Talk:Geoffroi de Charney
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Geoffroi de Charney article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Untitled edit
Seriously? Did someone just dig up the most overly verbose paragraph from some long-forgotten history book (it seems to be a quote of a quote) and just copy it word-for-word? Entirely out of context and barely even relevant to the subject. In dire need of cleaning up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.71.222 (talk) 12:39, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
- Criticism by one who obviously hides behind a numbered IP, specially created, it seems, to assert only criticism on the different articles that he or she comments on, is a cheap shot and does not command any respect. It is also the primary reason that Wikipedia is continually losing potentially good editors. To offer or make specific Wikipedia:Assume good faith improvements is the proper Wikipedian way. Have, however re-worded some paragraphs and will continue, along with other good faith editors to improve the article. Mugginsx (talk) 15:42, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
- Removed some information that is beyond Wikipedia:Scope and is well covered in other Templar articles. Mugginsx (talk) 15:32, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Opinion based writing in Death section edit
The Death section is totally subtle what it says and ungrammatical and unencyclopedic. Please make the section unequivocal, WP:NPOV. The Supermind (talk) 15:23, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Egregious translation error edit
No, no, no. “Guy” absolutely does not and never did mean “boy” in French. That’s English you are thinking of. Killing it with fire. Elinruby (talk) 08:10, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
Copyvio?: Changed since the last time I looked? edit
It was much shorter then, and definitely a translation. It isn’t tagged as such, though, which I missed at the time. Given the word use of the added text, it is almost certainly pasted from somewhere, as it isn’t remotely modern in its phrasing, and still has a footnote number from the text that quotes the original account. Given the likely age of the original account WP:COPYVIO *may* not apply, but I suspect proper attribution is lacking. Putting this in the hands of @Diaanna: for her consideration Elinruby (talk) 02:03, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
@Diannaa: I will learn to spell your user name yet Elinruby (talk) 02:06, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry it's not at all clear what I am supposed to be looking at or what the source of the text is that you think got added or when it got added. The citation oddity 86 to 127[3] was added back in 2011 here so that doesn't clear things up either. In other words, if you could be a lot more specific about which text you think might be copyvio I will check but as it stands I have no idea what you want me to examine. Thanks,— Diannaa (talk) 14:16, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- I'm just jumping on here, much later (during a GoCE blitz) to guess that the copyvio might be the long source listed in the "death" section (for some reason, the quotation marks have disappeared). I'm just going to leave it there for you to see if it's copyvio... Epikourios Alitheia talk 19:38, 11 May 2022 (UTC)