User talk:Frania Wisniewska/Archive 2

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Talk:Prince Louis, Duke of Anjou

Latest comment: 13 years ago8 comments2 people in discussion

Are you trying to archive Talk:Prince Louis, Duke of Anjou? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 02:01, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello? Why are you removing the information from the Talk page? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 02:04, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I have restored the headers which you have improperly removed twice. You do know that removal of Talk page comments is considered vandalism, don't you? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 02:05, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

And I fixed the archiving which you so poorly messed up. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 02:09, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

You blanked it twice. You weren't trying to archive? I can't fix it, it will lose the edit history, we'll have to ask an admin to move it back. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 02:23, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Everard Proudfoot,

As I was sending an answer on the talk page, my computer crashed (a planté). After it came back to life & when I returned to the page, I noticed the whole thing had been wiped out. As I was trying to undo my previous revision, you must have been also working on it, because I met an "edit conflict" - then you sent me a couple of msgs.

Anyway, I was not trying to archive anything nor to mess up: my computer went nuts.

I just checked the talk page & noticed that you archived it. Would you mind "unarchiving" because we are in the middle of a discussion on whether to move the article or not.

Sorry for this.

--Frania W. (talk) 02:21, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I've asked for help on WP:AN. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 02:26, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Where did I ever say you were a vandal? Like I said, I can't fix it, I've asked for help from an admin. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 02:38, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Lions, Tigers, Monarchists, OH MY!

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

[1]

Mon Dieu! Would that mean this red-neck Kansan is a monarchist?? --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:42, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

À l'attention de JHvW

Latest comment: 13 years ago18 comments2 people in discussion

I shall respect your desire of not receiving msgs on your talk page; however, feel free to write on mine.

Cordialement, --Frania W. (talk) 20:37, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

If you wish to know my thoughts on Charlotte Corday you can still find them here. Be sure to scroll all the way down to the bottom of the page, you are free to copy my theory and use it as if it were your own. If you wish to leave a message there, I believe you are intelligent enough to find out how (a bit like an Easter Egg hunt). In the past ten years I have made many edits and have written many articles. An educated guess would be that more than half has already been deleted. And that was staying out of mainstream articles.

Now I can at least focus on work, drink beer (or wine) and watch Top Gear. Unfortunately my brains have been a bit of chair à pâté recently and I should not be using them for the Wikipedia.

And as you requested I have removed your remarks, just as you are free to edit this.

Je vous souhaite et laisse la paix.

--JHvW (talk) 20:58, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Merci pour votre réponse et aurevoir - which I always write in one word, ma fantaisie !.

Pour moi, un bon médoc et du champagne.

--Frania W. (talk) 21:11, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

C'est dommage, a coté d'être pharmacist je suis aussi negociant des vins, particulièrement du nouveau monde. J'aime aussi des vins d'Alsace.

Peut-être il-y-a des Médocs dans ma cave, mais dans la frigidaire seulement crémant et cap classique.

Santé

--JHvW (talk) 22:04, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh la la! Un bordeaux rouge ne se met pas au frigidaire: température ambiante. [2]

À votre santé et bon appétit !

--Frania W. (talk) 22:33, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Non, non, j'espère que les Médocs sont dans la cave (température environs 9°C), pour mûrir (to mature, I thought "mûrir" was maturing as in ripening of fruit).

Les vins mousseux sont dans la frigo (température environs 7°C).

Or as we would say in French class, just to annoy our teacher: Le singe est sur Maman et Papa est dans l'arbre.

Next week my American neighbour will come back from her holiday.

If the weather is fine we will sit in my garden and eat foie gras (unfortunately from a tin can, or is a can always a tin can?), eat roasted brioche and drink Monbazillac. What a rotten life, heh.

Another naughty bit of Wikipedia trivia. In the article on sparkling wine which I have referenced above, it is clearly stated that Champagne can only be called Champagne in restricted regions. A court has also ruled that the term "methode champagnoise" is illegal when referring to wines that are not Champagne. Yet in the article on sparkling wines, the Wikipedia repeatedly refers to sparkling wine as wine made using the Champagne method!

Mon dieu, it is fun not being serious all the time, I think I will start writing for the Unwikipedia. --JHvW (talk) 23:10, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

What is great about making mistake(s) with food is that you can always try again... and again... and again until you flip the crêpes perfectly without sending them on the kitchen wall, do not "overheat" the bordeaux wine by leaving it too close to the flame when setting the bottle by the fireplace (my grandmother did it!) or use confectioner sugar in lieu of flour to make a roux (my husband did: my fault as I keep everything in unmarked glass jars!)

Is not there the same type of problem with making "camembert" outside of France as there is with the "méthode champegnoise" for California champaign ?

Wikipedia is a world of its own peopled with an "arc-en-ciel" of individuals - just like in the Paris metro: while some want to push you under the train, others come to the rescue.

--Frania W. (talk) 23:44, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

When "Tiramisu" became popular, I tried making it myself. I asked the girl in the cheesestore (I thought that would be the place, I wanted the good stuff) for Mascarpone. She gave me Magor (you probably know that that is a mixture of Mascarpone and Gorgonzola, little did I know), so I made Tiramisu (or so I thought). My friends were very polite and said it was "interesting" but it tasted very different from what I was expecting. A few days later a friend of mine offered me some toast with Magor (!) on it. You can imagine my surprise.

People in the Wikipedia could say that your article is interesting and then ask serious questions. But recently I wrote an article, which was first edited beyond recognition and then the same editor restored the article using the same references only leaving out what was not interesting (in the mind of the editor). I would like to believe that there is a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, but I think I know better. Fortunately there are good people in the world, I have met very few in the Wikipedia. Now I am going to sleep, bonne nuit. --JHvW (talk) 00:11, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Same here. And when you check this in the morning, it may be gone - a bot clears my page quite often now - but feel free to watch my page once in a while in case I leave you a note. Bonne nuit!

--Frania W. (talk) 00:54, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

If you click here you can see a little film I made.

Now I am going to do other things. Keep smiling, it's good for you, you know! --JHvW (talk) 12:29, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Dear Frania,

Of course I know that you are French. You have said that you have a husband. I am traditional, so I assume you are female. Your name is Wisniewska, which sounds Polish, there are many great Poles, that have lived in France, that I admire: Fryderyk Chopin, Marie Skłodowska Curie, Xawery Dunikowski and many more. But do not so get excited. The way you write English can be seen as being a bit self-righteous. I do not care. I think women are equal to men but there are differences. If it need be I will argue facts with you. The way you express yourself does not alter my point of view, but I will weigh your arguments for what they are worth. Sometimes you may be right, other times I will feel that you are wrong. We are probably very different. We are certainly from different cultures. In my culture I am considered to be very different but it is also seen as a good thing. But we both want to improve the Wikipedia and I guess we are both passionate about Charlotte Corday (although she died more than 200 years ago). But I am also a romantic and lighthearted person. Although I am a scientist I do not give a rat's arse about what anybody thinks (that is American English meaning that I am very sure of myself if I believe something to be true). The editor that has a beef with you (that is American for not agreeing with you) continually keeps getting his facts wrong. No wonder you are upset about his changes. I agree with you. And then we get this discussion about the MoS (nobody seems to wonder why I refer to it as "Manual"). Good grief. We have spoken about of many things, such as the Romanov's and the war. But let this one go.

These administrators and editors do not have to know that we know a little about each other. It just clouds the issues. We both feel that we are right. They have the MoS on their side. Let's move on, even if it is not right. This is a battle we will lose in the end. Let's use our energy in a more constructive way. And be happy!

The editor that does not agree with you, has the support of an administrator. That editor is probably stupid. You are obviously not. Be sure of yourself, but know which battles to fight. Then there is also the principle of statistics. You cannot always be wrong, even in the view of an administrator. Concentrate on the important issues. If you need my help, you know where to find me. But by now you should also know that I will weigh your arguments before agreeing. Unforunately you are not always right and I say this with a smile on my face.

Soyez prudent. Pensez d'un Arc-en-Ciel. Quiettez-vous. Et souriez. Je vous souhaite une bonne vie.

JHvW

JHvW,

Mon Dieu! et je croyais être parfaite! And, please, allow me to smile at what you wrote about my "being a bit self-righteous". Look who is talking !!! :) I got that trait from my Pyrenean grandmother who was always right, even when she was wrong.

More seriously, I know when I am wrong, and I also know when I am right. I know the battles I will never win in Wikipedia, but I'd rather lose than accept the mold, then pass on to a different article. Without divulging what I do in life, I can tell you that among my activities there is one in particular where, if I did not have a curious mind asking questions that may be going against the tide or sound off subject, I would never arrive at anything. It is like not following the rules in photography, one can get extraordinary results by daring impossible shots. From that, I conclude that I will never be a good "obedient-follower-of-the-rules" for Wikipedia. Tant pis !!'

Bonne vie à vous aussi.

--Frania W. (talk) 20:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

My dear "other side of the fence" patriot,

I conclude that I will never be a good "obedient-follower-of-the-rules" for Wikipedia. I know many French women, I believe that you will never be a good "obedient-follower-of-the-rules" in any case. But it does not matter. Passion brings life, I would not have it any other way. You probably know no other way and would be lost without it. But I have pity on your husband (unless he is the same of course). Do you know the story of Amadeo Modigliani and Jeanne Hébuterne?

I am in my fifties. My assumption is that you are between 25-45, because you have a certain maturity but have not lost a certain fire that is associated with youth. Try to picture the editor we have a quarrel with. He is probably around 20, thinks he knows a lot so, he edits other people's work and continually gets his facts wrong. Thinking he will be safe (he is after all protected by "manual"). In the end he is defended by an administrator and we are told that the MoS is right (clearly disregarding many earlier arguments). Poor boy. But who is right in this case? I believe you are. But will you ever get that satisfaction? Probably not.

Here is an interesting question. Prince Charles, le Prince de Galle, has already let it be known that he will not become King Charles III but King William IV (I believe) if he should ever acceed to the throne. So what will the Wikipedia call this man? William? When al his life he has been known as Charles (or Wales if you are intimate).

I have combined my Catholicism with Zen-Buddhism. I have learned when to bend. My etiquette in the Wikipedia is to never judge and never to change other people's edits. If an edit is obviously a strange translation, I will try to change this in wording to something the original editor would probably be happy with. If they want to discuss it, fine! But let's be reasonable. And always be civil (but that is just the Brit in me talking).

And Charlotte Corday? All this effort should have been put into her article, there is still a lot to be said about her.

There are many facts about the French Revolution that should be in the Wikipedia. I feel sorry for France. Between 1750 and 1950 so many wars and unrest. Let's hope that it can be the glorious nation it once was. Within Europe let everyone be who they are. I am a great believer in cultural diversity but also very proud of my own heritage. But now I run the risk of getting carried away.

So I will leave you with a smile and a caution.

8-)

--JHvW (talk) 21:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

JHvW: The Spy Who Came in from the Cold has his ears all over our conversation and broadcasting it, so you'd better watch your spelling & I my tongue.

Ah! ces Советски !

Франия Вишневская alias --Frania W. (talk) 22:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

RE Charlotte Corday, the trivia about her hair should be removed. On the other hand, translation of her "Adresse aux Français" (too long for en:wiki but quite an insight of how she perceived what was happening to France), but at least her letter to her father which she wrote on the eve of her execution, should be included. These are more important than her appointment chez le coiffeur, (probably the same Marie Antoinette had! What was his name? Léonard?) There is also quite a bit of cleaning up to do in the "Trial" section. The sentence "To their dismay, she was found to be virgo intacta (a virgin) a condition that focused more attention on women throughout France—laundresses, housewives, domestic servants—who were also rising up against authority after having been controlled by men for so long.[7]" : Her virginity was a "condition" (?) that focused more attention on women throughout France who were also rising up against authority...? Does this mean that all French women were virgins?

This is not the page to discuss this, but I am taking a break from her talk page as whatever I put there will be dissected & twisted around. At least, here, I can write something down without constantly being reminded of Wikipedia's Tablets of Stone.

Regretfully, instead of working on a text, we spent days discussing an insignificant detail that has nothing to do with History.

--Frania W. (talk) 23:38, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Ma chère amie,

You are right. There is much to discuss in her article. But focusing on stupid details like her hair or her virginity is not really what an encyclopaedia should be about. I will take heed of your warning and not digress. The letter to her father is significant as I believe you know. The reference to Corneille may or may not be significant. Do not get discouraged. Charlotte should be remembered for who she was and why she did what she did. Mais cést aussi possible que le petit prince peut lire le cyrillique.

And do not be to quick about hairdressers, I believe Antoni Cierplikowski (monsieur Antoìne from Sieradz) was quite reputable in his time.

But that is for later. --JHvW (talk) 23:56, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Simon Schama's Citizens is not in reference/further reading at Charlotte Corday's article. It has a few interesting pages on her. Schama calls her "Charlotte Corday" at every turn, but what does he know, he is not a Wikipedia contributor: his work is all original research. Do you believe that he might contribute to Wikipedia under an assumed name?

--Frania W. (talk) 01:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Your point is valid. But you are a spirited French woman and that will get you into trouble. Which may not be the best way to get things done. I have great admiration for Schama (although he can be a bit full of himself and I know what you are thinking), and it is not unlikely that he actually contributes to Wikipedia. In the past I have discussed articles on living people with these people themselves. They have pointed out inconsistencies. Some have even gotten involved themselves. How difficult is it, do you think, that you have to discuss an article on yourself with an editor that keeps quoting sources which contradict what you are saying. You are well versed in the history of the French Revolution. You will know that the lawcourts at that time had a lot of power. As soon as the court felt that you did not take them seriously they could sentence you without further trial. Sometimes meaning that you would be executed the same day. Is this the way Wikipedia is going to become? Enforcing guidelines that were not designed by the community to enforce policy but rather encourage consistency. I do not know and I no longer care. These are my Summer Holidays, I thought giving the Wikipedia another chance was a useful way of spending my time. How wrong I was. I should have gone to Paris and visit Charlotte. Never mind. With any luck there will be next year. And I will be interested to see if an administrator points out to your antagonist that he has made statements that are not consistent with "Manual". But I will leave you with a little nugget from American history that has always brought a smile to my face. Henry Ward Beecher an American clergyman and brother of Harriet Beecher Stowe has gone on record for quoting: "The most important thing a father can do for his children is to love their mother", he was also involved in one of the most notorious adultery scandals of his time. But you would probably prefer one of his other quotes: "Speak when you are angry and you'll make the best speech you'll ever regret". Finally if you are interested in the future rather than the past: Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity (you will have guessed why I put that here).

If the sun comes out today, I will go outside and smell the roses, I suggest you do the same. --JHvW (talk) 07:36, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

JHvW,

Not to change the subject, as this is getting old, have you ever read Table Talk by John Selden (1584-1654), where, in chapter Preaching, one can find the origin of the expression "Do as I say, not as I do"?[3] That would be a very interesting subject to debate.

Bonne journée !

--Frania W. (talk) 13:53, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

My Talk Page

Latest comment: 13 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion

Dear Frania, do you know how to correct our inability to sign in at my talk page? I do not. As a matter of fact, I attempted to start a new subject heading there, hoping to fix it, but I still couldn't sign in. Perhaps you know someone at this project who can advise how to correct the problem. I think it may have something to do with all of the punctuation marks that you included in your remarks. God forbid, that the actual reason is that we are being punished by "Big Brother". Thanks. Dr. Dan (talk) 04:03, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Cher Docteur Dan,

I am the last person to ask about fixing anything that has to do with computers or whatever you want to call that thing!

If you believe that one of my "punctuation marks" is the culprit (are you being anti French accusing my "accents & cédilles" to vandalize your page?), why don't you remove the discussion? It may solve the problem.

Anyway, I do not believe that it is necessary "to call anyone" as Wikipedia is all eyes & ears all over the place, so, without addressing anyone in particular, I would simply leave an SOS on your talk page! Someone will see it or hear your call for help! How much do you bet?

à plus tard.

--Frania W. (talk) 04:17, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Dr. Dan, I just went to your page to see if removing the "Colonne Vendôme" section would correct the problem: it did & my signature was showing. But I did not want to remove anything out of your page as you might not like it (I do not need to add another enemy to my "windmills"!) Cordialement, --Frania W. (talk) 04:28, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I like to leave everything in (for posterity's sake), so it stays where it is, and no, I don't believe the culprits are your "accents & cédilles" (more likely your tildes and squiggles, etc.). Regarding my sentiments, I'm no Pierre Cauchon. And I don't want to disappoint anyone, but I'm not a wagering man either (sounds boring, but I have a terrific anecdote as to why I'm not a gambler), but I'd rather explain that one on another occasion. Dr. Dan (talk) 04:51, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Usually I like to leave everything in place (for posterity's sake), but I'm glad that it's fixed. I never believed the culprits were your "accents & cédilles" (more likely your tildes and squiggles, etc., but it's moot now). So you are a computer wizard after all. Regarding my sentiments about France, I'm no Pierre Cauchon. And I don't want to disappoint anyone eavesdropping, but I'm not a wagering man either (sounds boring, but I have a terrific anecdote as to why I'm not a gambler), but I'd rather explain that one on another occasion. I should hope that by now you would think it would take much more than such a petite faux pas to put ourselves on each other's "windmill list". Best. Dr. Dan (talk) 04:51, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Aurevoir for this time. Meet you next either chez Chopin, or at the foot of the colonne Vendôme, when it is not scheduled to be "destroyed", "taken down" or "broken up in zillions little pieces".

--Frania W. (talk) 05:19, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I placed an afterthought concerning Chopin at my talk page. Dr. Dan (talk) 01:46, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Chopin - language

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello,

May I ask what you think of this quote? It's from the article on Chopin itself. It has to do with the issue of language.

"Language was another matter, rooted in anxiety passed from father to son. A foreigner concerned with shrouding his origins and proving his Polishness, Nicolas was as cautious as a spy dropped behind enemy lines; he never seems to have mentioned his French family to his Polish children. French was the lingua franca of the nobility and the subject Nicolas taught to others' sons—but not to his own.... Consequently Fryderyk's grasp of French grammar and spelling would always remain shaky. Surprising for one blessed with an extraordinary 'ear' and famed from earliest childhood as an extraordinary mimic, his pronunciation, too, was poor. More telling was his own unease in his adopted tongue: half-French, living in Paris, the paradise of expatriates, Chopin would always feel twice exiled—from his country and from his language. Imprisoned by foreign words, the expressive power of his music unbound him." Atwardow (talk) 03:29, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

So? Someone wrote this about Chopin - these are not Chopin's words.

First it is not true that French was not spoken in the Chopin's household. Second, Nicolas Chopin, wrote poetry in French. Did you know that? He even tried twice to return to France, but was kept from doing so because he fell ill. His son Frédéric had an accent when he spoke French, he made mistakes when he spoke & when he wrote in French. Does that make him less of a Frenchman, which he was because born of a Frenchman? Napoléon Bonaparte also spoke with an atrocious accent & made mistakes when he wrote, and it did not hinder him in becoming the N° 1 French Citizen of France! Hundreds of thousands of French little kids in France make mistakes when they speak & write French; should we then deny French nationality to all French students who cannot pass their final exam because they make mistakes when they write in French?

But leaving Chopin's French nationality on the side, why do you deny him his "French-Polish parentage"? When you do that, you deny who his father was, you deny him his father, which amount to bastardizing the son. You are denying Frédéric Chopin his identity. It is "illegal"!

--Frania W. (talk) 04:17, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Space for unfinished business

Latest comment: 13 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

To Whom It May Concern

--Frania W. (talk) 15:25, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Instead of finishing the business, I'd like to forget it. I remember encountering you for the first time. We got off well but our relationship gradually went from bad to worse. I would like to [try to] change it back to "good". Would you? Surtsicna (talk) 17:36, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I believe that every unfinished business has to be finished before being forgotten. "Mine & my buddy's *badmouthing*", as you call it, which it was not, was provoked by certain activities that I do not need to spell out as you are intelligent enough to read between the lines. However, I am not going to drag this on forever. Some subjects we are both interested in make it impossible for us not to bump into each other once in a while, so let's keep a "businesslike work-relationship".

--Frania W. (talk) 01:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

If by "certain activities" you mean my discussing your discussion about me, then I am sure you understand that it was [you and] your buddy who had started[4][5] the discussion I called "badmouthing". Perhaps "speaking ill of a person behind their back" would've been more appropriate. Choose whichever you like best. "you are intelligent enough..." — my intelligence has been questioned at your talk page ;) [6][7] JhvW and you were discussing Necrothesp and me; it would be quite hypocritical to be angry because Necrothesp and I later discussed JHvW and you. Anyway, I am sorry you are satisfied with our present relationship. At least I tried. Surtsicna (talk) 18:05, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not going to backtrack all the way to when our relationship began to sour, but I would say that it really soured on 14 August when you reverted my "thirteen" on Marie Antoinette page[8] with the note "Undid revision 378866771 by Frania Wisniewska (talk) Per WP:MOS#Numbers", while overlooking all the crud accumulated in that article, which I try to clean whenever I have some time ahead of me, and which you choose to ignore - if you'd care to scroll up & down Marie Antoinette history from date of 14 August, you could see that my work amounts to a bit more than reverting anyone just for spite. Instead of focusing on my "thirteen", why did not you do some of the real work? You say how serious you take your participation at Wikipedia, but that particular reversal left me wondering whether you were that serious about the article on Marie Antoinette being up to encyclopedic standards, considering my "thirteen" to be the grossest mistake you could find in an article filled with trivia, nonsense & non-truths, or whether you were following my every step, trying to find fault with me at every misplaced comma & spelled out number. So, I wrote you my sarcastic "Sorry for the inconvenience"[9], which you took as a letter full of hatred (!) - sarcasm is not hatred.

This was happening at the time of the Charlotte Corday affair, which you felt appropriate to bring to the attention of a higher wiki authority without notifying others involved in the discussion - strange behaviour for someone who always brings out Wikipedia code of étiquette.

But la goutte qui a fait déborder le vase, "the drop that made the vase overflow", was this 16 August thingy[10], which someone brought to my attention. Coupled with the Marie Antoinette & Charlotte Corday affairs, this left me wondering as to who you really were. The "The Spy Who Came in from the Cold" originated right there & then.

Considering the beating our previous relationship took, I do not see why you would get offended at being offered a "businesslike work-relationship", besides, if we work on several of the same pages, I see no other alternative.

--Frania W. (talk) 21:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Finishing the business

Latest comment: 13 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

[11]

I noticed the edit summary "13→thirteen" and thought that I should undo it so that you wouldn't repeat it in other articles.I certainly wouldn't have bothered had I known how little you care about the Manual of Style. My edit summary was not rude; I explained why as simply as I could. You got offended because I "ignored" your other work? Should I have been offended by this edit because you did not praise my work in the edit summary? Anyway, I was truly horrified by the "Sorry for the inconvenience" message. I found there no sentence that did not radiate intense hostility. Sarcasm may not be hatred, but one does not exclude the other.

As the other editor told you, you had been directed twice to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies). Everyone can see that.

As for the archive bot... seriously, what do you think I was doing? Who did you (or your cheerleader - pun intended) think I were? It did not even cross your mind that I had copy-pasted it from your talkpage and forgotten to change the name.

I am not offended by your offer. I was sorry because I had hoped that we could once again establish a cooperation, as opposed to a mere toleration. But now I realise that I should be happy with toleration only. Surtsicna (talk) 21:30, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot to say what made me upset but I'll have to ignore the "Assume good faith" rule here myself (why shouldn't I? Who knows what I had been accused of). I am quite sure that you would not have made all that fuss about Corday had anyone else done what I had done. The case was painfully simple — and you made a drama out of it. Two other users, whom I had never "met", were both shocked when they read the "discussion". There must be a reason for that. Surtsicna (talk) 21:38, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

"Thirteen": I need no praise from you or anyone else, but I found your reversal to be a petty gesture at the time you did it. There are times when instead of reverting or even correcting what some have done, it may be more courteous to go to their talk page & point out to them what is thought to be incorrect. I do not claim to do it all the time, but I certainly do it with some of my habitual "colleagues". And although I am repeating myself, I found rather shocking that you should revert my thirteen while so much "crud" needs removing from that article! Was Wikipedia on the verge of going into a crash because of my "thirteen"?
"Maria Theresa": As for the February 2010 hidden note at Maria Theresa, it was left there to the attention of whoever wrote the "weird" sentence & give him/her the opportunity to change it:

"making Maria Theresa the least inbred Habsburg ruler for centuries (her family tree) she was christened later that day. (Hidden note: This sentence is weird: mentioning just before the baptism ceremony that took place on the day of her birth the fact that she was the "least inbred Habsburg RULER" as she was not a RULER the day she was born/FW)"

I really do not see what was offensive in that note, I simply stated how the sentence hit me - weird - and someone reworded it.

"Charlotte Corday": I do have a personal dislike for the qualification of women as "females" and also being mentioned only by their last name. To my eyes & ears, it makes Wikipedia look & sound like police reports or the list of inmates in a detention camp. That's how the removal of her first name hit me in the article on Charlotte Corday, and whoever else would have removed her first name would have got the same reaction from me.
"Sorry for the inconvenience"[12]: Considering your attitude toward me during the Marie Antoinette & Charlotte Corday affairs, my note was in tune with my feelings: it was sarcastic, and meant to be so. Frankly, looking back at the time when I wrote it, I would not change a word.
As for the archive bot...*[13]: Now Surts! What do you think I could think at the time you chose to come & pick my lock? Of all the users in Wikipedia you could go to and ask if you could copy/paste their archiving template, or go there[14], instead, you, so savvy at Wikipedia's workings, sneaked in like a burglar[15] and watergated my account! You must admit that your time to come uninvited was ill chosen.

Another thing, I have no "buddy" nor do I follow any "cheerleader", but I do have a collection of "windmills". You may in fact be one of them.[16]

And if a "businesslike work-relationship" does not offend you, let's keep it at that.

--Frania W. (talk) 04:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

It would not be fair to withhold my sarcasm from you, seeing how you shared your "hatred-less" sarcasm with me. So how about this: I copy-pasted your archive template in order to steal your holy identity, proclaim myself ruler of the world and conquer the Milky Way under the name "Empress Frania de Wikipedia".

Anyway, my time to come here is apparently always ill chosen, so please do not invite me here anymore and, of course, please ignore my talk page. It's best to restrict our interaction to talk pages of relevant articles. I obviously can't hear anything pleasant from you. I was such a fool when I came here to suggest a fresh start! Surtsicna (talk) 15:04, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

My sarcasm was "hatred-less", as I view yours to be also.
I still consider the time you copied/pasted my archive template to have been ill-chosen, specially coming from someone like you always watchful of Wikipedia's "dos and dont's".
I see nothing wrong with a "businesslike work-relationship"; that's the way it is between most editors and, at least, it keeps people from having too big of a friendship fallout when they have a disagreement.
My talk page is closed to no one.
As for "Empress Frania de Wikipedia", considering your campaign of total Anglicisation, should not it be "Empress Frania of Wikipedia"? (Could not resist... but it does not matter since you are not going to read this.)

See you chez les Bourbons[17].

--Frania W. (talk) 16:10, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

GA Review of Philippe I, Duke of Orléans

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I see you've edited Philippe I, Duke of Orléans in the past, so I just thought I'd let you know I reviewed the article against GA status. I think the article still needs some work, and you can find my comments here: Talk:Philippe I, Duke of Orléans/GA1. Thanks, Ruby2010 (talk) 20:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello, Frania Wisniewska. You have new messages at Belovedfreak's talk page.
Message added 09:05, 23 September 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Accusation

Latest comment: 13 years ago12 comments3 people in discussion

What, may I ask, do you mean by this very disturbing accusation: "where you refer to me (?) as 'the worst nightmare in your life'."?* Either specify it or retract it please! SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Please refer to your talk page: *Revision as of 20:56, 14 August 2010 (edit) (undo)*

--Frania W. (talk) 12:07, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I can see how that can have been misunderstood, but this long-time acquaintance was the editor I was referring to. I hardly knew of you at the time. SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:06, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Monsieur, since you do not seem to remember the incident, I see no reason to pursue, but I can assure you that the "particular user" you were referring to as being the "worst nightmare" you "ever had by far" was definitely me. At the time I ignored the insult - I had more important business to attend -, and the only reason I brought it up in this past discussion was to refresh your memory. But I think that it is now better to let the incident back into oblivion.

--Frania W. (talk) 03:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

If you would read the link I sent you you would clearly see that you are wrong. I did not comment there on what you wrote. My comment was about what Pieter Kuiper wrote. See it there? Look at the link! See Pieter Kuiper? Not you? I repeat: I did not even know of you then, at least I cannot recall ever having had any dealings with you, so you could hardly be either a nightmare or a lovely dream to me, or anything in between. But you are turning into a real problem now with this false accusation. Do you ever admit (even apologize) when you are wrong? I do it all the time. Makes one feel better about being human. Look again at that link I sent, please!!! The evidence is crystal clear here. Another user, not you. See it there? Please read what's there and admit what's not! SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:10, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Not true. The link comments on what Frania wrote, accusing her of "uncivil behavior". /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:12, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

[18] The nightmare continues and still makes me sick. SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:35, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

*Accusation addressed here was by Frania W. (talk) 00:25, 28 September 2010 (UTC) in this discussion. SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:45, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Now, let's untangle this before my talk page becomes a battleground.

Last August, I wrote a sarcastic note to a certain contributor who had reverted one of my edits. The person took it badly, qualifying it a "message full of hatred", which it was not - compared to some rude & crude exchanges one can read on Wikipedia, mine was more witty than anything else, and it contained no vulgarity.
Pieter Kuiper, (whom I never thanked, but do now), had understood my note in the tone it was written, and intervened in my favor.
SergeWoodzing stepped in qualifying my message of “uncivil behavior”, which it was not.
The person who had been offended by my words went on Serge Woodzing talk page & thanked him. Again, the “message full of hatred” was mentioned, then “that particular contributor” who was the “worst nightmare” Mr. Woodzing “had ever had so far”.
Since Mr. Woodzing and myself had had a few sharp exchanges a few months earlier on a royalty page, I took his “nightmare” to be me.

Mr. Woodzing, this sounds more to me like a comedy of errors, and now you call me a “problem” & want me to apologize. I always apologize, but only for my faults. In this instance, and in view of the circumstances, the time and the strange writing that made it sound as if I was your "worst nightmare", what fault did I make toward you that demands an apology on my part? All I did on 14 August was write a single message to someone, not to you. When you chose to step in & qualified my message of "uncivil behavior" – which it was not - you stuck your neck out because you had no idea why I had written that message. So I took your words as being aimed at me personally, hence my comment at Clotilde de France talk page.

All I can say is that I am sorry such an imbroglio took place and that it is disturbing you. I really do not want you to get sick over it, or over anything else, nor do I want to be one of your "worst or best nightmares".

Monsieur, je ne peux pas vous demander pardon pour une faute que je n'ai pas commise, et toutefois vous souhaite une bonne nuit pleine de beaux rêves.

--Frania W. (talk) 21:44, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, especially for the last sentence in your beautiful language! No apology "demand" has been made so we are OK. SergeWoodzing (talk) 03:08, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Especially for the last sentence in my beautiful language??? But, Monsieur Woodzing...this is English Weekee !

--Frania W. (talk) 03:47, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

And yourrrrrrrrrr talk page. Bonne nuit à vous aussi! SergeWoodzing (talk) 04:04, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Women's March on Versailles

Latest comment: 13 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion

Hello, Frania-! Though we have already technically met - amid the unfortunate Légion d'Honneur affair - I would like to personally say "hello". I also want to let you know about the recent reversions at The Women's March on Versailles. Please be assured that when I reverted a mere 5 words just now, it was without any anticipation that you would want to restore the whole article. I presume that is better than leaving the article nearly empty, but I was in fact planning a significant rewrite in the near future, and thus felt little nostalgia. Truly, it was your embedded commentary which largely gave me the motivation, so I was hoping you would welcome a fresh start-? The article seems to be entirely devoted to the physical drama of the march with little attention to background, context or legacy. If you are already writing your own version, please let me know; if you are not, would you be interested in reading or copyediting my work in a sandbox? In any case, I hope that overall you can approve of my admittedly infrequent contributions to France-related articles, and I welcome your remarks on any topic. SteveStrummer (talk) 02:13, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Bonjour Steve, It is nice to get formally acquainted after l'affaire en question.

RE the Women's March on Versailles soon after. I have had that article on my watchlist for a long time & have fixed it here & there always thinking that it was a waste of time because it needs a complete overhaul, which demands time & I am busy on other things - as is, I find the article rather silly. All this to tell you that I welcome your offer of... you doing the rewriting & I the copyediting. Then, it is not necessary to touch it anymore, except to revert vandalism. Please, give me the link to your work page when you get started.

Cordialement, --Frania W. (talk) 05:40, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Je vous remercie! WP is only my hobby, so it will probably be quite some time before you hear from me about this because of my inevitable caprice. But I look forward to working with you on this topic of mutual interest. Are you are particularly interested in the Revolution? I do have some other articles I am working on that could use a second pair of eyes. Sincèrement, SteveStrummer (talk) 06:33, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Bonjour Steve, the history of France & France-related subjects being among my interests, I cannot ignore the Revolution as that period & its actors are the most important link between the past & the future of France. Unfortunaely, I do not have time to get involved in all the articles that need editing, that's why I have not done much to 5/6 October 1789, except for obvious mistakes, like the wood between the town of Versailles & the castle, which had to be planted there by someone who has never gone to Versailles: the area town of Versailles, castle & Trianon of today is exactly as it was in October 1789, minus the thousands of trees knocked down in local gardens, the park & Hameau de la Reine at Trianon in the storms of 1990 & 1999.

Here is an example of a paragraph that has to go:

"Although the National Assembly had taken the Tennis Court Oath and the Bastille had fallen at the hands of the crowd, the poor women of Paris still found that there was a considerable bread shortage and the prices were very high, and rumors were spreading in Paris that the royals were hoarding all the grain. A hungry mob of 7,000[citation needed] largely working-class women decided to march on the Versailles, taking with them pieces of cannon and other weaponry. Many in the crowd blamed Queen Marie Antoinette for the lack of bread..."

I do not see what the Tennis Court Oath & the storming of the Bastille had to do with this, also, it was not a "*hungry* mob" that spontaneously went to Versailles: the march had been called upon that morning in front of the Hôtel de Ville, the women being egged on by agitators, and if the women had gone to the Hôtel de Ville, it was because such a march had been in the making for days in the first place, with "tambours" (drums) going through the town earlier in the morning, calling the population to assemble at the Hôtel de Ville. Beside, a "*hungry* mob" would not have been able to sing its way through the 16-kilometer distance between the center of Paris & Versailles - half would have collapsed on the way & the other half dropped dead upon arrival.

Another error is in the attitude of Marie Antoinette supposedly "pleading" to flee to Rambouillet. This is totally untrue as, when advised that she should go to Rambouillet with the children, she refused to leave her husband behind.

Not mentioned in en:wiki article is that a police investigation was conducted from 11 December 1789 to 20 April 1790 in order to find out who was behind the organisation of that march, the results pointing to the Duke of Orléans; while, inevitably, the great cultural/historical event of the 21st century, Sophia Coppola's film Marie Antoinette, is mentioned.

Looking forward to working on this with you.

Cordialement, --Frania W. (talk) 15:57, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree with all these points. Thank you for your response, and I look forward to working with you too! SteveStrummer (talk) 21:57, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Just had to send you this note to wish you a joyeux anniversaire of the great march! And to let you know I am actively working on the article. A tout à l’heure, SteveStrummer (talk) 01:59, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Merci, quoique pour ce genre d'anniversaire, je laisserais le "joyeux" de côté... Looking forward to reading how you are handling the "hungry mob". À plus tard ! --Frania W. (talk) 04:15, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

October 2010

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Battle of France and Arc de Triomphe, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Campaigns to remove files and images from Wikipedia due to nationalist sentiment will be reported. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:54, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

October 2010

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello, you were mentioned on WP:ANI [19]. Regards --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:23, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

"Nom de famille"

Latest comment: 13 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

Frania, you never found consensus to say the "de France" as a single unit is a surname for the French Royal Family. I would urge you to stop as you have participated in and have seen the discussion. It is like saying that the reigning Prussian royals had the surname "von Preussen" and the like. You may reply here as this is now on my watch list. Seven Letters 01:55, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Page 159[20]: "Le nom de famille de nos rois est France", which means, "the family name of our kings is France". Note, it does not say, "Le nom de famille de nos rois est 'de France'". Seven Letters 02:03, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

It also compares it directly to Brunswick and Oldenburg, which were not surnames. Seven Letters 02:08, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

"Les descendans de ce prince, jusqua Henri IV porterent toujours le nom de Bourbon. Henri IV lui-meme le porta avant qu'il sut parvenu a la couronne de France; mais du moment qu'il sut devenu roi de France, il ne s'appella plus du nom de Bourbon, & ses descendans n'ont jamais porte le nom de Bourbon, mais celui de France."[21]

The above states that Henri IV's descendants did not carry the name Bourbon but that of France. The following paragraph explains how Philip de France, duc d'Orleans' descendants took the nom de famille d'Orleans.

And oddly, this says the same thing in English;[22][23]

The new Larned History for Ready Reference, Reading and Research, Volume 2, by Josephus Nelson Larned, Donald Eugene Smith, p1101, "Bourbon, House of: its origin. From King Louis IX of France, "through his last male child, Robert de France, Comte de Clermont, sprang the House of Bourbon. An ancient barony, the inheritance of Beatrix, wife of this prince, was erected into a dukedom in favour of Louis, his son, and gave to his descendants the name which they have retained(Bourbon), that of France being reserved for the Royal branch. But Henry IV's children, those of Louis XIII, and those of their successors in the throne, were surnamed "de France"..."

--Kansas Bear (talk) 03:31, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

So, two sources which say the opposite thing? That of "France" and not that of "de France" though... Like I have said earlier, it can't be determined because the term surname is anachronistic to the period in question. Seven Letters 03:57, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Look also how the term surnamed is used on the next page from that link. Obviously, as well, there is an affinity for French use in this volume, speaking of "Louise de Savoie", "François Premier", "Dukes de Bourbon", etc. I don't think we can determine English usage from such a mishmash. Seven Letters 04:08, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Seven Letters, when I proposed the reading of Diderot p. 159, I did not mean to pick out three words, but read the text, so continuing after mention of Burnswick & Oldenbourg:

"Les filles de nos rois, lesquelles n'ont point d'apanage, portent distinctement le nom de France, comme nom de famille. Du Tiller, qui est de tous les auteurs français le plus exact à distinguer le nom de famille d'avec les noms d'apanage, dit que le surnom de France appartiens aux filles des rois de France; & que si elles sont nées avant que leurs pères soient rois, elles ne prennent ce surnom qu'après leurs avènement à la couronne.

Les fils de France qui n'ont point d'apanage, parce qu'ils doivent hériter de la couronne, portent toujours le nom de France. Le duc de Bourgogne, en ratifiant le contrat de son mariage, s'appelle Louis de France, duc de Bourgogne.

Les fils de France qui ont des apanages, joignent au nom de France, comme nom de famille, celui de leur apanage, come nom de terre; & c'est ce nom d'apanage qui se perpétue dans leurs descendants, & se quitte par l'aîné de la branche parvenant à la couronne."

Mariage de Louis Auguste, dauphin de France & Marie Antoinette .... archiduchesse d'Autriche, in which are named all of Louis Auguste's brothers, sister (Clotilde only as Élisabeth was too young), aunts, plus the Orléans father & son:

http://guy.joly1.free.fr/publications_parents_et_amis/acte.jpg

Louis-Stanislas-Xavier de France, comte de Provence
Charles Philippe de France, comte d'Artois
Marie Adélaïde Clotilde Xavière de France
Marie Adélaïde de France
Victoire Louise Marie Thérèse de France
Sophie Philippine Élisabeth Justine de France
Louis Philippe, duc d'Orléans, premier prince du sang
Louis Philippe Joseph d'Orléans, duc de Chartres, prince du sang

copy of baptismal register of Louis Charles de France, son of Louis XVI & Marie Antoinette,

http://www.larousse.fr/encyclopedie/media/Acte_de_bapt%C3%AAme_de_Louis_Charles_de_France_/11018532

Acte de baptême du duc de Berry at Archives départementales des Yvelines et de l’ancienne Seine-et-Oise under 1112511, folios 92 recto et 93 recto

origin: registre de la paroisse Notre-Dame de Versailles

« L’an mil sept cent quatre vingt cinq, le vingt huit aoust, Très haut et Puissant Prince Charles Ferdinand d’Artois, Duc de Berry, né à Versailles le vingt quatre Janvier de l’année mil sept cent soixante dix huit et ondoyé le même jour par Mgr Joseph Dominique de Cheylus, Évêque de Bayeux, Premier aumônier de Madame Comtesse d’Artois, fils de très haut et très puissant Prince Charles Philippe de France, Comte d’Artois, frère du Roi, et de très haute et très puissante Princesse Marie Thérèse de Savoye, Comtesse d’Artois, son épouse, a reçu aujourdhuy dans la chapelle de Sa Majesté le supplément des Cérémonies du Baptême de Mgr Jean Armand de Roquelaure, Évêque de Senlis, Premier Aumônier du Roi, en présence de nous Curé soussigné, le parrain a été Très haut, très Puissant et très Excellent Prince Charles, Troisième du nom, Roi d’Espagne et des Indes, représenté par Très haut et très Puissant Prince Louis Stanislas Xavier de France, Comte de Provence, frère du Roi, et la marraine Très haute, très Puissante et très Excellente Princesse Marie Antoinette Ferdinande d’Espagne, Reine de Sardaigne, Représentée par Très haute et très Puissante Princesse Marie Joséphine Louise de Savoye, Comtesse de Provence, Madame, en présence du Roi, et ont signé"

The above, and many more I could bring, are reason enough, I believe, not to automatically reject the sources I bring to articles with the nom de famille "de France", or "d'Orléans", for that matter, as if my sources & references were some type of dreamed-up POV on my part. If the royal family of France was the only one in the world to have a nom de famille for its children, then I think that it should be mentioned in articles.

--Frania W. (talk) 05:04, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Frania, I think some of what you posted serves to obfuscate the matter. For instance, the act of marriage... Most sign without a "surname". The direct line, of course they would be mentioned as "of France" because that shows they are of the main line. Really, the uses of names in this family are no different from that of the United Kingdom with Kent, Wales, York, Gloucester, etc... In the same document we have "Louis Auguste, Dauphin de France"... Where is the "surname"? I don't see "Louis Auguste de France, Dauphin de France". The Royal Family of France isn't the only one in the world to have a house name and territorial designations for its members. In fact, every single royal family in Europe does. Seven Letters 05:18, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

How About It?

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Chère Frania, je me demandais si vous avez remarqué cet article récent? Imaginez l'ouverture d'une boîte de Pandore sur celui-ci avec nos amis. Dr. Dan (talk) 16:25, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

By alphabetical order he was American-French-Lithuanian-Pole, in other words, chopinesquely fractal.

--Frania W. (talk) 20:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

3RR

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

I agree with everything you say BUT I think you only have to look at FactStraight's edit history on the 29, 30 and 31 to see that if I was going to block LouisPhilippeCharles for breach of the 3RR then (s)he had tied my hands, as otherwise LouisPhilippeCharles could with some justification say I was not being even handed. Please also look at the comment I left on the talk page of Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy. -- PBS (talk) 20:53, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Understood. -- PBS (talk) 21:13, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

(Princess) Henrietta (Anne) of England

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I would appreciate your opinion about the proper name of (Princess) Henrietta (Anne) of England, see Talk:Princess Henrietta of England JdH (talk) 13:35, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Arc de Triomphe

Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Salut,

ça ne m'amuse pas plus que toi de laisser ces "marching naz" où ils sont mais il n'est pas envisageable de modifier les photos d'un article en fonction du jour de l'année. Après si tu veux changer cette photo de façon définitive, il faudra au préalable passer par un débat sinon ça va de nouveau dégénérer. Cordialement. Badzil (talk) 14:52, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Bonjour, mon cher,

Toi, moi et quelques autres savons très bien pourquoi cette photo a été ajoutée en l'espace de six minutes à plusieurs articles de en:wiki - et ce n'est pas pour enrichir cette encyclopédie avec une image historique, mais un flagrant défi par un petit c... d'à peine 20 vingt ans et de certaine tendance, qui, 70 ans après les faits, prend une jouissance maladive (je pourrais dire pire, mais ne veux pas être aussi vulgaire que lui) à retourner le couteau dans la plaie de ceux qui ont vécu ou auraient pu vivre cette période. Les Allemands d'aujourd'hui font preuve de plus de pudeur - leur article sur l'Arc de Triomphe ne montre pas les "marching naz".

Je te fais remarquer que, malgré ta révision, j'ai eu le culot de remettre l'Arc de Triomphe avec le drapeau français, foutant ainsi la zizanie dans le look de l'article; par contre, j'ai laissé les "marching naz" qui auraient une meilleure place dans l'article intitulé "March to Heil".

Cordialement, Frania W. (talk) 16:37, 11 November 2010 (UTC

P.S. Je trouve aussi que la photo de la Tombe du Soldat inconnu est nulle. On ne pourrait pas trouver mieux?

Salut,

je ne supporte évidemment pas les actions de Direktor et je pense que l'apparition de cette photo sur tous ces articles est une sorte d'harassement. Après Direktor prétextait que cette photo est très connue. Je ne sais pas toi mais moi personnellement je ne l'ai jamais vue avant toute cette zizanie. Il est possible qu'en France on aurait tendance à ne pas la montrer car c'est effectivement un peu blessant et humiliant. Cependant ça fait partie de l'Histoire et on aurait tort de ne pas la montrer.

J'ai vu ta modification et comme tu as pu le remarquer, ne suis pas intervenu. Je ne supporte pas ton action mais la comprends. Reste à voir à quoi ça va mener maintenant.

Enfin pour la tombe du soldat inconnu, tu as le choix ici.

Cordialement. Badzil (talk) 17:01, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Badzil, côté français, je suis issue d'une famille de militaires, de marins, d'aviateurs, dans laquelle nombreuses femmes se sont retrouvées avec des orphelins à élever parce que veuves de guerre ou après un naufrage en mer. Tout ça pour te dire que chez moi, les femmes savent venir à la rescousse et ne se laissent pas marcher sur les pieds. De plus, tant du côté français que du côté polonais, ma famille a pas mal donné pendant la 2e guerre mondiale.

Furthermore, je sais ce que sont des documents historiques, et je n'ai rien contre leur utilisation, mais n'étant pas exactement une imbécile, je sais aussi repérer les coups tordus, et la zizanie a été lancée le jour où monsieur petit c... a ajouté ces photos, car il ne l'a pas fait par respect historique, mais pour emmerder le monde = harrassment, comme quelqu'un qui s'amuserait à envoyer la photo d'une corde à la famille d'un pendu. Alors, si c'est foutre la zizanie dans en:wiki un jour de 11 novembre que de mettre en évidence le drapeau français, que le reste du monde apprécie ou pas, je m'en contrefous.

Ce à quoi ça va mener maintenant? Quelqu'un va passer et faire le ménage.

Et j'espère que toute cette histoire ne créera pas d'antagonisme entre nous.

Cordialement, --Frania W. (talk) 18:08, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I can read French, fyi, and will report you should these sort of attacks continue. If you must conspire against Wiki users, I suggest you do so somewhere where you cannot be blocked for it quite so easily.

When I introduced the image I had no idea it would create a conflict with French users on Wiki. I could not imagine there would be such resentment towards placing a photo of such an immensely significant historical event in articles where it fits the context perfectly.

Once more: this was not done out of any sort of resentment towards France or the French. I harbour absolutely NO ill-will towards France and do NOT have any kind of agenda to emphasize the German victory in the Battle of France - quite the opposite: if I had my own "personal list of favorite nations" France would be at the top. I won't go into this any further, but please believe me that my actions were lead by the intent to improve the encyclopedia. Understand: the Battle of France is likely the single most important event in 20th century history of France, and certainly the event of 20th century French history which had the greatest impact on world history. Its significance is the very highest beyond question. It cannot be sidelined because it provokes negative feelings in French patriots.

As a long-time editor on enWikipedia's infamous Balkans articles, I have accumulated significant experience in combating nationalist POV and have a acquired a deep dislike for the damage it does to articles. "National pride" is a powerful distortion agent that destroys objectivity. I am not just saying this. Talk:Battle of France is an example. All non-French users almost universally agreed that there is nothing wrong with using the image on the lead. French users, who found it offensive out of nationalist sentiment ("national pride") - disagreed. Had we followed the opinions of users influenced by national sentiment - we would have had a lesser and less-objective article. I wont drone on any further, regards --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:46, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Inquiétude

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Salut Frania,
Merci, but don't worry; I use talk pages; edit wars are… hmmm… enfantillages… dziecinada ;D ++ Alvar☮ 11:06, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Arc de Triomphe

Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

(Reinstatement below of archived on-going discussion)