User talk:Blue Indigo

Welcome!

Hello, Blue Indigo, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!

Hidden notes

Bonjour,

Au lieu d'utiliser des "hidden notes" pourquoi ne pas utiliser un "template", à savoir (par exemple):

"Barocque" ^{[clarification needed]}

ou bien

"Barocque" ^{[citation needed]}.

Il est assez probable que les bots seront bien plus tolérants.

En tout cas, Jerome Kohl n'a rien à voir avec le comportement du bot.

Bien à vous,

Contact Basemetal here 23:00, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Paul Dukas name muddle

The Paul Dukas name muddle

Ah no! I contributed edits on Paul Dukas' family background and suggested - without any references or evidence to back it up - that his father Jules Dukas may have had a Greek Jew descendant originally from Ottoman-era Greek Macedonia. I thought Ottoman-Greek Jews might have adopted the name Dukas/Doukas under the INFLUENCE of their Greek-speaking Christian Orthodox neighbours. This MIGHT explain why there were and still are other Jewish families in Britain, France and Austria-Hungary who bear the name Doukas/Dukas, since many Jews from Ottoman-era Greek Macedonia are known to have immigrated to these countries. But this idea is really only an interesting line of inquiry and not historical fact.

It is important to emphasize that even among most of those Greek-speaking Christian Orthodox families from Epirus, Greek Macedonia and elsewhere in northern Greece - where the late Byzantine Doukai and Komneno-Doukai were most active - who have Doukas/Dukas as a surname (or additional surname) VERY FEW of these will even claim descent from the Byzantine-era noble family. Most of those especially northern Greek families who have the name Doukas/Dukas in the final or middle position do so simply because an earlier ancestor probably adopted it for prestige reasons. Modern Greece has not maintained a living aristocratic tradition, not just because the end of the 1967-74 military dictatorship led to the deposition of the Greek monarchy (which in any case was not indigenous to Greece) but because Byzantine Greek aristocrats in the Ottoman period tended to marry into the Ottoman ruling family or the noble families of Christian Orthodox Russia and elsewhere in Europe. Hope this helps those interested in the name Dukas/Doukas. Thanks. A Gounaris (talk) 12:55, 4 February 2014 (UTC) A Gounaris (talk) 13:04, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hotel Crillon

I think there is a small mistake in your edit about the Hotel Crillon. It is indeed a luxury hotel, which is temporarily closed for renovation. (See their website). The Navy is at the other end of the block, in the Hotel de la Marine. Keep up your great editing work! SiefkinDR (talk) 18:19, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Paris

Thanks, very good suggestion. I've done as you suggested. SiefkinDR (talk) 11:56, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Art and Sculpture

I agree with and like your recent edits to the section on art and sculpture; but wonder why Rodin doesn't get a mention, and maybe a couple of other modern sculptors. And why is the American academy listed under art and sculpture, if it teaches fashion and interior design?

Keep up your good work! SiefkinDR (talk) 19:15, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your word of appreciation and also your reminder of Rodin & "a couple of other modern sculptors." Quel choix difficile! As for the American academy: I have been questioning its place in an article that we are trying (with much difficulty!) to trim: keep under 180 000 bytes? Mission impossible!

Will return to article ASAP, which may not be today as there is life outside Wikiland!

Cordialement, --Blue Indigo (talk) 06:43, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Photography and dividing sections

As you suggested, I've added some more about photography- 1838 - first photo taken by Daguerre, 1839 -French Academy donates rights to technology to world - 1892 - first exhibit by the Photo-Club on Pictorialism at the Palace of Fine Arts. Cordialement, SiefkinDR (talk) 08:36, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I made a mistake on the date of the photo exhibit; it was 1894, and I moved it to that date. It seems to me that the Exhibit is the most important accomplishment of the Photo Club, and I don't want to have two entries about them, so I put the information about the founding and the founders in 1894. Odd that there's no article about the Club, though the article about Pictorialism has a fair amount about it. Besides the Dageurre picture, I put two entries regarding his early work.

Regarding the division of the different centuries, I plan to expand those sections some with additional sources, if I can ever get through the endless 20th century. Probably each century will have its own section.

Thanks again for your interest and help in the article. It's nice to know that somebody's reading it who knows the subject. SiefkinDR (talk) 15:51, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your interest in subjects related to French history. It seems there are others interested & who know the subject. Will add additional data & also see if there is more on the Photo-club de Paris which, from what I gather, was quite an association (société). Here is a bnf gallica link to its first bulletins, starting in 1891.

http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/cb32727736w/date

Regards, --Blue Indigo (talk) 18:33, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your behavior need to improve quite a lot

Your disruptive behavior at talk:Paris need to stop, it looks as if you're trolling. You've been doing nothing but bitching about other users in sarcastic tones for several days now. You complain about almost every edits other users make, but even when explicitly asked to edit you refuse to edit yourself.[1] Worse, you're not even presenting your arguments in a factual way, instead resorting to snide and sarcastic comments about other users [2], [3]. You do not have to agree with others, but disagreeing is no excuse for violating WP:FORUM and posting sarcastic opinions about others. The rules put in place by Fut.Perf. applies to you too.Jeppiz (talk) 20:33, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about other threads, but agreeing with another editors concerns does not come under WP:FORUM. Rob984 (talk) 20:55, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly not, and nobody has said it does. But refusing to edit while writing comments with the sole purpose of being sarcastic about other users does come under WP:FORUM.Jeppiz (talk) 21:01, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Raising concerns about others users' edits, in a sarcastic manner or not, does not come under WP:FORUM. Additionally, readers giving feedback shouldn't be discouraged. Rob984 (talk) 21:30, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rob984:

Since you came here in support of me, I would like to thank you here for doing so. Merci!

Best regards, --Blue Indigo (talk) 22:53, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jeppiz:

Sarcastic comments?

Simply stating facts that others have stated on the talk page.

In my last comment on Paris talk page, that addressed to Rob984, whom I called "Bob", it was not sarcastic, I was being witty & saying what many of us have been saying on that very page, sometimes in a very angry tone, which I ask you to note I never use. I'll be witty, but never vulgar. If you think it is not a shock when someone comes upon en.wiki Paris page - remember an article that is read around the world, and by some pretty smart individuals -, and sees not even three lines for the 17th century, then goes to the talk page & reads all the reasons for not including historical events in the history of Paris, it may leave people to wonder what's going on with the contributors of that article, the extent of their knowledge on the subject & what the purpose is of even having such a section.

Refusing to edit?

Since May/June of this year, I have done extensive editing at the Paris article & less extensive but necessary on other articles, mainly on subjects touching France.

Up until the battle for Paris began, and I do not mean that of August 1944, my work had never been reverted, and not even a comma added or removed. Now, the work I have done for about six months on the Paris page has disappeared because some readers/contributors think the article is too long. All the removal has been done without ever having the courtesy of telling the respective contributors that their work was discarded - except you, I must say. Yesterday, when you shortened the 17th century, you removed part of my contribution of about an hour and a half before [4]. You were polite when you did it & wrote that we were welcome to put our contribution back. That was nice & I addressed a note to you in the Paris talk page, saying that I would not put back any of what you removed because someone would remove it anyway. I am learning that removing & reinstating work quickly leads to edit warring, and under the circumstances & the heated debates taking place on the talk page RE the history section, I thought it wiser, and still do, not to edit the page & bring my contribution back. And I will not touch that article before it is possible to work in peace. Going any where near Paris article or talk page right now amounts to taking a stroll on a minefield.

I believe that my note to you was courteous & see nothing wrong in the questions I asked.

In other words, I stand by everything I wrote. Blue Indigo

Blue Indigo, I have absolutely no problem with your opinions. I even share quite many of them. As you say yourself, the Paris article is a bit of a minefield and this may not be the time and place to be 'witty', nor personal. I'd recommend going for factual. It goes for everybody, of course.Jeppiz (talk) 00:10, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marie Antoinette

Hy, how are you, it seems you know the subject and I would be happy to work with you but until know in general until today I did not revert you one, you are doing it in not in all my edits but with the majority of them without even communicating with me, I 'm letting you work, most of the time you are not letting me work; I sincerely invite you to discuss changes and everything would be positive.Aubmn (talk) 11:12, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As a sign of good faith, I 'm not removing your work and not telling the administrators about you reverting me 3 times, I wish you respect my work as I respect yours, and that you communicate with me about improving this article. Thank you.Aubmn (talk) 12:27, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want, I 'm ready to work with you, if you are positive, I 'll be one hundred more although you said on flyer talk page, I ' m leading a panzer division implying I 'm a Nazi, an insult I did not report.Aubmn (talk) 16:50, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aubmn, Panzerdivisionen (PzDiv) sind bewegliche Großverbände der Panzertruppe, die aus Kampfpanzer-, motorisierten oder gepanzerten Infanterie-, Kampfunterstützungs- und Führungsunterstützungverbänden bestehen. Erstmals fasste die deutsche Wehrmacht Kampfpanzer zu selbständigen Divisionen zusammen, wodurch das Deutsche Reich bei Ausbruch des Zweiten Weltkriegs gegenüber den meisten anderen Staaten eine operativ-taktische Überlegenheit besaß.

Do you see the word nazi anywhere there?

A Panzerdivision is simply an Armored Division, a division of which the vehicles are tanks & other armored vehicles. When that division rolls down into battle, it takes everything in its path.

If you prefer in French: Division blindée: La division blindée est une unité militaire composée surtout de véhicules terrestres blindés dont un grand nombre de chars. Son emploi devint fondamental dans la stratégie et l'organisation des armées à compter de la Seconde Guerre mondiale.

Now, if you see anything else in what I wrote, it could be that you have a problem interpreting what you read...

... which is one of the reasons I'd rather not talk to you on my talk page:

I do not want my talk page to be turned into a battlefield.

--Blue Indigo (talk) 18:10, 6 August 2015 (UTC

Panzer division mean to any person the Reich army and the Nazi, there is even an article about it in Wikipedia, unfortunately you are not only sarcastic but also you don't respect others, you don't want to work together, fine I hope know that an administrator is involve, there is someone to arbitrate between us.Aubmn (talk) 18:38, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aubmn,

This only reinforces my opinion that I should never address a word to you: you twist everything around. So, please, do not come & start another long-winded battle on my talk page.

--Blue Indigo (talk) 19:06, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chartres

The 16:00, 12 August 2015 thread below is what I had left at Whiteflagfl talk page after he reverted my edits at the article on Chartres.

Whiteflagfl: Would you mind telling me why you reverted my changes?

Battle of Chartres in August 1944 [5], moreover, the "single enlisted man" happened to be Colonel Griffith's "driver".
What is wrong with specific historical details in the history section of a city? And, above all, keeping events in a chronological order? The dukedom of Chartres being erected in a dukedom peerage was done by Louis XIV at the birth of his nephew, not "after the time of Louis XIV".[6]
Like all cities of France, Chartres is nowadays a 'republican' city within the Republic of France; however, during the Middle Ages and up to the revolution of 1789, and a couple of periods in the 19th century (1814-1848), it was a city in the Kingdom of France. Why should that history be ignored? Also, why did you revert the new terms of office of Gorges & put back his previous term of 2008-2014? If you do not mind, we are in 2015 and at the election of 2014, he was reelected Mayor of Chartres until 2020.[7]

--Blue Indigo (talk) 16:00, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, one you focus to much on nobility history even not France before 1789 plus you seems doing self promotion and you seems to belong to the region.

Whiteflagfl (talk) 16:49, 12 August 2015

Whiteflagfl, If I was in the need of *self promotion*, this Blue Indigo would not be the status of my user page. And, please, stop reverting my edits on the history of Chartres. [8]

Blue Indigo (talk) 18:23, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you are spreading false rumours about me on Flyer22 and other editors, I'm reporting you soon if you continue. :Huntermiam (talk) 16:34, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ANI Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Mjroots (talk) 17:46, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per protocol, I mentioned you on ==ANI== demanding a Ban Whiteflagfl (talk) 18:25, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per the above notice, it seems that there was a sockfarm involved. Consider yourself very lucky not to have been blocked per WP:EW. If this situation arises again, your first course of action should be to raise the issue on the article's talk page. Do not continue reverting, chances are that other editors will also agree and they are free to revert. Should there be no discussion at talk, or the war continues, WP:ANI is there to be used, so use it. Mjroots (talk) 20:31, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

February 2016

Hello, Blue Indigo, welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. Your editing pattern indicates that you may be using multiple accounts or coordinating editing with people outside Wikipedia. Our policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow this, and users who use multiple accounts may be blocked from editing. If you operate multiple accounts directly or with the help of another person, please disclose these connections. Regarding User:BlueUndigoiFuckerFlyer2. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 07:03, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Nihonjoe: The BlueUndigo... accounts are made by a troll who has been harassing BlueIndigo (and others) for some time. I've blocked a few of them myself. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:24, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aha. I apologize then. The one I blocked seemed to be the same person, but looks can be deceiving, as in this case. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:01, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Boing! said Zebedee: and @Nihonjoe: Thank you for your intervention.

Nihonjoe: your *welcome to Wikipedia* above came as a surprise, hence what I left at your talk page. Your apologies are accepted :)

--Blue Indigo (talk) 21:12, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of tea for you!

Just wanted to offer some empathy regarding the ongoing sock campaign. I'm sorry about it, and I understand how frustrating it really is. GAB^Hello! 23:09, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AN

A very new account is discussing you at WP:AN, FYI. Acroterion (talk) 17:43, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Blue Indigo. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Blue Indigo. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (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) 00:16, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:39, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]