Talk:Frédy Girardet

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

Protection[edit]

I've just fully protected this page due to the edit warring. Please discuss the issue on the talk page. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:52, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gayot.com link[edit]

User:Wikidemon is adding a citation that is currently being blacklisted as its host is listed on MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. As anyone can clearly see, gayot.com is indeed on MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. In fact, this citation was tagged by User:Cyberbot_II, however, for reasons unstated, Wikidemon claims the bot is wrong and that this link is not blacklisted. See the history page for a page protection that resulted from another editor The Banner also removing this link and Wikidemon reinserting it. I have posted a method for which to get this link onto the MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist, but it seems to have been ignored by Wikidemon. Transcendence (talk) 22:57, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I attempted to start the conversation here (see below) but we had an edit conflict. I'm not trying to add a citation, claiming anything about the blackilst, or ignoring anything. The citation was already there. If you think that being on the blacklist requires that links be removed you're mistaken, but that discussion really needs to be had somewhere else, as this is a place to discuss page content. As a content editor I'm using my editorial discretion to disagree with, and therefore revert, a proposed removal of the link from the article. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:05, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit conflict — here was my attempt to open the discussion] A couple editors have repeatedly reverted to try to remove a citation link to an article on gayot.com, based on the site's being on the blacklist.[1] I can find no policy on the encyclopedia that mandates such removal or gives such links any special status. The link is there because it appropriately verifies an important claim in the article, namely that Giradet is a critic of molecular gastronomy. Does anyone have a substantive content-related reason why the link does not adequately verify the proposition or why it should otherwise be removed? - Wikidemon (talk) 23:05, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to "If you think that being on the blacklist requires that links be removed you're mistaken", I point you to Wikipedia:Spam blacklist. In particular, "The Spam blacklist is a control mechanism that prevents an external link from being added to an English Wikipedia page when the URL matches one listed at MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist." From what I can see, you are attempting to circumvent the control mechanism by adding the nowiki tag. Transcendence (talk) 23:13, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. What I am trying to deal with here is the tendentious removal of a link that has been in the article for years by editors who mistakenly thought that the blacklist trumped editorial discretion and went on a spree of damaging article content to prove their point. As I mention below, that WP:BATTLE is done, and the side you're arguing for lost. Adding a nowiki tag isn't circumventing anything. It's not a link if you can't click on it. But it does direct editors and readers to a useful and appropriate source where they can verify what they just read, and if they are so inclined, expand on it, find other sources, etc. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:35, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Transcendence. Wikidemon and I have been in "talks" about this subject.
Background: gayot.com has repeatedly spammed Wikipedia with links to their site. gayot.com has repeatedly been turned down to remove goyot.com from the blacklist. There are indeed articles on gayot.com that could be used on Wikipedia. However, there are reliability issues with some links. Wikidemon and I talked about an article written by Gayot (the person) that claimed he coined a phrase. Wikidemon did agree that was not a good article to use. I have not looked at the article linked in Girardet's to see if it is indeed reliable or not.
Wikidemon claims the gayot.com gives out notable awards to restaurants. I don't support this claim because of lack of reliable articles. As gayot.com is and would be a source for these awards, Wikidemon refuses to use the whitelist as it would potentially involve hundreds of articles... essentially all the article that got gayot.com put on the spam list.
Also note, Wikidemon has a huge beef with Cyberbot II. Some of his complaints are valid. However, this causes Wikidemon to remove the blacklist warning without determining if the the references is a reliable one. An example [This revert]. Examiner.com articles should never be used at all as it is a user generated site, ala Wikipedia.
Note: You would be the third editor to repeate the same thing to Wikidemon. Bgwhite (talk) 23:19, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, they're in far better company than that if you want a count of misguided editors tagging behind the discredited bot. That's how mass process edit campaigns usually play out, and counting aggressive wikignomes does not establish any sort of legitimacy. The description somewhat misstates the situation, though. These particular gnomes aren't even edit warring to delete the link. The link is already gone — I've put a nowiki tag on it. They're fighting to remove the citation. Let's get real. This doesn't seem to be about the article for them, but some kind of WP:POINT about spam and the bot. Blacklisting, and gayot.com's blacklist in particular, is a behavioral step (which was supposed to be a last resort, but people have historically abused the blacklist policy) to deal with abusive spammers, not a content determination that the links are bad links. There is no policy support for removing those historic links that later appear on the blacklist as a process matter, nor is there a policy mandate to use the clunky and dysfunctional whitelist process to clean up the hundreds of pages (including this one) tagged by the bot. That battle is more or less over. The bot did its damage, it garnered a lot of opposition, and the bot owner gave up in a huff of denial and indignation. It would be within editorial discretion to revert all of the bot's edits. However, I personally have only reverted a handful of them, as a matter of editorial discretion. I certainly missed a few. Sometimes I could have made a mistake, or opinions could differ. Hence, one can discuss these links as a content matter. Edit warring on process grounds is just pointless. I believe Bgwinte and I are in complete agreement about the Gayot awards — namely, that if the award itself is noteworthy, it can be self-sourced to the award site just as we might do for Michelin stars or James Beard awards. If the award is not noteworthy, it shouldn't be included at all, third party sourcing or otherwise (unless there is some particular reason why that particular award for that particular restaurant is pertinent to the subject of the article). That's a discussion that can be had, but not by mindlessly deleting all the links just because the bot tagged them or they're on a blacklist. That's all impertinent to this page. The link here is a completely different case. It's sourcing a statement that Giradet disapproves of molecular gastronomy to an account in gayot.com of a French newspaper interview. See below, my attempt to actually discuss the content. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:15, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No we are not in agreement. I don't think Gayot awards are notable because I can't find any reliable sources. I've said this repeatably, including above.
  • To be specific, the statement "He is a critic of molecular cuisine, in particular its use of non-natural ingredients." is sourced to the text: In an interview with the influential food writer and author Jean-Claude Ribaud in the French newspaper Le Monde, Girardet denounced chefs who “believe modernity is about turning their kitchen into a laboratory.” These chefs, Girardet goes on to say, have “no qualms about using synthetic products–additives, colorings, flavor enhancers–indiscriminately. Can anyone claim legitimately that this article does not verify this statement? If so, let's hear it. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:15, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally[edit]

It appears that the gayot.com article is referencing an interview that, though in French, has been covered by at least one major mainstream English source — an English article from Agence France-Presse. That would source the claim very well, only the only link available is google news, which is not a good stable link.[2] If anybody wants to get their head out of their arse long enough to make an actual improvement to the encyclopedia instead of replacing reliable sources with fact tags, it would be of some help if anyone knows a way to get to the source AFP article. Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 00:28, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To be loud and clear: with such a language the only thing is CLEAN UP YOUR OWN MESS. The Banner talk 00:53, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To be loud and clear: YOUR MESS, NOT MINE. The article was fine as it was until you messed it up. The least you could do to make amends is to take a step to actually improve rather than degrade the encyclopedia's content. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:10, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why we can't use the original French article (http://www.lemonde.fr/vous/article/2007/09/05/fredy-girardet-il-faut-arreter-avec-les-gouts-brouilles-et-sucres-des-plats-d-avant-garde_951504_3238.html). Transcendence (talk) 01:01, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't speak French well enough to know how to make a citation out of that, or to read the article other than in English translation. Do you, or can we find someone who does? Better yet, if the French news agency produced an English translation, perhaps that link is out there somewhere. Personally, I would say an English language Gayot citation is more helpful for the reader than a French link from a more substantial source, and should be at least used in addition. But if we can get a reliable source link here, no point beating a dead horse over the blacklist question on this particular article. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:10, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked one of the French to English translators for assistance. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tucoxn#Request_for_Help_with_Translating_a_Citation) Transcendence (talk) 01:21, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:58, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Please let me know what exactly needs to be translated from the Le monde article or what information you're trying to find in that article. - tucoxn\talk 01:00, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Wikidemon, clean up your mess. A third editor has chimed in about this. Do it the correct way with no more <nowiki> tags. The article that you are referencing on gayot.com for Girardet looks ok, not great, but ok. It would be best if you use the original source or the mainstream English source. There is a thing called Google translate. You don't need a French speaker. Bgwhite (talk) 01:15, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dozens of editors have chimed in on dozens of pages about this issue, and the outcome is that the bot task is shut down and one need not whitelist links on the blacklist to keep them in the article. I did clean up the mess[3] The Banner created.[4] If you don't like that solution, there's always WP:SOFIXIT. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:57, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you can always start finger pointing when you are out of arguments. So, start looking for alternative sources as I have told you a few times before. When something is notable, you will find it on several places, is my experience. The Banner talk 08:48, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's your problem, not mine. In the future, try not to sabotage articles just to make a mess for other editors to clean up. I've told you this a few times myself already. If you actually want to improve the encyclopedia instead of snaring other editors in your process games, there are many opportunities to do so. You seem to be doing that elsewhere, so just try not to take it personally in your tidying chores when you make a mistake or misjudgement and another editor happens to disagree. - Wikidemon (talk) 09:42, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it is news for you, but you are the one who is sabotaging the articles by not adhering to the rules and using sneaky tricks to circumvent them. The Banner talk 18:02, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Frédy Girardet. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:24, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Frédy_Girardet&oldid=1206901683"