User talk:Mezigue

Ian McDiarmid

Hi. I meant to say "subjective" view. Doesn't really matter to me if it stays, but in the current structure it reads as a commentary on McDiarmid's performance, rather than as an adjective describing the character, which is what I think the intent is. Take care. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:23, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello. Well I have explained my reasoning on the talk page there. To be honest it hadn't occured to me the phrase could be misread that way. Mezigue (talk) 15:31, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

You're a Hipster with an agenda

Stop reverting the genres of well known Goth bands like Bauhaus just because you don't like looking at the facts. I did a reference cite of Rolling Stone magazine to prove to you it's a Goth band and yet you keep changing it back, even when I used my cite in the page. Stop acting like a "just got out of your emo phase" trust fund child and start looking at references that existed when the band was together (unlike Alltalk which gets second hand information and gets it wrong). You claim to "use the talk page" to get consensus, but you never contribute to it's discussion, you don't actually go by the talk page yourself and just revert willynilly, and the talk page on Bauhaus has no one there arguing to change that band's genre from Goth to 'post-punk' (but as I said, you ignore that and just revert, revert, revert). Post-punk can be a secondary genre as listed, but if you claim that Bauhaus has more than one genre (like folk rock, which I think is silly to say) than list them all and don't stick to just "post-punk".

Hi there. Actually Bauhaus were a post-punk band exploring various styles and things (rock'n'roll, glam rock, dub etc...) They weren't a goth band because the genre did not exist then, though they helped bring it into existence. That is why they are described as a post-punk band and it's the primary genre in the infobox - it makes both musical and chronological sense. All this is explained in the article; you should read it as it's quite interesting. (It's in the "musical style" section quite down in the article, so you'll need to use the arrow keys on your keyboard to reach it.) All the best getting on in life hurling hilariously random insults at people. Mezigue (talk) 00:10, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Bullshit. Bauhaus was a Goth band. Their style was tounge-in-cheek as with their first song Bella Lugosi's Dead, not intentionally outrageous that Glam bands/singers like David Bowie, Alice Cooper, or Kiss were. They created the style of the Goth scene by dressing in black outfits and capes, driving around in a hearse (called the Bauhausmobile), and singing in a droning fashion with introverted lyrics ("Hollow Hills", "In The Flat Field", "Dark Entites", etc); making them the first Goth band as they invented the style and the sound. Many Goths like Peter Murphy came to laugh at themselves for how silly we look, but we still remained who we are and enjoyed that style and sound. Can you even define what a "post-punk" band style sounds like? Bauhaus wasn't exploring anything (name one song of theirs that's a "Folk Song" to you and I can easily contradict that), they were designing the music that came to be known as Goth, in where various people decided to derive Bauhaus' style and appearances into their personal lives which started the Gothic subculture. It doesn't make music and chronological sense when you completely ignore the reference I use (Rolling Stone magazine, reference #29) and use this "quite down in the article" that you don't even reference the number of which one you use to push your false opinion (I assume it's "Alltalk" which as I said to you MANY TIMES, that Alltalk was not in existence when Bauhaus was). If insulting you is the only way to get your attention, then I welcome it instead you just mindlessly reverting the page to what you pretend what a band's genre is that an entire Gothic subculture was formed from. Besides, I have met many like you, pretending you know things you don't while congregating in places like The Cake Shop (where good people like Henry Rollins took the piss out of people like you there, there's a Youtube video showing that); doing things like smelling bad while standing in the middle of a Goth club in the middle of the dance floor standing a circle with your friends, critiquing the club and the patrons to each other instead of dancing or getting out of the way of the Goths who came there to enjoy the music and not be "more alternative than thou" pretentious douchebags sucking down another Pabst Blue Ribbon beer. I may not know what you look like, but I have a good feeling if your male you're probably sitting there in plaid flannel shirt, skinny jeans, Chuck Taylor shoes, sporting a woodsman beard, and several tattoos on your arms which "mean something" but in actuality are contradictory tattoos that look like white noise when all grouped together; if female you probably have Betty Page bangs and use the word "Rockabilly" to describe yourself alot along with the white noise tattoos. I despise people like you because you redefine everything to make it more "alternative", as if it has to be. If you're going to call bands like Bauhaus "post-punk" (because you have the wrong idea that they were exploring genres, despite their first song being still considered the Goth anthem with how it was played and sung), then why not everything after punk be called "post-punk"? Why don't we call grunge, hip-hop, industrial, edm, electronica, new wave, and others all "post-punk"? If Bauhaus is "post-punk" and not Goth as you claim, why doesn't their first song sound like Joy Division or other bands created before Bauhaus that's apparently described as "post-punk"? Why does their first song have a style all of it's own and why do other songs in their discography match their first song in either style or lyrics? But I am sure your answer to all this will be "fuck this guy" because no matter polite or rude as fuck, you'll still easily click your mouse to revert whatever I change it too on Wikipedia despite not being able to change Rolling Stone magazine's assessment of Bauhaus from first hand knowledge (as well as the entire Goth subculture's knowledge of Bauhaus).

I am sorry to hear that someone smelly came to your disco, but it wasn't me.Mezigue (talk) 08:57, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Well if you do come to any Goth club I attend or any other club (even a disco, if they still exist somewhere), just make sure you shower and use soap and deodorant. As for the band Bauhaus, I have consensus already on the talk page and I am using proper references, don't revert it anymore without creating a discussion on the talk page and see if you can gain consensus that Bauhaus is a different genre than what they are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.143.151 (talk) 05:52, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

No you don't. Mezigue (talk) 08:34, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

You should change that to "No, I don't" unless you specifically want to point out which reference you are using for your opinions. And don't say "in the article" because if you specifically mean "in the Wikipedia article about Bauhaus" that just means that someone typed it (could have even meant that you typed it) and if it doesn't refer to a cited source (doesn't your extensive bullshit that you spout about Wikipedia include "no original research"?) then it's useless. Tell me what the cited source is and I'll consider it, I may reject the source as unreliable but at least you'll give me SOMETHING to look at outside of an easily modified Wikipedia article. You never look at the Talk page of Bauhaus (otherwise you would see that I do have consensus), you're just a Hipster with a very wrong opinion about something and don't want to admit that you're wrong. You know there are Hipster bands out there with incomprehensible music out there that you could troll the pages of to make sure they're known as "more alternative than thou", instead of changing the genres of very well known and established bands simply because Wikipedia allows you to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.143.151 (talk) 04:36, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I am not sure you understand what "consensus" means. As the article details Bauhaus were a post-punk band experimenting with a number of styles. They are one of the progenitors of goth rock but came before it really existed. As such it makes more sense to describe them in the lede as post-punk and to put that genre first in the infobox. The fact that this somehow exacerbates your personal frustrations and grudges is neither here nor there. Mezigue (talk) 08:47, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Well you certainly have no idea of what "consensus" is, nor what the idea of "reference" is. The article says what the article says because someone typed it in, as I said before YOU could have typed that in and then claim "consensus" because it's "in the article" despite NO ONE in the talk page claiming it's a Post Punk band, nor a reference from a separate website, book, or other researched and published source claiming as such. You are the only one claiming that Bauhaus is a Post-Punk band primarily and not a Goth Rock band primarily. Do you even know how stupid you sound claiming Bauhaus was one of the bands that started Goth, yet also apparently wasn't really a Goth band because the scene wasn't around yet? No band (except for a Hipster band it seems) that does their own style and pretty much invents a new genre of music names it outright themselves. You didn't hear the Ramones or The Sex Pistols going on stage and saying "This is called Punk music and I hope you as the audience likes it.", they played their music people liked it and a scene formed around it that eventually got a name, but the bands that started it are still called Punk bands primarily, not "post-garage band" or "post-disco" or something silly like that despite being some of the progenitors to the scene. I again ask to see your references but I think you know your references are bunk and keep referring to the easily edited/reverted Wikipedia article as your "proof". It's only personal in that you and people like you take something long established like the Goth scene and try to redefine it for either no reason or for some of you Hipsters, try to claim something in the past as your own "original idea" or something you "discovered" and then try to make money off of upping the price from what it was in the past (like Vinyl records). I hope your kind dies out one day after people discover they don't have to be "More alternative than thou" pretentious douchebag Hipsters, but can go back to enjoying things for the sake of enjoying it and not trying to make a quick buck off of some "quirky" thing they are selling for more than it's actually worth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.143.151 (talk) 19:08, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Unnecessary detail

... in the entry about Harry Potter (Character). Please explain. The extant entry says Cho Chang betrays the DA in the film, whereas (a) she was under the influence of a truth drug, and (b) she fought in the end battle in the Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. So, (a) she did not betray the DA, it was forced out of her, and (b) a traitor would be nowhere to be seen in the final battle, and Cho Chang was. Then add (c) It was around 100 characters added to a lengthy article, and did not alter the shape or style, so I disagree about it being too much detail, and finally (d)the statement I altered was simply incorrect, so whether it was short or long is irrelevant. WillE (talk) 21:37, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

It is completely unnecessary and off-topic in the article about the character of Harry as it is not directly relevant to him. The fact that the article is lengthy to start with is exactly the problem. You add a few irrelevant words, another user adds a few more etc... and we end up retelling the whole saga in an article about a character. Mezigue (talk) 22:13, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I sense it will be pointless arguing with you. WillE (talk) 22:51, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

BUT - the reference to Chang betraying the DA is wrong, and not in the books anyway, so I have deleted that. Now that is a reduction to the article so you should be dancing in the streets. WillE (talk) 22:55, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

To avoid an edit war over Tintin in Tibet

Hi Mezigue, good to be chatting with you again. I put back the synopsis (perhaps that is the only section you read?) into the article Tintin in Tibet (which I took to FA) to the state before your edit for the reasons below, which summarize to: I'm sorry, but I didn't think your edit was an improvement. I mean no disrespect. Can you bear with me while I explain?

• Replacing "Concerned," with "After learning that the young man was indeed on the plane," — I can of course see why you thought this was an improvement, as it clarifies that Tintin didn't rush off half-cocked, but instead had proof that his friend Chang was on the flight that crashed. However, the reason I believe the simpler version is an improvement is because we don't need to go into unnecessary detail. A synopsis is mostly there to help readers who haven't read the story make sense out of the rest of the article, which goes on to discuss what lead to the story's creation. We're not there to tell the whole story. It feels clunky to read that clarifying statement. It just takes too long to communicate such a small payoff. Think about how much of this kind of detail we have left out of the synopsis already. I briefly considered keeping the a cut down version of this clarification before realizing it really isn't critical; we need to get on with the story.
• Deleting the word "mysterious" before the words "Yeti tracks" — I originally added this word because it succinctly sets the stage for an unusual new character's introduction. These are no ordinary animal tracks. I felt that, if it were possible to do so, we need to know that there is something odd about these tracks. While an added word comes with a cost, and I certainly applaud any editor who can trim a word and still allow the sentence to keep the same meaning, the added cost is only one word and I think the cost is worth it to help the reader with the big reveal that is coming. When I added this same word to the article lead it was to deliberately reflect its position here.
• Replacing "arriving" with "They arrive" — This one is fairly straightforward. The new edit redundantly repeats the beginning of the sentence word "They" twice in two sentences. We always want to avoid redundancy like that. Breaking the sentence into two isn't particularly necessary either. Yes, it is a long sentence, but it is not at all unusual to have long sentences in a synopsis to keep the action flowing quickly.
• Replacing "the flash bulb of Tintin's camera is accidentally set off, scaring the Yeti into fleeing" with "the Yeti accidentally sets off the flash bulb of his camera, and runs away scared" — Evidently you believe that the Yeti is the one who pushed the button on the camera, and you feel it is important to clarify this. Apparently you also believe it is the Yeti's camera. It is Tintin's camera, so we should definitely not say "the Yeti accidentally sets off the flash bulb of his camera". As for which one of them set it off after the Yeti lunges, we truly don't know which one of them it was. We see that they Yeti lunges and we see the flash bulb is set off. It is more likely that Tintin pushed the button actually, but rather than pin it on either of them as if we know this, I found a way to say it without getting into something as unimportant as who set it off. Ending the sentence with the word "scared" seems amateurish to me. It's an amateurish-sounding word and it seems to end the sentence with a thud. Let's not leave that word languishing in the reader's mind while they get to the next sentence.

Thanks for sitting through that. While I am not absolutely adamant about keeping the text of the article the way it was, I can certainly tell you that I have been over and over this article with a fine-toothed comb, and dozens of highly-respected Wikipedia editors have also, copy editing the hell out of this article on its journey through GA and then FA. They must have felt that it was in good condition. If you could, please see if you agree with the points I make above. Thanks for understanding. Best, Prhartcom (talk) 18:50, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello Prhartcom (talk · contribs). No offence taken at all but I will also explain myself and disagree partly.

• I think you understood my point well, and I also strive to make summaries succint but felt this was a necessary explanation. I don't insist on it.
• It seems to me that "mysterious Yeti tracks" is an oxymoron: if the tracks are identified, then they are not mysterious. In fact, peeping at the book I see that they have a dispute at this point over whose tracks they are. How about something like "The porters abandon the group in fear when unusual tracks—the Yeti's—are found"?
• I broke the next sentence to avoid a possible confusion: your sentence can be understood as "they are scared of freezing as they arrive". I also don't insist on it.
• Sorry but this one is where I really cannot agree: your phrase is a grammatical mess and I am not impressed by the dozens of highly-respected editors who let it through. Your version tells us —via the medium of dangling modifier—that the flash bulb lunges at Tintin! The construction is plain wrong. By contrast the mistake you perceived in my sentence is imaginary. "His" can, grammatically, refer to either the Yeti or Tintin and it is logically obvious which it is. If you are really worried that someone will think the Yeti carries a camera, then let's shift things around, as the previous sentence is wonky anyhow. How about "The Yeti, revealed as a large anthropoid, suddenly appears and lunges angrily at Tintin, but flees when the latter's camera flash bulb accidentally goes off" ? Otherwise please make another suggestion, but "Lunging at Tintin, the flash bulb..." simply has to go... Mezigue (talk) 19:50, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, Mezigue! I'm so glad we respect each other enough to talk about this.

• I'll start with the last point first: You clearly feel strongly about it. In that case, before I had read any more of your explanation, I already felt that any strong feelings means I really must agree that we should change it. Especially since I now see what you mean about the dangling modifier: "Lunging at Tintin, the flash bulb"! And I actually typed this before I read to the end of your above reply where you spell out this phrase also, so that shows how much I'm tracking with you. So let's fix it! "The latter"? No way, that's awful. And I looked briefly at the previous sentence in the paragraph that you directed me to, but I don't think we should tinker with it; I think we should fix this problem in a focused way, ensuring we are not accidentally breaking anything else. I think I remember that this currently bad sentence was changed late in the grueling process, after other editors approved the text. I remember it always said, "Tintin sets off the flash bulb of his camera, scaring the Yeti into fleeing." (I think we got into a late discussion about who set it off.) Let me know if you think we should revert to that, as it reads quite well. I just now came up with other two simple fixes, one of which attributes the flash bulb to the Yeti, as you wanted. "Lunging at Tintin, the yeti accidentally sets off the flash bulb of Tintin's camera, scaring it into fleeing." Or: "It lunges at Tintin as the flash bulb of Tintin's camera is accidentally set off, scaring the yeti into fleeing." (I think I like that last one.) What do you think?
• For your first point, it is an explanation, but not a necessary one. I want to agree with you and include it, believe me. I just have a stronger urge to keep the synopsis as tight as possible. It's fine, no one will be utterly confused while reading it; they will get the idea. I think the most that will happen is someone will think we left some of the story out, which we certainly did!
• When you said, "'mysterious Yeti tracks' is an oxymoron", you convinced me. It's simply unarguable statement. I looked at your suggestion and I think I found an even simpler fix. What do you think: "The porters abandon the group in fear when mysterious tracks are found". Or possibly "animal tracks". Or "footprints". What do you think?
• I think they are afraid of freezing as they arrive within sight of the monastery. I don't see a problem. By the way, until quite recently it used to end with, "before collapsing from exhaustion" until someone recently changed that to "before being caught in an avalanche." Both work equally well, but of course the avalanche one is more accurate and therefore better.

Let me know your thoughts. Prhartcom (talk) 22:11, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I just made some changes to the article per above. Thanks again for this discussion; I believe I now possess a higher awareness of the dangling modifier! Best, Prhartcom (talk) 21:49, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

MH370 - "However"

Hi, Mezigue. You may want to know that a discussion takes place in the talk page of the Malaysian MH370 main article regarding the "However" that User:John removed and you keep reverting. I would propose to stop changing/reverting until consensus is reached there. Rentzepopoulos (talk) 16:30, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Haile Selassie

Thanks. That was Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Til Eulenspiegel/Archive who pretty much hates me as you will have gathered. Doug Weller talk 13:14, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Haile Selassie I

Do you realize that you are witnessing against your self and against your own life that it was you who spread lies about Haile Selassie I on this Earth, because the Truth ALWAYS comes out in the end. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.2.150 (talk) 14:42, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Can't say that I do. Mezigue (talk) 15:08, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

La Marseillaise and IP user

take a look H₂O^(talk) 20:37, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

About Marseillaise

I am not inventing anything: I'm just citing sources. You are rolling back and deleting sources, so you should be blocked, not me. Wikipedia is open to everybody want to contribute citing sources. Consensus is not the voice of deLisle's friends alliance. Please stop deleting sources. Thanks--93.35.217.105 (talk) 12:59, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

I have not accused you of inventing anything. I am asking you - and so are three other editors - to stop promoting a fringe theory as if it were an accepted historical truth. Wikipedia is open to everybody that wants to contribute, but citing sources, while necessary, is not the only requirement. So are a collaborative attitude and an adherence to neutral point of view. Mezigue (talk) 13:04, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not promoting anything. I don't care about Rimonda, or Viotti, or deLisle. I've just studied that subject and I'd like to contribute, but I find the voice blocked by few "french-centric" editors that prevent any contribution, continuously delete sources applying wild roll-backing. The Viotti's "Tema e Variazioni La Marsigliese", is not a fringe theory, but an existing musical work. I've sourced it enough, I hope. So, I urge you to be more collaborative and constructive. Thanks.--93.35.217.105 (talk) 13:41, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes you are. Obviously you are! I don't think you understand the terminology here: I am not calling the piece of music a theory - what would that even mean? However it is a fringe theory that Rouget de Lisle took the melody from this work. It is not generally accepted by historians. Perhaps one day it will be, and Wikipedia will reflect this then. For now, you are pushing a fringe theory and edit-warring. Mezigue (talk) 13:46, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

You are going too far! I didn't add in the article that deLisle took the melody from Viotti's musical work, but I just add that the author of the music is highly debated and is existing one musical work of Viotti that probably has been created eleven years before deLisle's Marseillaise. I hope I was clear. Thanks--93.35.217.105 (talk) 13:57, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

You did repeatedly add that Viotti is the author, which means that Rouget de Lisle took it from him since he used it in this song. For all I know it is possible but this is not generally recognised by historians, so your "probably" is misleading. Mezigue (talk) 14:00, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

My probably is just for the year (1871). The author is highly debated: that's the historical reality. --93.35.217.105 (talk) 14:08, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

You (we) can not hide this historical truth.--93.35.217.105 (talk) 14:11, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Morgoth

Hi. You reverted my edition without any reason. I have put a picture in and made a language link to the German article, why is that a problem??! There is no independent article about Morgoth in the German Wikipedia, so I had to link to a paragraph below. This is a common habit on the international wikipedia agenda. If you don't believe me, check it out on the Sauron article. --12:43, 30 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.104.197.78 (talk)

Alan Rickman

Dear Mezigue,

I apologise with utmost sincerity for my accidental vandalism of Alan Rickman's page. It was definitely not my intention to vandalise the page - I merely wanted to add to it. I knew that the source I picked was unreliable, but there was no information of his funeral online, so I had to ask some fans since they're the ones that find out everything about their favourite celebrities. I was in a discussion with some Alan Rickman fans in a Facebook group a few days ago and asked them if they knew about his funeral since I couldn't find any information online. They replied to me and one of them sent a picture of the invite to his funeral, which took place at the West London Crematorium in Kensal Green Cemetery. I used the information from the invite to back up my evidence. At least three fans told me that Rima Horton (Alan's widow) retained the ashes after his cremation, so I regarded it as truth. I only wanted the information of his funeral because I thought it would add to the article. I am deeply sorry for any trouble or rule-breaking I may have caused and I promise to pick more reliable sources in the future.

P.S. I created the "People who were cremated" category after noticing Simple English Wikipedia had it, but not the main Wikipedia. I thought this category could be helpful since not all people are buried when they die (the "all people are buried after they die" stereotype is one I want to break). Unfortunately, I have no experience in HTML editing, so I had to create the category by adding it onto his page (and the pages of a few other famous cremated people e.g. Marc Bolan). That itself was not an intended act of vandalism, just a shining example of a lack of HTML knowledge. I apologise for unintended vandalism yet again.

Yours truly,

Lembowman — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lembowman (talk • contribs) 21:31, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Woah woah woah, no one said anything about vandalism! I am sure you acted in good faith; it's just that Wikipedia has strict verifiability rules. What you wrote is probably true, but only things that can be verified go into articles. (I am also not sure it is anyone's business where the late Mr Rickman's ashes are to be honest.) All the best. Mezigue (talk) 21:52, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

An unexpected Journey

Just curious as to what you meant by "out of control linkage". Warnphoenix (talk) 11:22, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Was it your edit? You shouldn't put a different link on each word, e.g. first name then last name of a person, and there is no need to link to names that are already linked to earlier in the article, as with Peter Jackson. The basics are here: MOS:LINK. All the best. Mezigue (talk) 13:05, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Yeah thanks for the advice i just want to add to these sort of pages with information from director commentary and the appendices. Although it has been completly removed now, Many thanks. Warnphoenix (talk) 18:23, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Doctor Who alternate timeline, parallel universe, worlds, etc.

To clarify, are you trying to say that "alternate timeline" in general is a more comprehensible way of explaining the type of stories set on a similar-but-with-different-outcomes Earth to non-fans than "parallel universe"? Because if so, would that possibly mean that references to the world in "Rise of the Cybermen" and "The Age of Steel" and where Rose is stranded for a time from "Doomsday" also be called this or at least have the phrasing further up on e.g. Rose Tyler's page tweaked to something else? TardisTybort (talk) 15:03, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

RE: Ron Weasley

How is it inappropriate? You're engaging in an edit-war without subsequently giving any real reasoning as to why. Like I said, your link says nothing about Harry/Ron being brothers-in-law so if you wanted to say what you just said right now, you could have said it earlier and saved both of us the trouble and we could work together to keeping the article in good shape. On a sidetone, what I don't get is how you can say Ron has no children throughout the saga, and then say they [appear]. Deathly Hallows in its entirety is part of the saga. He has children in the series. The epilogue is part of the series. Just because the quantity isn't up to your standards doesn't exactly mean it's fair to say he doesn't have any. I don't know how else to describe it. I appreciate you finally taking the time to talk about it. -- S ^talk/_contribs 16:13, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Doctor Who (series 9)#Episode Groupings

I would like to invite you to contribute to a discussion on whether or not "The Girl Who Died" and "The Woman Who Lived" and "Heaven Sent" and "Hell Bent" are two-parters. Over the course of 3 weeks and 2 discussions, few editors have contributed, so it would be a great help if you could take the time to contribute. Fan4Life (talk) 18:21, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Benny Hill

We have a problem with addresses because of the structure of the U.S., where the same names have been used many times, as with Springfield, Massachusetts and Springfield, Illinois. Each state however makes sure that there is not more than one of a particular name within its boundaries. For this reason Americans always write the country after a place-name, thinking that that will disambiguate it, as for example Boston, England. This is of course useless, as there is a Boston in Lincolnshire and another in Yorkshire. Switzerland is not a state of the Union: if you wish to clarify where it is located, it helps to specify the canton, not the confederation (CH), which in any case has already been mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.13.217.108 (talk) 01:09, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Harry's Place

Hello I see you warned an user called Calcoform about his edits to this page for not being neutral. Please can you keep an eye on this page because he has inserted the same material from weak self-published sources back in, and his general comments on the talk page and summaries are problematic and not in good spirit — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.99.144 (talk) 01:00, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I do keep an eye on that page, but things do slip by sometimes. Mezigue (talk) 07:52, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Why is it editorialising on my part?

I am just going by the definition provided by various dictionaries online, and I'm not the only one who does that. I just noticed that a lot of people use the term 'canon' wrongly; I was just trying to clarify. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.248.46.114 (talk) 16:49, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

It is editorialising to say that people often use the term wrongly. Bear in mind that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia rather than a dictionary. Mezigue (talk) 16:58, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

So, you're equalizing consensus with truth? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.248.46.114 (talk) 17:05, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

When the subject is language, there is no absolute truth separate from usage. "Canon" for instance is originally a religous term but it has been used long enough in a literary sense that there is now an article on this topic. This article is on the phenomenon and its perception rather than a dictionary article about the word "canon". Mezigue (talk) 17:09, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Okay, but the thing is just, canon and continuity are not the same concept, and I think it is important to clarify that. By no means do I want to offend anybody with that, hell no. It should just be noted that canon doesn't equal continuity and vise versa. 91.248.46.114 (talk) 17:21, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Darth Vader#Appearances section

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Darth Vader#Appearances section. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 09:00, 25 September 2016 (UTC)Template:Z48

Dieudonne M'bala M'bala

Um...excuse me but your revert was obviously NOT justified. It is a fact that his gas chamber joke about the journalist was in response to said journalist calling him a sick brain. It is a fact that several black as well as other public figures support him. It is a fact he was invited to the Just For Laughs Festival in Montreal. It is a fact that his tickets sold out quickly with little publicity. It is a fact that the B'nai B'rith intervened to ensure he would not be able to attend the festival. Further, please explain how Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Liberation, Nouvel Obs are dubious sources for you to delete. Of course, judging from the Osgoode Hall Law School page it is clear that no one hear actually adheres to any rules and that admins just delete things based on their personal issues. Am I to assume you are the same or is there a valid reason for the revert?MortWill (talk) 01:59, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

No your edit was textbook POV-pushing. The dubious source is Counterpunch. Mezigue (talk) 08:58, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Gnomes (South Park)

I undid your revert in the article Gnomes (South Park) (you also removed a similar contibution by user Ronelsax). The reason you state is that it is impossible for a 1998 episode to make a reference to a 2016 event. It is of course the other way around: in a 2016 event, Elon Musk made a cultural reference during his talk to this specific South Park episode (as confirmed by the New York Times source I added).

BioGeek (talk) 10:25, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Darth Vader article

Hi. Regarding the Darth Vader article, I think we should try to work this article out for a potential GA. While I've contacted other users and WT:FILM to help weigh in on discussions that I've created at Talk:Darth Vader such as the depiction section and I've nominated it for peer review, can you give me any thoughts on how to improve the article on the talk page? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:15, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Mezigue. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)