User talk:Touriste

check my comment on Wikipedia:Categories for deletion. [[User:Yardcock|Yardcock | talk]] 20:59, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)

In order to make your edits easier, you should use the preview button instead of saving each time you modify some parts of an article in the wikipedia (see Special member state territories and their relations with the EU for instance). If you want to talk more deeply about any ideas, objections or improvements, be sure to use the discussion page.

I hope you have a great time in the wikipedia!

[[User:Thewikipedian|Thewikipedian | talk]] 16:15, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC+2)

Je réponds aux commentaires que tu as laissés sur ma page perso. J'ai à nouveau recherché tout ça en détail. Je l'avais déjà fait avant d'écrire l'article, mais bon, deux fois valent mieux qu'une.

En ce qui concerne la Polynésie Française: il est vrai qu'avec la réforme constitutionnelle de 2003 il ressort clairement des nouveaux articles 72-3 et 74 de la Constitution [1] que la Polynésie Française est une collectivité d'outre-mer. C'est ce qu'elle a été en 2003 et début 2004. Cependant, depuis la loi organique de février 2004, la Polynésie est devenue une "pays d'outre-mer". Au moment de la réforme constitutionnelle, il avait été envisagé de créer une quatrième catégorie à côté des DOM, ROM, et COM, celle de pays d'outre-mer, mais cela avait été rejeté comme contraire à l'unité de la République. Alors pourquoi avoir introduit le mot dans la loi organique, alors qu'il a été refusé dans la constitution? L'introduction du mot n'est pas innocente... Je ne vais pas rentrer dans le détail des amitiés de Jacques Chirac avec Gaston Flosse (ex-président de Polynésie), mais enfin tu comprends qu'il s'agit ici plus que de simples détails de mots... Tu peux d'ailleurs consulter ici la proposition d'amendement d'un député outré par l'introduction du mot. [2]

Bref, pour résumer les choses, pour des raisons bassement politiciennes, on a créé en sous-main une nouvelle catégorie, le "pays d'outre-mer", qui n'était pas prévue par la constitution. Il me semble que si le Conseil Constitutionnel avait été consulté, il aurait sans doute censuré l'appellation "pays d'outre mer" comme contraire à la constitution. Ceci étant, il y a des précédents d'institutions établies de manière inconstitutionnelle. Par exemple l'élection du président de la république au suffrage universel direct, décidée en 1962 en modifiant la constitution par l'utilisation de l'article 11 de la constitution, ce que les juristes considèrent encore aujourd'hui comme inconstitutionnel.

Nous, il ne nous appartient pas de faire du juridisme, mais de relater les faits. Une nouvelle catégorie, le "pays d'outre-mer", a été établie ; j'en prends note, point. A la limite on peut faire une note en bas de page si tu veux en disant que, à proprement parler, cette catégorie n'est pas prévue dans la constitution, mais qu'elle a été créée par la loi de 2004. De plus, je pense que cela fait complètement sens, d'un point de vue didactique, de détacher la Polynésie des autres COM sur le plan de la présentation, parce que le statut qui lui a été accordé en février 2004 est très différent des autres COM, il y a beaucoup plus d'autonomie, presque une semi-indépendance, ce qui n'est pas le cas de Mayotte, St Pierre, ou Wallis.

En ce qui concerne les TAAF, mon avis est le même que celui que tu trouveras ici [3], à savoir que certes la Constitution a abrogé les TAAF, mais que comme l'article 72-3 de la constitution indique clairement que c'est une loi qui doit déterminer le nouveau régime des TAAF, et comme aucune loi n'a été promulguée à ce sujet jusqu'à présent, et bien c'est toujours le vieux statut de 1955 qui s'applique, et les TAAF sont dans les faits encore un TOM. On a donc la situation ubuesque d'une collectivité locale relevant dans les faits d'une catégorie qui en théorie a été supprimée ! Je te rassure, on trouve d'autres bizarreries comme ça dans le droit administratif français. Là encore on peut faire une note en bas de page si tu veux, en expliquant que la catégorie TOM n'existe plus, mais que...

Donc, personnellement je laisserais l'article tel quel, et rajouterais tout au plus deux notes en bas de page. Hardouin 20:30, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hi. Since you've been very helpful in digging up inaccuracies in previous EU-relaated articles, just thought to tell you that today I made two new ones -- one about European Security and Defence Policy and one about EU battle groups.

When you feel like it, please give them a glance and let me know if I've forgotten or misstated anything in your knowledge. :-) Aris Katsaris 03:05, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

• Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
• Multi-Licensing Guide
• Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

The Infobox was to be cut back somewhat for State of Palestine I just never finished. The infobox on Palestinian National Authority has all the trappings of a state box, that is sufficient. My main concern was that visually the boxes were poorly executed. I think rather than revert you should edit the box so that there is less information, or tell me what to cut and I will do it. WayeMason 23:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing out the two non-poll related points on Talk:Flag of Western Sahara. I would have missed them if you hadnt pointed it out!

Cheers, The Minister of War ^(Peace) 10:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Thanks for the warning. The coordinates that I had for Perrero were actually correct. If you click on the coordinates, you will find a number of links to mapping sites; and you can (for example on Mapquest) that the coordinates are correct.

You are right that the dot is not displayed correctly. It's an error in the mapping code; I think I've read somewhere that it's browser-dependent, but in both Opera and Internet Explorer, the dots are displayed to high. I will try to correct this, but I'm not sure that I can. But the correction should be made in the coding of the templates; not in mapx and mapy in the individual articles. Eugène van der Pijll 07:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It could be that Mapquest is wrong too... The neighbouring municipalities look convincing... I will investigate this, but feel free to revert me again. I will also look into the mapx/mapy problem then. Probably not before tomorrow evening, though. Eugène van der Pijll 10:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Found it... The other Perrero is a frazione of Barbania, see [4]. Eugène van der Pijll 15:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As for the other problem: I think I solved it. Take a look at Exilles, for example; it is no longer situated in France. Compared to the location on the Italian wikipedia, it's perhaps still a few pixels wrong, but the difference is now small enough not to worry about. Fortunately, it was only the formula that was wrong, so I don't have to change hundreds of infoboxes. Eugène van der Pijll 10:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I found some very interesting information about the status of Saint Martin and Saint Barthelemy in the European Union in the Draft version of the Reform Treaty. I saw you also discussed on this on Talk:Special member state territories and the European Union, so I wanted to let you know. Please take a look there. Kind Regards, Maarten 20:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cher touriste; ce n'est pas bien ce que tu as fait

Voici un résumé de ce que tu as dit :

Comment: Four or five intervening parties here (among which myself) have been expressing themselves here mostly because they were fed up by the behavior of some user (users ?) on :fr, retrying ten times to recreate the deleted page under variations of its initial name, .... This article is not relevant, ...., two articles in a generalist newspaper which contain quite suprising mathematical assertions ...) which should disqualify them as sources of an article of abstract mathematics, or even as proof of the notability of a mathematical concept. French Tourist (talk) 22:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Alors ; maintenant regarde ce que tu as écrit 8 mois auparavant, au sujet du meme article  :

....Malheureusement aussi un article publié dans une revue scientifique, semble-t-il mineure. Donc me semble-t-il pas SI (mais je ferme les yeux). Entre dans les zones sombres de l'admissibilité : .... Touriste ✉ 19 juin 2007 à 21:34

Tu juges une telle revue de mineure?? tu as pu y publier??, on y passe par trois comités de lectures, pas une comme pour les grands journaux...

Pour quoi as tu FERME LES YEUX  ; et maintenant tu les ouvres pour offenser un JOURNAL de Presse qui ne t'a rien fait...serais-tu ...? espérons que non...

Merci de répondre ici meme :

We should not have a dialogue in French here ; I answered you on my Talk Page on :fr. French Tourist (talk) 08:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the reason that something is a fact doesn't make it notable but in the absence of a good reason of why the fear of imprisonment/death is *not* a notable fact when talking about emigration, there is no good reason either for removing it. You wouldn't delete the fact that the recurring wars in Afghanistan are responsible for the millions of refugees either, would you? Akerbeltz (talk) 13:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would not in Afghanistan for two reasons : 1) this is very recent history, and articles are biased in favour of present ; 2) the numbers of refugees can be quoted and are indeed impressive ("Over five millions refugees" according to the article). But I would delete that Edict of Fontainebleau was responsible of emigration of about one million of French people (and of persecution of many others) in a general article about French people (too ancient), or indeed in the article about Basques for two reasons : a) a bit ancient but mostly b) no hint of a numerical proportion of departures due to political reasons. Anyway, you should think about sourcing a polemical information if you wish to reinstate it. French Tourist (talk) 17:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Hope you don't mind if I correct this page. The most Easterly point in NZ is Motuhara Islands- 20 miles North of Pitt Island & 6.7 miles further East LawrieM (talk) 07:58, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I don't ! Thanks for informing me. French Tourist (talk) 07:59, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, about your last revert, left a message in Discussion. Iñaki LL (talk) 22:44, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I made up my mind (see the User's page) :-) So if I am correct, I would be able to post on semi-protected pages in 4 days. Sipahoc (talk) 12:51, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, I'm not. If you find this usefull, please feel free to use User:Sipahoc/FA. Sipahoc (talk) 11:46, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stupid me, I had not reached 10 editions! Thanks anyway. Sipahoc (talk) 16:36, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This number is from estimates from the dutch Nuclear Research and consultancy Group. The total space the have in the SFP overall is twice their reactor core size (total ~3500 fuel assemblies). Even just spreading that out gives you nowhere near the size of 1500 in one pool. It could of course be that they put more in pool #4 than the design limit.

Anyways, the table didn't match both of its sources.. So I took the liberty to pseudo-vandalise it and get other people to think about my update. Do with it whatever you think is appropriate, as always.

In the mean time I have looked at some of the reactor maintenance schedules. For example in unit 1 they replace 64 assemblies on each stop (64*5=320, so that core estimate is correct). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Henk Poley (talk • contribs) 07:15, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Guetaria, Guipúzcoa was part of Castile and Leon in 1476. The Basque Country there was not such as nationality or region. If you require, we removed it from Basque and left it in Castilian. --Bashevis6920 (talk) 21:47, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know where Guetaria is, and where it was in 1476. What has it to do with Elcano's article ? I have not inserted that this navigator was Basque with a reference to the position of Guetaria in space-time, but with a reference to a book published in Reno, Nevada (which is neither in Castille, nor Leon, nor the Basque Country) in 2005. You should use documents to build the articles, not intricate reasonings founded on historical maps. Touriste (talk) 21:59, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, sorry, I not agree. Intricate reasoning is ask for references on whether or not it was Elcano Spanish, as if being a Spanish Basque was illogical. And even more illogical, when there was no Basque Country in 1472. --Bashevis6920 (talk) 22:10, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is not illogical to be a Spanish Basque, it is not illogical to be a Basque, it is not illogical to be Spanish. Simply, everything in Wikipedia should be referenced, except when it is obviously true and is not contested by anybody. Since it is very clear that any national/cultural/whatever adjective used to qualify Elcano is contentious, any such adjective should be sourced. Whatever this adjective is : Castillan, Basque, Japanese this one seems unlikely to apply to Elcano, Spanish or anything else. "Basque country" has nothing to do with it anyway ; nobody asserts that Elcano lived in the Basque country or was born in the Basque country. Touriste (talk) 22:15, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Said that Elcano was only Basque, is absurd. But that was Spanish, in any way it is. And you want me to say, require references to verify that Elcano was Spanish (in 1476) seems completely ridiculous.

I am editor in the Spanish Wikipedia, and I know the rules perfectly and carefully fill up, but my English is very bad, and here I can't defend correctly my approaches.

Trouble is that many people read the English wikipedia, including information completely absurd in many cases, and in such delicate matters how are these, is common.--Bashevis6920 (talk) 22:33, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since I am French, my English is also a bit clumsy, you don't have to apologize for your possible inadequacies. That being said, saying that Elcano is Basque is not saying that he is "only Basque" : he was obviously also tall (or small), probably dark-haired, certainly Catholic and many other things. Not saying that he is X is not the same thing a saying that he is not X. You can think I am ridiculous in asking for always more references - but you are the one who began this game today- and you are not the first interlocutor with whom I keep asking for documents. I think this is the only way to solve contradictions. Good luck in your interesting efforts to neutralise articles about Basqueness, they often need it ! Touriste (talk) 22:45, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bashevis, I don't care if you're the queen of England, that doesn't mean you can waltz in here and make up your own rules. If you're an admin on the Spanish wiki, then pity the Spanish wiki but that doesn't cut any mustard here. I'm an admin on the Gaelic wiki, so what?

Taking the same issue to lots of different editors' talk pages isn't the right approach either, at least not on the English wiki. If you have an issue with the Elcano page, then debate it there, you're beginning to sound like a small child running to mum when dad refused something... Akerbeltz (talk) 22:38, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem with Bashevis, he is welcome on my Talk page (and you are also, of course). Obviously centralizing debates on relevant article Talk Pages is a good policy, but having also some more personal conversations can do no wrong. Touriste (talk) 22:45, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with you ask for references, but not to check historical characters as Elcano were Spanish, something that is unquestionable. Touriste, I apologize if I've been a little rude or abrupt, it was not my intention. Greetings, --Bashevis6920 (talk) 22:55, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No worry, it was a pleasure to talk with you ! See you later, maybe ! Touriste (talk) 23:33, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]