Talk:Paul Ladmirault

Seiz Breur

Seiz Breur was a collective of artists and designers who had a variety of political views. Their leader was René-Yves Creston, who was ceratinly not "fascistic". There were over 40 members, and all sorts of different political opinions are to be found among them. The organisation itself had no specific political ideology as you can tell from their various policy declarations, should you choose to read them. Paul B (talk) 19:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Place of death etc.

To User:Dr.K.: Why your aggressive tone in your edit today? If you have a source for your change, why not put it in the first time round? It was you who complained about the lack of reliable sources and then you change sth. without any source! Besides, your name of the place of death of Ladmirault is the same as there was before. Only you (or your source) spelled it the Breton way, the spelling before was the same locality in French. So: Keep cool. Peace. Aklein62 (talk) 17:02, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

@Aklein62: I remind you of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. There was nothing "aggressive" in my tone and do not imply in a weasel way that I am not "cool" by advising me to "keep cool". Your discussion tactics are unfair and underhanded, so stop them and retract them per WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. I was replying to your edit summary where you undid my edit claiming: Undid revision 849429557 by Dr.K. (talk) There is absolutely no reason to delete this fully correct information. and I replied to you: Sure there was a good reason for removing the material. It failed WP:RS. Don't undo other editors' edits without providing WP:RS. The WP:BURDEN is on you to provide sources for challenged material. There is no "correct" information on Wikipedia. Just sourced. I did it this time by supplying the source. Next time, try to do it on your own.), a reply which was not "aggressive" but very informative. But instead of thanking me for advising you how to do something properly, you falsely claim that my advice was "aggressive". I expect a retraction of your comment per WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Again, next time you claim that information in fully correct, try to also supply the WP:RELIABLESOURCES that are needed to support it. As I wrote in my edit-summary, the WP:BURDEN is upon you to add sources when you restore unsourced information. I did not have to supply the source. I just removed the unsourced information as I had every right to do. When you restored it, instead of hectoring me through your edit summary (cf. absolutely no reason to delete this fully correct information, , using loud and absolutist language), you should have found a source to support the unsourced statements you restored. Dr. K. 17:23, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I did not mean to be uncivil, and I don't think I was. I also did not attack you personally, and please do not insinuate that I did. And therefore I don't have to retract anything. All I said was that you wrongly removed correct information (no matter whether it was sourced or not). If you think you can remove all unsourced information simply because it is unsourced you can remove half of Wikipedia (well, a huge lot anyway!) and you would probably be busy for the remainder of your life. It may not be a Wikipedia rule, but as well as providing a source for an information, one should also provide a reason for a deletion. That is commonsense. Otherwise you may in good faith consider that the information you are about to delete may be true, even though it is unsourced. If you have reason to believe something is not true, then say so. This is my reasoning. Nothing personal involved in it at all. Aklein62 (talk) 19:11, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Ok. I see that your response does not address any of the valid points I raised about RS, BURDEN, and WP:V. Instead, you went on a tangent about If you think you can remove all unsourced information simply because it is unsourced you can remove half of Wikipedia etc.. I take your non-response to mean that you agree with my policy-based comments, so I will not waste any more time arguing, especially since your original thread has nothing to do with article improvement. Remember, this is the article talkpage, and it should be used for improving the article, not making baseless weasel insinuations about other editors like alleged aggressive tone in edit-summaries, and to find an excuse for more insinuations by baselessly admonishing the other editor to keep cool. Like I said, these insinuations are a violation of CIV and NPA. You don't want to admit it, that's your problem. Just remember, your initial post was not aimed at article improvement, and as such it was out of line. I had already improved the article by adding a reliable source, although, it was you who had the BURDEN to supply it. When you edit-warred by reverting me, you did not bother to supply a source to support your re-adding of unsourced information into the article. Instead you admonished me in your edit-summary using absolutist terms, but, still, you did not bother to supply any sources. You then became miffed by my very nice and informative edit-summary response and you wanted to take a few shots at me so you opened this irrelevant thread which has nothing to do with article improvement and everything to do with taking some shots at me. I responded, since you pinged me, but again, you did not heed any of my well-made points. This is a useless thread and a waste of time. You can have the last word, but don't ping me. I don't want to waste any more of my time. Dr. K. 23:01, 9 July 2018 (UTC)