User talk:LeChatiliers Pupper

Hello LeChatiliers Pupper! The thread you created at the Teahouse, Copyright question, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread. See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:21, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LeChatiliers Pupper. As I mentioned on the article talk page, regarding my comments, please don't feel that I was criticising you. You have done a great job, over some time now, on that biography. As you know, I've been popping now and again to tweak things over there and I hope you have taken that in the spirit in which it was meant.

I know, from my own experience, that it ain't easy to write flawless or error-free text, and it nearly always requires a third party to detect/correct the inevitable glitches that crop up (fresh eyes can much more easily pick up those pesky typos or bits of weird syntax). That's just how the brain works, especially when you're familiar with the text you have written and gone over time and time again. It just doesn't see those little things that stick out like a sore thumb to a fresh reader. How often have you come across that dreadful "the" at the end of one line which often crops up again, repeated at the beginning of the next line, or that "if" instead of "it" (not to mention the all-time classic "its/it's" gaffe), etc.? The list is endless. And, of course, the longer a text gets, the harder it gets to ensure that it flows nicely.

Regarding specific aspects that you ask me to comment on, precisely one of the great beauties of Wikipedia's tags is that they invite/alert other editors so they can add their skills to a work-in-progress. I haven't had time yet to go over the comments made by User:Noleander, but I see that at the beginning s/he flagged a sentence as "WAY TOO LONG", which is one of the issues that I most often come across in this biography and which can lead to a lack of clarity or, worse, ambiguousness ("Who", exactly, did "what"?). Unfortunately, my French isn't up to scratch, but I do get the feeling that, although your English is obviously excellent, there is a tendency for you to think in French (and while it's not an absolute truth, Romance languages, like French, Spanish and Italian, often use longer and more complex sentences). Again, it's not a criticism, but it does help to explain some of the things that need reviewing.

I'm going to be travelling over the next couple of weeks, so won't be able to sit down and go over the article with a fine-toothed comb, but I will try to pop in occasionally to do the odd tweak, as per usual. Notwithstanding all of the above, rather than spend time pointing out what needs mofifying modifying/correcting, I prefer to fix stuff myself, when I can. Obviously if I can't make head or tail of something, I'll ask for clarification. Again, please don't feel that I am/was criticising you. The work you've done here is commendable and I hope to read more of your knowledgeable input on other Napoleonic-era related pages, many of which are, unfortunately, pretty substandard... when not directly incorrect. Sigh! Regards, Technopat (talk) 23:18, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to explain yourself so clearly and thank you for the kind words and you attention to the page

> regarding my comments, please don't feel that I was criticising you.

And please don't think that I would very much like feedback so that both I and the article might improve. If you do require clarification or even a discussion of the sources I would be happy to assist. LeChatiliers Pupper (talk) 16:19, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently edited a page related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

asilvering (talk) 15:35, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

oh cheers I wasnt aware these applied LeChatiliers Pupper (talk) 15:23, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello LeChatiliers Pupper! The thread you created at the Teahouse, Image rights BBC, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread. See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:21, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Peruvian Civil War of 1884–1885, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Peruvian Civil War. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 07:54, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@LeChatiliers Pupper: Could I get your opinion on a few issues with my draft of a replacement for Battle of Marion? The draft is in User:TwoScars/sandbox6. Right now it is too long. I would like to reduce it by 25 to 33 percent. Any thoughts on what might be good to remove or shorten? I currently have some questionable sources in play, and plan to remove them where possible or at least use them only for simple "facts" such as "it was rainy" or "most of the fighting was near a bridge". My worry is that if the questionable sources are not discussed, someone may use them to dispute what is in the Wikipedia article. Any thoughts about sources? Once I get the article smaller, my next step is to check each citation. Note also that Stoneman's 1864 raid, Second Battle of Saltville, and Skirmish at Abingdon are all connected to the Battle of Marion—and they have very little information. This article has been way more work than I had hoped it would be. I appreciate any input. TwoScars (talk) 21:04, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers it certainly is a great improvement I shall put comment on your sandboxes talk page LeChatiliers Pupper (talk) 01:05, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@LeChatiliers Pupper:@Hog Farm: - The giant redo has now replaced the old version. I still think it is too big, and I don't like the "map" in the First day section (but it needs some type of diagram). TwoScars (talk) 21:15, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:ANI#LeChatiliers Pupper Kowal2701 (talk) 19:17, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please be a bit more careful, when vetting sources, that they're not opinion pieces from news publications, particularly not those with a poor history of reliability (such as WP:DAILYMAIL and Spiked). We want to adhere to high-quality sources for an article that deals so closely with real-world and current racism. Things like opinion pieces from the employees of anti-immigration advocacy groups just waste editor time. They are flatly inappropriate as sources at first blush. As such, I'd appreciate it if you would vet sources before presenting them. Simonm223 (talk) 17:06, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]