User talk:Eric/Archive 2, 2013 thru 2014

Eric's talkpage archive no. 2 – 2013 through 2014

re: your message

Hi Eric, I've left a reply to your message on my talk page -- Marek.69 ^talk 19:41, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

US Presidents & Vice Presidents bios

Do as you wish at John Adams. I merely ask that you do the same at all the other US President & Vice President bios intros [please note: all the other bios use capitalization] :) GoodDay (talk) 16:50, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the English Wikipedia, like much of what is written in what passes for English these days, is rife with overzealous capitalization. I'm not sure where this comes from—beyond just the general decline in literacy—though I do know that federal government documents contribute to it in the U.S., as they are loaded nowadays with seemingly random capitalization of common nouns. If you're up for a few laughs, you might enjoy a fun little movie called Idiocracy, which comically portrays the sad path down which American English is hurtling. You guys may someday have to build a firewall on the border to keep our intellectual decline from contaminating the Dominion... Eric ^talk 12:28, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Cambridge boundaries map

This a courtesy notice of my comment at User talk: Hertz1888#Cambridge boundaries map. --P64 (talk) 17:40, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Another Eric

Just so you know, the artist formerly known as Malleus Fatuorum is now using his real name, Eric Corbett, and signing himself as Eric. Hope you're not affected by the change. --108.45.72.196 (talk) 17:58, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Never thought about this before, though it must come up somewhat often with first-name signature users. If need be, I'll just add some identifying flourish to my signature. Thanks. Eric ^talk 20:45, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

My mistake, no need for you to do anything, I'll change my sig. Nobody deserves to be tarred as me. Eric Corbett 23:31, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Hey, that looks sharp! Now I'm thinking I should spruce up mine... Eric ^talk 23:43, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I may go all spangley, haven't decided yet, but there's no need for you to do anything. It never crossed my mind that someone might have grabbed the Eric username, and I ought to have checked. Eric Corbett (talk) 01:24, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

No worries! Eric ^talk 02:05, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Controversy regarding Finnikin of the Rock

Please join the conversation here regarding your recent edit of Mont Saint-Michel. Thanks. Nodar95 (talk) 20:57, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Unblock request

This blocked user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request.

Eric (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

216.81.81.82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

---

Block message:

Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Resaltador". The reason given for Resaltador's block is: "Violation of the three-revert rule: The Salvation Army".

• Blocking administrator: Bbb23 (talk • blocks)

---

Decline reason: 24 hour autoblock appears to have already expired (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:34, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the 24-hour block expired about 23 hours and 50 minutes after I made the unblock request...Eric ^talk 12:13, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Caerlaverock Castle

Thanks for moving it to Category:Dumfries and Galloway. Just a query - would Caerlaverock Castle go to Category:Kirkcudbrightshire first as a sub-category, and then that go to the main Category:Dumfries and Galloway . Scotire (talk) 00:24, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Scotire- I took a look at Category:Kirkcudbrightshire, which itself is a already a member of Category:Dumfries and Galloway. So if you put the castle article in the sub-category, it will automatically be a member of the parent category. The way I understand categories, the preferred approach is to avoid redundancy and keep the cat list uncluttered.

There's a quick overview of categories here: Help:Categories, and a more thorough one here: Help:Category. Hope this helps! Eric ^talk 12:34, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Holbeinpferd

Hi. To answer your message: I had written about the Holbeinpferd in Spanish and thought that it might be of some interest in English as well and I linked it with the article on the Wiehre where it is standing so that it would not be an orphan. Regards, --Zaxevi (talk) 17:47, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I think the Holbeinpferd is worth noting, but I would not create a section for it containing one sentence. Also--no offense!--the sentence was a bit awkward in English. I'm assuming you are not a native English speaker--is that right? While it's often helpful to have contributions from editors outside the English-speaking world who have local knowledge regarding article subjects, the writing sometimes adds a translation maintenance workload. For the Holbeinpferd, I might suggest something along the lines of: "Wiehre is home to the Holbeinpferd, a sculpture that has become something of a popular art project.

Disambiguation link notification for July 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lumbricus badensis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Giant earthworm (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:52, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion of article title of Whitebark pine

You are welcome to join the discussion at Talk:Whitebark pine#Requested move to scientific name. —hike395 (talk) 04:26, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

August 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Dompierre-les-Ormes may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 4 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Nestled in a wooded area, Dompierre is known locally as ''la petite Suisse du Mâconnais'' (Little Switzerland in the ]]Mâconnais]].

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:21, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Formalising the status of WP:FALKLANDSUNITS

The page WP:FALKLANDSUNITS has not yet been formally adopted as an offical guideline. I have created a proposal to regularise the position. Please feel free to comment Wikipedia talk:WikiProject South America/Falkland Islands work group/Units#Proposal for acceptance as a formal guideline. If the proposal is accepted, then the page will indeed be part of Wikipedia policy, otherwise it will be tagged a "failed proposal". Either way the uncertainty that has dogged this page for the last three years will be resolved. This message is being sent to every editor of good standing who has contributed here or here. Martinvl (talk) 03:58, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

The gender of a ship...

Hi Eric -- I am the original author of the parbuckle salvage article. I saw your edits changing "she" and "her" to "it" and "its." The text flows better, so thank you for you inputs. I was not aware of the controversy, but I am aware that MOS specifically allows my original usage. Can you point me to where the controversy rages, so that I might chime in? ...best, user:JMOprof ©¿©¬ 20:32, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi JMO- Ahoy from Cape Cod to Little Rhody! First, thanks for a good article. It was a help to me and my girlfriend this morning when we were listening to a radio report on the Costa Concordia salvage and simultaneously looked at each other and said What...Arbuckle...who?? Anyway, I don't know of any controversy re she and her being used to refer to vessels, and I'm all for it in conversation, on deck, or in a book. When I read the article, the she and her stood out to me as being conversational or literary, and I thought it would be more appropriate for an encyclopedia. But I have no passion regarding this, and my whole take on this could merely be some antiquated notion of how reference works should read (cold and dry?). So if you don't think it is an improvement, revert it by all means. -Eric ^talk 22:35, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Eric, but no, I'll leave it as it is. Your phrasing is better than mine. The article will get a major update in a day of so with a very current example. Trying to find free artwork. ☹ ...best, user:JMOprof ©¿©¬ 23:18, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Affluents de l'Ouche

Bonjour Philippe- Pourriez-vous m'expliquer la signification des (rg) que vous avez ajoutés après les noms des affluents de Ouche? J'ai essayé en vain de m'y renseigner avant de vous déranger. Merci par avance! -Eric ^(discussion)

bonjour ( Hello ) Eric,
a) (rg) = rive gauche : (L) ou Left in english
b) (rd) = rive droite : (R) ou Right in english
c'est un grand dilemme en France... et un sujet de conflit de conduite avec les anglais :-)😏
bonne continuation et A+--Philippe rogez (talk) 15:27, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Swiss towns and places

I do not understand why so many Swiss places and towns have a German name in the British Wikipedia: it's really against tradition.

Byron : he wrote Morat in one of his poems, and not Murten. Cf. The battle of Morat for example.

The official spelling of "Bern" is Berne in English ( Cf. Florence etc).

I think these pages are translated from German and their entries are not correct in English.

Did you see my note on your IP talk page?

I don't know if the articles you edited were translated from the German Wikipedia; such articles often begin as translations on the English Wikipedia and then are refined. My approach, without having thoroughly researched for any consensus that Wikipedia editors may have reached regarding Swiss place names, would be to keep them in the dominant language for the given part of Switzerland. In an article mentioning a place name in one language that has an alternate name in another, I would do this, for example, for Murten: Murten (French: Morat) at the first instance of the name, then leave future instances as Murten. It doesn't look good to have every instance of the name read Murten/Morat.

From what I found in reference sources, Bern and Berne are both used in English. In my experience, Bern is much more common. I'm not sure what tradition you are referring to, but I think you will find that in en.wp articles regarding predominantly French-speaking areas of Switzerland, you will find that preference is given to French place names. Eric ^talk 21:33, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

SUL

I may try to establish a unified login as Eric, but whether I succeed or not, I am attempting to take over that username on Commons and on the French and German wikis (taken, but unused, on both).

• Confirming here that I have placed a request on the French Wikipedia to usurp the dormant user name Eric. Eric ^talk 18:37, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

  Done on frwiki. Litlok (talk) 23:10, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

• I am requesting a rename on Commons. My current Commons name is EricM. Eric ^talk 21:07, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Sure, go ahead. The whole point of changing into Folkvanger was having the same user name across all the wikimedia projects, and I hope you can do that too! Actually, I renounced using "Eric" because you already had it here ;-) Also, you may find problems on es:wiki if you want the name there, as I am a sysop there and people may still remember when Eric was a sysop's name (and so, the bureaucrats may decide it better not to asign it to anyone else). Greetings! Folkvanger (talk) 09:08, 24 November 2013 (UTC) (also please excuse me if my English sounds a bit weird, not my mother language!)
    • No need to worry about that, it was some time ago, and now with "Folkvanger" I "am myself" finally on every wikimedia project, so it's fine for me ^^ Greetings, Folkvanger (talk) 15:37, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
• „Hallo, ich bestätige, dass ich de:Benutzer:Eric übernehmen möchte“ bei einem IP-Antrag. Eric ^talk 15:49, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
• Confirming here that I have placed a request on meta to usurp the username Eric on de.wiki. Eric ^talk 02:08, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Re: Mirror edits on de = Seltsamkeit!

I don't know why you're asking me about this problem, as until you posed the question, I'd never visited any of the articles in the German Wikipedia listed in the German Wikipedia Eric's contributions list, and I'm not an expert on the wiki software system. I performed a line-by-line comparison of the German Wikipedia contribution list and tried to match it up to edits in your account, and it turns out that only five (5) edits correlate, and the German Wikipedia edit in each of these five instances is precisely one hour delayed from the English Wikipedia edit.

13:39, 27. Mai 2011 (Unterschied | Versionen) . . (+1)‎ . . K Harvard Bridge ‎ (→‎Houdini: vocab)
12:39, 27 May 2011 (diff | hist) . . (+1)‎ . . m Harvard Bridge ‎ (→‎Houdini: vocab)

18:58, 10. Apr. 2010 (Unterschied | Versionen) . . (+2)‎ . . K Muddy River (Massachusetts) ‎ (vocab)
17:58, 10 April 2010 (diff | hist) . . (+2)‎ . . m Muddy River (Massachusetts) ‎ (vocab)

15:48, 24. Dez. 2008 (Unterschied | Versionen) . . (-22)‎ . . Priego de Córdoba ‎ (para PR:CW)
No match on en.wikipedia

11:59, 22. Dez. 2008 (Unterschied | Versionen) . . (-1)‎ . . Karneval in Barranquilla ‎ (arreglando para Wikiproyecto:Check Wikipedia)
No match on en.wikipedia

15:48, 21. Dez. 2008 (Unterschied | Versionen) . . (+6)‎ . . Priego de Córdoba ‎ (→‎Museos)
No match on en.wikipedia

14:32, 8. Nov. 2008 (Unterschied | Versionen) . . (+22)‎ . . Ramiro Valdés ‎ (+cat wikificar)
No match on en.wikipedia

16:01, 15. Sep. 2008 (Unterschied | Versionen) . . (+3)‎ . . K Cape Cod National Seashore ‎ (→‎Gallery: tweak caption)
15:01, 15 September 2008 (diff | hist) . . (+3)‎ . . m Cape Cod National Seashore ‎ (→‎Gallery: tweak caption)

16:23, 27. Jul. 2008 (Unterschied | Versionen) . . (-2)‎ . . K Fels von Gibraltar ‎ (→‎The Upper Rock Nature Reserve: punc and cap)
15:23, 27 July 2008 (diff | hist) . . (-2)‎ . . m Rock of Gibraltar ‎ (→‎The Upper Rock Nature Reserve: punc and cap)

09:02, 25. Jul. 2008 (Unterschied | Versionen) . . (+20)‎ . . Noé Colín ‎ (+cat wikificar)
No match on en.wikipedia

21:10, 17. Mär. 2008 (Unterschied | Versionen) . . (+8)‎ . . Priego de Córdoba ‎ (+cat wikificar)
No match on en.wikipedia

01:39, 24. Jun. 2007 (Unterschied | Versionen) . . (-3)‎ . . K B-52-Absturz auf der Fairchild Air Force Base ‎ (→‎Investigation: punctuation and minor rewording)
00:39, 24 June 2007 (diff | hist) . . (-3)‎ . . m 1994 Fairchild Air Force Base B-52 crash ‎ (→‎Investigation: punctuation and minor rewording)

While it is conceivable that the German Wikipedia Eric was watching your activity and mimicking it, I consider it unlikely in the extreme that he could do it consistently on the same date, one hour after your edit. The other thing that's curious is that in each of the five edits, the German article was written in English at the time, with piecemeal translations into German in the days and weeks following. In fact, the German articles appear to have been started by performing a 100% cut-and-paste from the English Wikipedia source code, as all templates and wikilinks appear in red until fixed in subsequent edits.

As for the non-correlating edits, take a look at the Spanish edit of Priego de Córdoba on or about 17 March 2008. You'll see the edit by "Folkvanger", then an anonymous IP edit, followed by a revert by Cobalttempest to the last version by "Eric", which was probably Folkvanger's previous identity on es.wikipedia.org. He changed his username from Eric to Folkvanger, but evidence of the old name is preserved in the edit comment.

My theory: Someone on the German Wikipedia side wrote a 'bot script to copy articles between wikis, and also mirror edits between wikis. The consistent one-hour delay between edits indicates that it was done by a machine, not a human editor. The delay may have been put in to allow time for possible reverts before reflecting the change from the English wiki to the German wiki. So, when you edited the English article, an hour later the 'bot mirrored the edit, including your username, to the German article. The 'bot should have signed its own name, not yours, and this is what's causing the confusion. So, if this theory is correct, the other Eric performed only six (6) edits on the German Wikipedia between 17 March 2008 and 24 December 2008, and during that time you performed none on the German Wikipedia. — Quicksilver^{T @} 16:58, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Hg- I just thought I'd ask you because of your long experience, especially across wikis. Didn't mean for you to do so much work! But thanks for taking a look at it. I agree with your conclusion that the duplicate edits are the result of some machine activity. As for the edit timestamps, I was assuming the edits were actually simultaneous, as mine are listed in UTC, and I was assuming the German ones were in CET. I was in touch with Folkvanger when I took over his commons:User:Eric account (see above section); maybe I'll check with him to see if he knows what might have made the mystery edits. Eric ^talk 00:07, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Same for me, some edits are mirrors of edits I did here (es:wiki). I guess they somehow imported the page with its whole history (no idea how) I think I never owned the name Eric on de:wiki btw, same reason as on en:wiki. Greetings!, Folkvanger (talk) 12:16, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the info! Eric ^talk 16:19, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Cistercians

I understand your reason for reverting my edit, changing "Constitution and rule" back to "Constitution and Rule", in Cistercians. (See also discussion about this at User talk:Rothorpe. However, I had to search back in the lead/lede to find "The Rule of St. Benedict". I did not see any mention of it in this section. Don't you think, if the section heading reads, "Constitution and Rule", there should be some mention of the Rule of St. Benedict (I assume this refers to the title of a book) in that section? – CorinneSD (talk) 01:06, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Corinne- My initial impulse was to revert Nicholasbufano's capitalization. Then it occurred to me that the section must be covering the Cistercians' version or interpretation of the Benedictines' code, which I have always seen referred to as the "Rule of Saint Benedict". I agree with you that if that is the purpose of the section, it ought to mention the Rule of St B and how the Cistercians depart from it. But I'm no expert here, did not read the section before now, and have not participated in writing the article, only copyediting it. It might be best to move this and/or the Rothorpe talk page discussion to a new section on the Cistercians talk page. Eric ^talk 04:48, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I am not an expert on this topic, either. have read the entire article (and done some editing to improve clarity); that was about a month ago. But I did not notice the missing connection between the heading and the content of the section until now. I will copy this exchange to the Talk page of the article. CorinneSD (talk) 23:28, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I moved everything except this last bit to the Talk page of the article on Cistercians. I hope you don't mind that I did that. I don't know if I breached etiquette by moving this from your talk page to an article's talk page. If I did, I apologize. I just thought since you suggested the move you wouldn't mind. CorinneSD (talk) 23:39, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Corinne- No breach at all--well done, and thanks! Fatigue and sloth kept me from moving it there last night. I tweaked the new section name and added a couple links to it. Hope I did right. Eric ^talk 23:53, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh, good. I'm glad I didn't do the wrong thing. I saw your corrections. I tried to copy and paste the link to your talk page but wasn't able to do it. I'm glad you fixed the links and the heading.CorinneSD (talk) 00:42, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Here's the syntax for wikilinks to article sections: [[Article name#section heading]], and for user talk sections: [[User_talk:User name#section heading]]. Simply copy everything in the url past "...wiki/" and wrap that in double square brackets. Note that spaces and underscores are processed the same; no need to replace the spaces with underscores. Let me know if that makes sense! Eric ^talk 14:44, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I don't know what you mean "everything in the url past "...wiki/". Do you mean after nowiki, above? I don't see any other "wiki". I had tried to copy and paste the link to your talk page that appears just above (the one with "sup talk sup"). On another issue, did you see the last exchange regarding this topic on User_talk:Rothorpe? I wonder whether I understood you correctly. Also, is this a case of trying to fill out material in a section to match a section heading, which seems to be the opposite of what is usually done?CorinneSD (talk) 16:30, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, to clarfiy: The URL is the address of the web page. For example, Google's main URL is http://google.com. A Wikipedia article's URL is always http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article name. So what I meant was you simply go up to the address bar of your browser and copy everything to the right of the slash after "wiki". For example, to make a wikilink to the History section of the Burgundy article:

1. First, follow the History link in the article's table of contents,
2. Now go up to the address bar and copy Burgundy#History out of the URL (note the full URL reads: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burgundy#History),
3. Paste that string where you want the link, wrap it in double square brackets and you have your wikilink (when you go into Edit mode here, you'll see above (3 lines up) that I linked the word History this way as an example).

Naturally, you can simply type the link if you prefer, rather than copy/paste. I wish wp had an easy chat interface in it for moments like this! There is one, but I don't find it intuitive. Hope I'm helping more than confusing! Yes, I saw the Rothorpe exchange, and that is what I meant. I agree that if Rule in the section heading refers to their code of living, the section certainly ought to discuss that and use the term. I wish the editor(s) who worked on that section/heading had made their intent more clear. Eric ^talk 17:39, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so much for explaining how to copy the relevant part of a URL to a Talk page. It was very clear. Now we can wait and see what turns up on the article's talk page. CorinneSD (talk) 20:16, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome! Glad to help. I use my userpage as a kind of reference cheatsheet--you may find some helpful links there. Eric ^talk 20:23, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I will refer to it if I need a link to something. I noticed your photo of signs and read the caption below it. You might enjoy seeing the section Wiki types on Joshua Jonathan's talk page. – CorinneSD (talk) 20:53, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

re: Smoot

[1] conjecture: it would be a good idea to possibly read the diff or if insisting on doing something, improving the article instead of blindly reverting. one that bothered to do so would note that the columning is useless for a three-item bulleted list, moreover appearing to split one item into two via the insertion of a large unintended space. one would also notice that the extraordinarily useful comment that you restored clearly does not apply to the content, L coming before M in the standard Latin alphabet. there is no description either way, but that is clearly of no consequence; the comment must stay. ⁓ Hello71 14:55, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

P.S. I appreciate your message on my talk page to inform me of your revert. ⁓ Hello71 14:59, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I restored your edit after looking at it. I agree regarding the columns. I'd only looked at the revision comparison, did not look at the page to see what you'd done, and hastily reverted the edit when I saw that it included deleting a comment and that there was no edit summary. This is a good example of how a little edit summary can be helpful and save everybody time. Your above sarcasm is not necessary.

I did not place a message on your talk page; the system does that automatically. Eric ^talk 15:14, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Alderney Race

Hello Eric, Could you please take a look at the article User:JeffMik1/Alderney_Race? Thank you very much, because I think it is an interesting article. --JeffMik1 (talk) 04:26, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jeff- I can see you have a great interest in this topic, but although your English is fairly good, the writing is awkward and needs a lot of work. I made some changes to the first half to give you an idea. I think the best thing might be to put in a translation request here: Wikipedia:Translation/*/Lang/fr. Eric ^talk 13:51, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much, indeed. It is kind of you. Though I'm Alsatian, my family has a house on the west coast of the Cotentin. Do not hesitate to control Ried (natural region) Petit Ried Grand Ried as well as Outre-Forêt when you have time. I won't disturb you any longer. I feel sorry for that. But if you need help about French articles dealing with Alsace (or the Cotentin, you can contact me).--JeffMik1 (talk) 08:24, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome, and don't feel sorry! I just haven't had a lot of time to devote to Wikipedia lately. I'll try to take a look at those articles. By the way, the translation request link I placed above is apparently out of date. This seems to be the current place to make a request: Wikipedia:Translation#Requesting_a_translation_from_a_foreign_language_to_English.

Saluez les belles collines de l'Alsace pour moi, s'il vous plaît, elles me manquent! J'y ai passé de très agréables moments à faire les vendanges. Eric ^talk 15:38, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Matour

Bonjour, on vient de faire deux rm sur l'article Matour. Il me semble que la rubrique «amenities» a sa place dans cet article. C'est une information incomplète mais elle permet de décrire le village dans son identité et ses singularités, elle a donc un caractère encyclopédique. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.221.139.221 (talk) 18:42, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Je ne suis pas d'accord. I don't think you will find many town articles on Wikipedia that have a section called "Amenities". That word belongs to language that we use in English for travel guides, not for encyclopedias. Some town articles have a section called "Sights". That could include such things as museums and churches, but would not include swimming pools and cinemas unless they had some special historical or cultural significance. If you feel you must contribute to the English Wikipedia, you might create an account and discuss your ideas with other editors who work on French community articles, for example here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_French_communes. Eric ^talk 19:05, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

If I use sections called Tourism and Points of interest, as in many others articles ( Dompierre-les-Ormes for example), can I expect no remove, and a step by step construction of the article (I can't write a perfect article in one shot). Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.221.139.221 (talk) 20:07, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Moving discussion to: Talk:Matour#Amenities.2C_points_of_interest.2C_etc. Eric ^talk 21:34, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Urban area (France) ?

I don't understand why the Metropolitan area (France) article has been changed into Urban_area_(France). While the translation of Aire Urbaine into Urban area in English may made sense in a linguistic context but in a demographic and geographical context it is incorrect.
An urban area as mostly internationally defined and as defined in Wikipedia article Urban_area is the build-up area, this is different definition than the INSEE defined Aire Urbaine.
INSEE Aire urbaines cover a much larger zone including rural lands and statellite towns, an area which is calculated by employment ties through commuting to the main urban core. This is the concept of Metropolitan area.
Translating Aire Urbaine into Urban area is misleading the reader because this is a different thing that the urban areas in the Urban_area article and the main use of urban area in the English language.
If I refer to the WP:OFFICIAL , the word used to translate the INSEE Aire Urbaine should be "Metropolitan area" because this is the same or very similar definition and it is much more consistent with the English use. Minato ku (talk) 22:12, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I have no great passion about this issue. I had confidence in ThePromenader's research and assessment, and moved the page myself so that his would not be a lone voice. While "metropolitan" is a perfectly useful general term, it seems that the European officials who use the term "aire urbaine" choose to translate it as "urban area". Note that the United States Census Bureau refers to "urban areas" and "urbanized areas", which, if you are truly interested in this topic, may provide some perspective as to how those terms are used by statistics officials in the U.S., at least.

I must add, without meaning to offend in any way, that given your apparent level of English fluency, you may want to think about directing your passions elsewhere than into arguments regarding the relative merits of English terms having extremely similar usages. Eric ^talk 03:13, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

This is not about English fluency, this is about a geographic term.

Urban area and metropolitan do not have the same meaning.

The urban area used by statistics officials in the U.S census is not the same concept than the French statistical office (INSEE)'s Aire Urbaine. US census's Urban area is about the built-up area. This means the urbanized sprawl of the city.

INSEE's Aire Urbaine is more than just the urbanized sprawl, it includes rural lands and sattelite towns. This area is calculated by commuting to work. This is similar to the US Census's Metropolitan area.

The translation of INSEE's Aire Urbaine into Urban area may be correct in a linguistic context but it is incorrect in a geographical and demographic context. Minato ku (talk) 09:03, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Saccharomyces pastorianus

Hi Eric;

I'm not sure why you did this but the anonymous user's edits are comprehensive and well-referenced. I spot-checked it for copyvios and did not find any. They look like good edits to me, but your comment about removing it for copyediting and punctuation issues is confusing. Fixing some wording and punctuation seems like a far simpler task that re-creating the content added by this user. Neil916 (Talk) 20:28, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Neil- I agree with your last statement, but, lacking time and subject-matter expertise, I made the revert in hopes that someone like you would come along and check it out. Glad you did! The edits amounted to such a big change that I thought they should be verified as being an improvement. Thanks for doing that. I admit a weakness on my part that inclines me to take a dim view of anonymous edits with no summaries, especially when sprinkled with Valspeak commas... Now I'll do a little copyedit on the piece. Cheers. Eric ^talk 20:44, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

You might want to wait a couple of days, that IP user has been editing the article over the last couple of days and there may be more edits forthcoming. The article is on my watchlist. Neil916 (Talk) 20:56, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Bannwald

Hi! I did not reply reply to your message, because already ¡three minutes! after you had sent it the article was deleted. Nevertheless, I'm also pondering about a more appropriate title and thank you for your help in this respect. I have also sent Anthony Bradbury a corresponding message. Can I contact you again, if I should find something which might seem more appropriate? --Zaxevi (talk) 18:31, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

In A brief history of forestry I found "forest under ban". --Zaxevi (talk) 18:52, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

It's best to keep the discussion to the article's talkpage. Eric ^talk 18:57, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Re: Milles Roches

Right. I'll treat it as a learning project - these are among my first edits - and clean them tomorrow. Thank ye.61.73.143.183 (talk) 16:23, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Eric. I'm feeling my way around, but I hear voices in the darkness calling directions to me. Much obliged. Patience must be a virtue.MarcusPriscusCato (talk) 17:08, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Re: Edit summaries, multiple consecutive edits

Hi Eric. You're completely right and I'm deeply sorry for all the incovenients; my desire to made perfect edits gained me: I promise to take on account your suggestions. Thanks a lot! Aldebaran69 (talk) 23:48, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Um, yeah, right. Thanks for the earnest expression of concern. Really, I mean it. But why wasn't I surprised to see your contributions from right after you posted here?? Eric ^talk 02:54, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Witch's Broom

Hello Eric, You have removed my contribution of a video without giving a reason. What was the problem? Rosser Gruffydd 23:53, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Did you not see my edit summary? I don't think we need a movie of a stationary phenomenon. It looks like most of your activity here on Wikipedia, at least recently, consists of adding links to your YouTube videos. Though I am certainly not the cops here, I think that is discouraged, if not frowned upon. Eric ^talk 00:11, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Edits to Fisher

Hi. I have seen that you have reverted the first edit to Fisher when it came to the pictures. Then your latest revert was when I put in a plural for Porcupine as there is an S after it. Did I leave anything out of this? --Rtkat3 (talk) 03:28, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

A lot of the edits you made were incorrect or unnecessary. I reverted them, then reworked the paragraph with the mention of porcupines, putting that word in the plural as you had. Captions don't need periods at the end. It's is a contraction of it and is. Please use edit summaries. Eric ^talk 03:31, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

So you didn't want the picture description in the Fisher's infobox then as an example? --Rtkat3 (talk) 04:07, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Arthur, you made a lot of changes of different types throughout the article in one session, many of which I immediately recognized as incorrect or unnecessary (capitalization of fisher, plus others noted above). At that point, I did not scrutinize every change to note its effect; I simply reverted you and re-worked the second paragraph to incorporate your plural on porcupine. If you think any of the changes you made were improvements, you should restore those changes and provide an edit summary. As for the caption, I don't think it's necessary in the case of the current taxobox pic, since the animal's name is already in the Name field, and there's nothing more to explain in a caption. Eric ^talk 15:17, 26 December 2014 (UTC)