User talk:Boulevardier

bou le var dier

a person who frequents the most fashionable Parisian locales

Talk:Muhammad/FAQ

In response to your aside, mostly in the past people have discussed it on plain old Talk:Muhammad. But it would be rather funny if someone was to try something radical and use the currently redlinked Muhammad/FAQ for the discussion page. :P Dreaded Walrus ^t c 09:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and as an aside, welcome to Wikipedia! You seem to already be a pretty excellent editor from the look of your contributions, so I doubt you need me to insert the big standard welcome message here. Again, it doesn't look like you'll need it, but if you ever do need help on anything, feel free to ask me on my talk page, and I'll see what I can do. Happy editing! :) Dreaded Walrus ^t c 09:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quicksort edit

I think you missed my point. I completely understand the potential advantages of using a more advanced technique to select the pivot. However, two things should be taken into consideration here: 1) the recommendation in the pseudo-code (in the form of a comment) is an arbitrary choice and it's as bad as picking the last element; and 2) most implementations of quicksort do not attempt to select a pivot in a particularly smart way (and that includes textbooks in the subject). The current article has more code than what is needed to describe an in-place version of quicksort and it's harder to read because of that. If we really want to keep that parameter (for generality sake), then I think we should elaborate more on the choice of the pivot (in the pseudo-code itself).

I also find that the split in "Simple version" and "Complex version" is not a good one. Perhaps Complex version should be renamed to In-place version, which is really what that section talks about.

Finally, the comment about the overflow, while correct, is completely out of place and adds a lot of clutter without adding any useful information about quicksort itself. (Thiagohirai (talk) 18:03, 10 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference

Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being 'minor'. The only thing that's changed is that you will no longer have them marked as minor by default.

For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. If you are familiar with the contents of WP:MINOR, and believe that it is still beneficial to the encyclopedia to have all your edits marked as such by default, then this discussion will give you the details you need to continue with this functionality indefinitely. If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 21:55, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closing

Okay, sorry about that. I didn't notice that we were only 90 minutes shy of the deadline. (I'm at UTC+7, so it doesn't always occur to me that a week may not be up). Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:31, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chief Minister

Oops, thanks for fixing the order on Stanhope and Gallagher, I was working on the Stanhope article and saw they both had the same sequence number – should have checked first! Should have known too as I saw the repetition yesterday! --Canley (talk) 06:45, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was the one who put 6th in Gallagher's infobox without looking at Stanhope's first -- teach me to try to edit quickly! No idea how the error snuck in between Carnell and Humphries... bou·le·var·dier (talk) 06:48, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re. Finnigan article

I suspect you may be running into some kind of censorship barrier. Try the webcitation links on the article talk page. Nevard (talk) 05:04, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've read the links, they're not my concern. I'm not a big fan of people unilaterally readding content that is contended and being actively discussed -- it does nothing to solve the problem and just gets people with legitimate concerns about the article (like the IP) blocked for 3RR, preventing them from joining the discussion rationally. I don't really know whether it should be in the article (I would probably lean towards including it, if put under pressure, but I wouldn't be comfortable with it), but edit warring is not how disputes are solved. bou·le·var·dier (talk) 05:07, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, I agree with you that edit warring is not the way to solve content disputes. On the other hand, a lot of the argument against including the information has been over some pretty silly issues- whether Wikipedia should comply with South Australian law and over problems some people have had accessing the many sources, which have been solely caused by ISP censorship (or publisher self-censorship). Nevard (talk) 06:11, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying desperately not to get involved with the discussion, but I am reading it. From my point of view, I'll continue removing the content until it seems like a consensus is emerging in either direction. All the usual caveats of "consensus" apply with respect to quality, not quantity of arguments. Being bold has its place, but it's clear there is palpable disagreement here (whether anyone agrees with or even values the arguments of the other side or not, it would be hard to suggest that there is not a disagreement), and so unilateral attempts to restore the content do not help anybody. That's the basis of 3RR and one I'll keep enforcing. I don't want it to reach the point where the article needs semi or full protection again, because I think everyone involved is more civil than that. bou·le·var·dier (talk) 07:33, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ross Cameron

But Boulevardier, with regards to Ross Cameron's profile: you've discounted and edited out journalism (see edits from May 5th 2011) from major Australian daily newspapers, media reports from journalists and newspapers with liability for correct information far in excess of Wikipedia and our editing of it - those articles and reports have survived the scrutiny of publication, a scrutiny which is far more rigorous than wikipedias. Why would you discredit them and why would you discredit Ross Cameron by making up a false linked in account in his name? It seems to me that there is a selective editing going on here. It's not possible to account for why that would be except on the basis of content - which is not your role. I say again, it is common knowledge that Cameron is owner of a company called Mining Accommodation Solutions, that he has gained considerable income from this company over the last year, and that while i agree it is not important information how much he earns, but the fact that he is involved in mining interests in Australia is important public knowledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.163.183.55 (talk) 05:58, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can i also add boulevardier, that there is no such thing as neutral or unbiased information and certainly no neutral biography - to believe otherwise is to misunderstand the nature of information - it means nothing until it is critically edited. The only thing that matters is that you as an editor provide your (one has to presume, intelligent) reader with sufficient referencing such that they can make an informed decision for themselves - and one has to assume that that means your historical reader. As a consequence of your editing, can i suggest that In the future Wikipedia's edits and edit wars will be more valuable than then the meaningless lowest common denominator information that often appears on the site now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.163.183.55 (talk) 14:55, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Boulevardier, you're patrolling this profile with incredible enthusiasm. I agree with the above statements. There seems to be slight contradiction in what you'll allow and what you will not - and it's pretty arbitrary. The Latham Diaries for example. How is that not a credible source from which to quote commentary regarding Ross Cameron? At one time, Mark Latham was leader of the Federal Labour party in Australia. 220.237.36.122 (talk) 07:58, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So Boulevardier, if, according to you, the SMH is a reliable source of information to confirm that Cameron worked at Macquarie Bank until 2008, why is it not a reliable source for information regarding why Cameron chose to 'confess' the affairs for which he lost his federal seat. At the time (2004) the question was asked extensively in the media, and the SMH has written about the fact that Cameron revealed his affairs to the Good Weekend magazine because he had an affair with a woman who was flatmates with a News Limited Journalist (woops. He couldn't take his pre-emptive strike to The Australian, could he). This is information widely covered in the SMH, which in previous posts and edits you've discredited as a reliable source. There's a fair amount of hypocrisy from you here in your editing. I ask again, are you only working in the interests of Wikipedia? It doesn't look like it from here. 220.237.36.122 (talk) 20:57, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

two, not three =s

Thanks for fixing up the headings... Realised I'd stuffed up and went back to fix it and it was already done. Regards, The-Pope (talk) 15:30, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your request for rollback

Hi Boulevardier. After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Salvio ^Let's talk about it! 13:39, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Much obliged. bou·le·var·dier (talk) 13:40, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hazardous materials case

Managed to get in contact with the dean of the faculty concerned. His response is extremely promising (he read WP:SUP amongst other things) and I've sent him the chapter's contact details and emphasised that we're keen to work with them if it's at all possible. Orderinchaos 13:58, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great news. It's important to emphasise that the only reason so many of the contributions were deleted was because they were "unencyclopedic" original research summarising legislation/regulation - that is, nothing wrong with the standard of the work or the quality of the editors' knowledge, but rather the thrust of the topics. Directed properly, it would be a great boon to topics we don't cover very well (OH&S in particular). Let me know if I can help any further. bou·le·var·dier (talk) 14:12, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Katter

Hi Boulevardier. New to WP. No account yet, sorry. I edited the MP Katter page re: his brother's comments on gay marriage etc. I agree with you to the point that it shouldn't be in the place I put it -- clearly doesn't constitute his political views. But I reject the vandalism/libel tag, though I see why you may have put it there. Just to clarify: I'm not out to demean MP Katter, but I think that given the personal nature of the current debate and MP Katter's stance on it, his brother's comments do add context to MP Katter's profile, given his views. Carl Katter's comments are also being carried by multiple and reputable news services, and are being widely discussed. Perhaps something similar could be placed in Personal/Family?

All best,

DFrag 59.167.157.122 (talk) 19:35, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I tagged any edits as vandalism or libel. I removed the content because our policy on biographies of living persons says it doesn't belong. We are not an indiscriminate collection of quotes people have said about other people, and being a blood relative does not make one's comments any more or less relevant. For example, we do not cover the views of Van Thanh Rudd in our articles about Julia Gillard or Kevin Rudd, even though they got arguably more media coverage than Carl Katter. It's fine to mention that he has a brother, but anything beyond that is out of the scope of a biographical article. bou·le·var·dier (talk) 01:24, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 13:54, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Katter's Australian Party logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Katter's Australian Party logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:37, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Katter's Australian Party logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Katter's Australian Party logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:29, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality

Is it really neutral to blatantly copy whatever radical misinformation an organization may state about themselves? I highly doubt that any organization with malicious intent would openly classify themselves as such. A middle ground might be calling them "self proclaimed [...]" Wddwrls (talk) 12:34, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:11, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]