the arugment keeps going on. I am montering it. I expect you to try to cleanup the article. If this keeps going on the page will be protected or Lapaz will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.-ForestH2

I'll have to think about how to clean it up next time I login. I hope more people will contribute in the meantime.Sarreau 22:45, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well as on May 5th, I will be checking the article for cleanup, for current time I will be working on another project about adminnstrators. Now, on May 5th, if the article is not cleaned up yet and it still has a lot of things needing to be fixed, the article will become a stub. If it gets any worse (false info etc.), the page is going to be protected. ForestH2

Sarreau, if your computer logs you out and you have no idea why post — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarreau (talk • contribs) instead. Here's mine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ForestH2 (talk • contribs)

Simply put it like mine above.

Your work was great on that page. It needs less cleaning up but I'm going to leave it there in case Lapaz does something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ForestH2 (talk • contribs)

Lapaz not talking on the talk page

If you look at Lapaz's contributions, he has really not editing much on the Contrant page ever since I tried to break up the argument. I recently gave Yells at Soup some useful pages and I suggest you look at them. The page is coming along nicely, I did some major cleanups just today and I think by tommorow when I determine wether or not this page still needs cleanup you'll hear the final word about this page. If Lapaz stays out of it don't ask him to come back in. Best Regards, ForestH2

thanks ForestH2. Lapaz came back when more people came in! The current (20:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC)) article is a bit more balanced and acceptable to me, though still have a few things to clean up. Rgds, Sarreau 20:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good. I thought that the final cleanup date was 5 May 2006 but I changed my mind. I think I should give you a couple more days...Monday or Tuesday? Let me know. Best Regards, ForestH2

well at that point I am not sure a "closing date" is so essential: user MartinRe suggested to try to reach an article with factual sections and "fact about opinions" sections, this will take some time! Anyway now is public holidays in here. Thanks for your following up!!Sarreau 08:48, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article is really coming along Sarreau....I think that once we've cleaned up most everything I am going to take the cleanup sign away. I like how the article's coming along. I think by tommorow I plan to may remove the cleanup sign. ForestH2

Wow! burden of proof

Wow! I'm impressed of that talk about me that's been going on! Anyhow, I provided a link for the burden of proof reversal. I hope you get to understand how Wikipedia works better, please do not confuse the fact that we have different political opinions with vandalism or with personal things. I suggest you have a look at the Hamas page to see how real conflict can erupt. Best regards, Lapaz 20:02, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism? Not really, I don't know about wikipedia wording for this kind of conflict, I feel it's more like not being responsible, and more like a mess. By the way, thanks for your link for burden of proof, but it leads to nowhere!Sarreau 00:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you talking about political opinions? I am really and honestly trying to make a balanced article, but obviously you won't agree on that. I have tried to write an organized, clear and balanced explanation of what CNE means and implies. I already spent hours on it, and I just didn't expect it would be such a hassle. Your way of heavily pouring negative comments on the CNE does not respect the idea of balanced article! If I did the same, I would just vomit lines reproducing all the "pros" about the CNE, including all the people who expressed support: the IMF, the employers and entrepreneurs, economists, and all the employees and unemployed who see positive consequences of it... It would double the size of the article, not its quality, and it would definitely not enlighten non-French readers. So in case you don't realize it, you are contributing to give a biased vision of something they don't know to non-French readers. I about to give up on it and on this wikipedia, the experience makes me realize its weaknesses, and efforts seem useless, so just be patient...Sarreau 00:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Read the Conseil d'Etat's decision. That's it. Find it. And stop with your silly "balancing" NPOV: NPOV doesn't means using weasel words and having 45 lines of praise words because opponents have 45 lines of arguing against it. If you have arguments for the CNE, then find them (I've just seen your comment above: if you have IMF, economists and other studies & things to put, then do it! I don't think you understand how Wikipedia works yet, and you're blaming it on me. That's not very serious from you. NPOV is a relative thing. L'objectivité, c'est les faits et l'analyze, pas les opinions! NPOV, ça veut dire les faits, des sources & des preuves. On a tous nos opinions personnelles et politiques, et ici il y a un sévère systemic bias en faveur des Américains, Canadiens et Australiens. C'est normal: ils parlent Anglais, et ils ont des ordinateurs. Mais tu crois qu'un Arabe il pense quoi quand il lit l'article Hamas, qui explique à peine qu'il y aurait peut-être l'ombre de causes politiques et sociales à son ascension? Qui ne dit rien sur la politique intérieure entre Palestiniens, et qui fait juste dire: c'est un méchant parti! La neutralité ne veut pas dire l'indifférence et la tiédeur, et la modération en politique ne veut pas nécessairement dire "centrisme". Voilà. Ne commence pas à dire que c'est de ma faute si l'article est "mauvais", tu es capable de l'éditer, et j'espère que t'as compris maintenant que la seule raison que j'ai inversé tes premiers changements, c'est pour la bonne raison que t'effaçais tout ce que j'écrivais, ce qui ne se fait absolument pas. SVP arrêtes de dire que je "déverse des commentaires négatifs" alors que je ne fais qu'inclure des arguments qui sont dans le Wikipédia français (montre moi en UN seul qui n'y est pas). Et souviens-toi d'une chose: quelle que soit l'importance ou la légitimité du CNE, en démocratie, on ne fait jamais les choses contre la majorité. Villepin a mis trois mois à le comprendre, c'est son problème, pas le mien. Lapaz 12:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HEY, COOL DOWN! here is my point: you are saying yourself it is your opinion! That's all I want you to write on the article: IT IS AN OPINION, that many share. THAT'S IT! I have nothing against those opinions, but they are opinions, it should be clear for all readers, particularly when they know nothing of the context! Don't forget how you rejected my "court favours employees", well, I am in the same position as you are for the "burden of proof" thing: it is an opinion, that many share. I think now you won't remove it, but you have to agree it is exactly the same problem! And I just want to write ONE LINE on it, just one small mention, not 30 lines. You told me yourself that one has to assume good faith from the other: please do it for me also! I don't think we need to be emotional on it, I don't think you are not in good faith, just following rules: the same for you and for me and for everybody. I don't think it is worth it if you get so emotional about it! Also note I did not remove your edits, though I find them irrelevant, I just discussed them! Sarreau 15:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sarreau, check the Contrant Nouvelle Embauche page. It's looks like you made a mistake and you should fix it or someone's going to revert your edits. ForestH2

thanks, it's done, I really have a hard time to cite references. Hey, I posted a technical question on your discussion page, do you have an answer??Sarreau 14:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Respond to the Message You Left me on My Talk Page

This history is going to show your IP adress, there's no way if your logged out for it to show your user name. When doing that I commenly suggest using the unsigned comment. As you most likely have noticed I sometimes post unsigned|ForestH2 with {{ around the unsigned and ForestH2. Or of course you can just post Sarreau which you have done. The reason why when I went to my talk page I didn't see it is you put in a category from when me and UKPaolo were talking. I hope you like how the article's coming along and if you'd like the cleanup sign back on just ask me or you can do it yourself. Now, when I'm editing I'm not logged out, it's just when I leave to go eat or something and I leave myself logged in, I come back I see the watchlist up at the top of my computer, click there and it says "No Items on your Watchlist" but that's for 72.129.123.139, who was me a while ago. I'm logging off in say 5 minutes so I'll check for your reply in about a half hour but then I won't return to Wikipedia as this is my day wikibreak until about 3:30pm Mountain Time ForestH2

"Mountain time"? that sounds nice. Thks for your comment. More than a "cleanup" sign, I think a more permanent "Controversial subject" sign would be relevant, I know there is one in the French wikipedia. I feel the article looks better and I will slow down edits there, but for the future it should be permanently stated in a sign that such article needs cautious reading.Sarreau 14:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm.I know what you mean it's just that I could create it although I don't know if I have time. I'm constantly checking but do you want to make a sign? ForestH2

"Caution should be taken when editing this article" Something like that? If you have a better idea post it here. Logging out now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ForestH2 (talk • contribs)

will check later. Maybe this does not exist in the English version. see youSarreau 15:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ForestH2, I could not find an equivalent in English wikipedia.Sarreau

ForestH2, I just edited to what I feel a much more balanced article, where "facts about opinion" are not mixed with facts, as much as I could. I don't see much to change in the current version, except new datas as time goes by.

However, I want to share this with you: I find that such article did not need to be so heavy. I felt I had to include a lot to balance it. This "weight" is particularly ridiculous given there has been mostly two editors so far, and given it is something very French that will only attract passionated French readers... I don't think I will edit again on Wikipedia, at least on such issues. I wonder if I was right to start it! Thanks for help anyway.

Can I ask from which mountain you follow this issue?Sarreau 12:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First things first. You don't think you want to edit Wikipedia again? That is ridicoulous. I know that MartinRe tried to reshape the article but he hasn't returned to make major edits since May 5th. I think that if you liked and were interested in the subject, you should have created it. And what do you mean from which mountain do you follow this issue?.....Also before you said there was another page you were editing or something like that you were having the same problem with Lapaz on that one. Which one was that? ForestH2

well, nothing serious:

mountain: just joking, you indicated earlier "mountain time", I was wondering where that was, basically I was wondering from where in the world someone was reading about the article, somehow it would have been a motivation.
I did like the subject, and I spent hours on this single article. I was a wikipedia reader of course, before I started editing in the First Employment Contract: I saw how emotionnal the article was, and impossible to understand for non-French. As one of my sources says, "United Kingdom or the US, where unemployment rates are lower but French-style job security is unknown". I worked both in the US and in France, and I know how true it is, there's a lot of wrong understandings, and issue that French just would not know about. I felt a fair and balanced article was necessary.
I first tried to edit some changes, then proposed issues on the discussion page, issues that I felt were not indicated at all. Until Lapaz himself replied and cooled me down. However he had a point, the contract was cancelled, I found there was no need to continue editing there. As I felt the CNE was a much more important contract, as it is in use and it is older, I started editing. But Lapaz came and it has been a hassle. Interesting experience, but too much time on that single issue.
I proposed earlier in the discussion to create more articles to clearly explain the French environment to non-French, but I now think it would be a war and I would have to spent hours on it... and I will be back to my daily job soon!Sarreau 22:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And maybe you noticed, Lapaz just added an accuracy dispute tag on the article... it looks like struggle will continue!Sarreau 22:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted Lapaz's edits. I read and edit in Boise, Idaho. Go ahead an edit this an I think I'm going to ask Lapaz directly why he keeps doing this and maybe ask him to focus on other stuff. Will you be able to edit after you go back to your job ForestH2

Idaho? wow. That's the magics of internet! I did not expect you to revert... well, we'll see how it goes! I don't want to complain too much about Lapaz, I really think he believes in what he does as much as I believe in my points. I'll be back to work next week. I will have time to do quick checkings, but not to do internet research or figure out how to balance things. Thanks for your help. Sarreau 23:30, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hope that you like how the article's coming along. As that's not my subject I won't edit it but it is on my watchlist so regarding and changes I will find out the changes and if I think are unneeded I will revert. Yes, I live in Idaho while in the winter from 10:30am-1:00pm, I'm a back countries men making sure no one's snowed in, lost, hurt etc. And you live in Paris?... ForestH2

well I found perfect sources and edited the best way I could so I'm quite OK with it for now, I'll be watching the article and following up about the CNE. "Backcountry man"? That's an environment I sometimes wish I lived in...I'm in international finance! Well I was born in a small town in France, but left it for greener pastures a long time ago. Job environment is a complicated issue in France, and I eventually had to find jobs and work several years overseas including in New York, but am now back in Paris, France. Have a nice day, ForestH2, nice to "meet" you!Sarreau 09:17, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see you live in Paris. Well actully I have to drive a long way to the mountains of Montana then get out go into the lodge based at the bottom of the Mountain, get my gear and then go out and then finnaly walk up the mountain and begin. In the summer I work at the nearby resturant as a waiter. I always thought about living in Paris, France. I learned to speak French last summer so I think I'll be good there. Maybe I'll live there someday. Hope you've had a nice time communicating with me and I will most likely send a couple more messages back to you but I am on a wikibreak so I don't know if I'll be able to respond right away. ForestH2

your current life is a dream for many overstressed parisians! Not interested in the Alps or Pyrenees? Enjoy your wikibreak!Sarreau 16:34, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I am.......In fact I am very interested in the Alps...... ForestH2

Contrat nouvelle embauche

Sorry, yes, I haven't had as much time as I'd like to help wth the above, but also I finding it quite difficult to be useful, due to my lack of French language and no knowledge of french employment law. Unfortunately with the recent debate about whether the burden of proof has/has not changed, all the sources are in french, so I'm feeling a little lost! (I was hoping that I could find some english sources to give me enough background to contribute usefully, but haven't found enough to give me confidence enough to make any significant factual changes) Have you tried posting at Wikipedia:France-related topics notice board to see if there any editors there than can join in, I imagine it's difficult with just two main editors, but you both seem to be doing well, with a lot of discussion on the talk page. Regards, MartinRe 23:41, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hi MartinRe, thanks for your reply. Well it's quite hard to talk "factually" about this subject even in French. My personal understanding after all those checkings is that everything lies in the side of the Labour law courts. Therefore my insistance in saying "they usually side the employee", as I think that's the current situation - reflected by a few articles. The CNE being only a way to keep employers away from the courts and give them confidence to hire (I take all this as a current FACT, but impossible to "prove" a wikipedian way). The other editor apparently did not react to the last source I gave, so I guess he's ok with the current version. Regards,Sarreau 08:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not Editing

Haven't seen you since the 16th. I knew you were back to your job but have you completly stopped editing? Just wanted to check in, see how you were doing... My signature changed by the way. ForestH2 ^{(discuss | contribs)}

hi there, I have been quite busy since may and it is gonna last for a while, so I just basically check once in a while any news about the CNE thing in France, there's supposed to be some official statistics out this month. Given presidential race is on the start, you can expect that action will be back on the subject! But I'm still here! thks for your concern! Sarreau 18:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sarreau, I haven't seen Lapaz for a while too. The uh..Contrant Novuelle Emachue article, well I think it might be time to remove the dispute banner as nothing's happend to it since you left besides a bot (Cmdrbot) checking some spelling. When a Wikipedia user who I know suddenly stops editing, I start to wonder where they are. Well, just checking in and I also think you ought to get a talk and contributions link to your signature. I'm going on a long wikibreak next week so I might not be editing for about two weeks! ForestH2 ^{(discuss | contribs)} 01:47, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello? ForestH2 t/c 14:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hey ForestH2. Just lack of time these days. Need a job break! Sarreau 22:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]