User talk:Tamzin/Archive/Old/3

Conversations are archived in their original order; please note that this means that some later additions to this archive will appear higher-up than some earlier ones.

Message left on user page

I'm not going to paste 24k bytes into your talk page so here you go, have fun! :) -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 08:14, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks as always, Riley! :) What is it with the French and copypastes? - in that whole Bourdin thing, he pasted various blocks of text to Jimbo's page, including one that I had to refactor just like I am with this one (just replacing the text with the relevant link), and two where the text he pasted included templates that had been written the {{tl}} form, but since he wasn't copying the source code, they transcluded to Jimbo's page. — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 12:09, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

18:16, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

new page

Transferred from my user page, and refactored to replace a massive copypaste with a single link — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 12:09, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello Francophonie & Androphilie,

There is an important and interesting page in French about "Visual History". I think that it would be useful to get it in English. Could you translate it in English ? I will have a look. That would be great (in French, it is "Histoire du Visuel", but I copy it for you).

fr:Histoire du visuel

Merci !

PlurofuturoPlurofuturo (talk) 07:12, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

DC case

Hi, in the posting you just made, you may have meant to link to the edit before this one rather than this edit. ϢereSpielChequers 01:46, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Correct. Thanks for noticing! :) — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 02:01, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. Thanks for the naming of Snowflake snippet, that was one of "those random facts from the interwebs" that keeps me on this site:) ϢereSpielChequers 09:24, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Block

I got blocked. Then I got unblocked. I'm not embarrassed about it, and you should all still feel free to comment on any of these threads if you feel so inclined, but I don't want to take up so much space here with what's mostly a moot point.

Blocked I've taken a deeper look at your edit history, and it's clear that you are a returning user with an agenda. I don't particularily care which user that may be; the fact is that since the mere month this account has been active I've seen you in several venues stirring up drama and that alone is reason to believe that you aren't here to write an encyclopedia. Editors here have much better things to do than play games with trolls. Please return to your real account and make a proper unblock request there. In the meantime, this account has been blocked indefinitely. — Coren (talk) 02:58, 2 December 2012 (UTC)   Comments Coren, please provide evidence in diffs of what this user has done that is disruptive. Yes, the user created an ANI discussion that may look disruptive but even with that discussion alone (Which the user may have made because they were offended) it is not enough to block the user indefinitely. Thank you kindly :) -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 03:12, 2 December 2012 (UTC) If you can find many "new" users that claim they are a teenage son of a BLP subject, know about our more arcane processes (e.g. filing an AfD all of 20 hours after creating their account[1] shortly after having installed javascript tools[2], knows AN/I and how to post diffs after less than a week[3] or – more telling – creates an SPI a week in[4], I'll eat a sock (but a clean one). — Coren (talk) 03:53, 2 December 2012 (UTC) Regardless of how experienced this user was when he started, you blocked as "Disruptive editing". Could you please explain and provide evidence for what contributions this user has made that are disruptive? :) -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 04:13, 2 December 2012 (UTC) Hm, "disruptive editing" is probably not the best pre-baked block summary I could have used. Something along the lines of "Returning user clearly up to no good" might have been closer to the truth. I doubt that the exact text of the block is an issue; but I can alter it if it becomes needed. That said, it would be best if you let F&A make his own block appeal if he feels the need to; he can make his case and it will be reviewed by another administrator. — Coren (talk) 04:24, 2 December 2012 (UTC) No, "disruptive editing" is not the best pre-baked block summary you could have used nor should a pre-baked block summary been used for block. This user is a vandalism fighter with no found (I can't find any) evidence of making disruptive editing. You could say that the ANI discussion is disruptive but others disagree. If you are not going to block remove this block, I invite you to block this user under a correct reason that is supported by evidence. Thank you kindly -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 04:55, 2 December 2012 (UTC) :) I'm clearly up to no good, but I don't see anyone indef blocking me just yet. There's something not right here, and you need to fix it ASAP. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:32, 2 December 2012 (UTC) Has a checkuser been done on this user? John Vandenberg (chat) 04:29, 2 December 2012 (UTC) A SPI discussion has not been started on this user. A checkuser has been done on this user, results [5]-- Cheers, Riley Huntley 04:35, 2 December 2012 (UTC) Just so y'all know, my official unblock request will be done in 5-10 minutes. — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 04:36, 2 December 2012 (UTC) Oh, and can somebody please tell Bbb23 that I'm not at all offended by his comment on my sexuality, and greatly appreciate his insightful analysis? Thanks. — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 04:38, 2 December 2012 (UTC)  Done -- Cheers, Riley Huntley Following comment made after filing of unblock request (and shortly before it was accepted), but moved here for flow — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 06:14, 2 December 2012 (UTC) An unblock is not necessary as the person can take Coren's advice (use original account to request an unblock), or can make another sock and do constructive work from that (hint: avoid ANI until there really is an issue that involves the new account). I know "make another sock" is not compliant with policy, but it is compliant with the WMF's reality. Johnuniq (talk) 06:00, 2 December 2012 (UTC) This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request. Tamzin/Archive/Old (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: I have been blocked on the basis that I am "a returning user with an agenda" who is "stirring up drama." I aim to appeal this block by challenging both of these claims. The first and simpler claim is that of disruption. I imagine this could refer to: some early contributions I made to Talk:Breast cancer awareness; a little argument on a rather contentious AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natalie Khawam); the rather complicated case of User:Francparler (aka User:Idontfeelthesame); and perhaps my habit of sometimes being over-zealous in my AfD !votes, specifically in !voting for speedy deletion when not warranted. However, I have never been warned for disruption, nor for any other offense. I am sure that, without a doubt, there have been times where I was dramatic, to the point of (unintentionally, though I suppose it doesn't make a difference) disrupting the project. For any such times, I do indeed apologize, but I urge the reviewing admin to consider whether those moment themselves warrant a block. The more relevant complaint, ultimately, is that of any potential sockpuppetry. <Personal information redacted.> I have, in the past, created two accounts: User:Snowforme and User:SnowflakeAZ. The former made a handful of edits; the latter made exactly one, a vandalism, as part of an injoke with a friend. I have lost the passwords for both; I apologize for my brief affair with vandalism. I've also made minor contributions from various IPs throughout my adolescence, as have most teens, I imagine. I have never heretofore made any substantial contributions to Wikipedia or any of its sister projects. I am not a "returning user clearly up to no good." I think the various objections this block has received (see WP:ANI#Personal attacks and unfounded accusations by User:Delicious carbuncle) show that I'm not "clearly" up to anything, and no evidence has been provided of exactly what "no good" I've come here to do. As for the "returning user" part, if the reviewing admin has any specific questions about the notion that I know too much to be a new user, I will gladly answer them. However, I've never heard of a good knowledge of the way things work being a reason to block someone. Also, please look at some of my early contributions - yes, I started an AfD on my first or second day (it's the reason I created this account, at first), but look at how much it sucked. I had a working knowledge of Wikipedia coming in (from lurking and basic IP editing), but I had just as much a lurning curve as any other new user. Thank you for taking the time to consider this request. Accept reason: I've said elsewhere that I remained open to an appeal from you, but that it had better be compelling for me to accept it. It was. I'm still very much unconfortable with the number of coincidences around you but it would seem that they are just that – coincidences. I suppose a nasty side effect of routinely working around the worst Wikipedia attracts colors perceptions, and I saw more around you than an outsider would have. Please accept my apologies for the block. I realise now in retrospect that I should have discussed this matter with you before blocking the account. I'll still offer a piece of advice, however: don't delve too deeply and quickly in the back-office aspects of the project – it's rather seedy back there and you'll end up with a jaundiced view. Not unlike mine, I suppose. — Coren (talk) 06:01, 2 December 2012 (UTC) In one of the many IRC chats I was involved in during my block, I commented on the irony of being the subject of the same type of bold action I so often promote. Indeed, in some ways, I see no reason to consider this anything more than the sort of friendly fire one often encounters in the "seedy side" - reverting back to a vandalized copy, confusing the good guys with the bad guys, etc. Perhaps the best analogy would be one of my hallmark hasty "speedy delete" votes at AfD: Somewhat disruptive, wasting a little time from other editors and reflecting poorly on myself, but, ultimately, a moot point. At the end of the day all that happened was that two whining editors started noticeboard threads, and the wrong one got blocked for a few hours. (Though I'm aware I'm now too involved to pursue any further action against User:Delicious carbuncle.) You had the judgment to review your own actions and revert them in a situation where you could have probably gotten away with brushing it all under the rug - or, at the very least, you could have sulked in a corner while another admin dealt with my request, and politely refused comment afterward. But no, you chose to unblock me yourself, and I do take that admission of error at its full value. Hell, your unblock summary was so courteous than my block log looks better now than it did at the start of all this. Since all this was about how new I am, I note a further irony in that I created my account a few days too late to vote in the ArbCom elections. But I rather like it this way: I'll never have to decide whether or not to vote for you, but I know, at the very least, that it wouldn't be a cut-and-dry answer. You are a good man. Merci bien. — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 06:57, 2 December 2012 (UTC) Oh, also, I figure you might as well go ahead and indefblock what I'll call my "proto-socks." ;) As I said above, I've lost the passwords, and if someone hacked them I imagine I'd have a pretty hard time defending against sockpuppetry accusations, since I've already confessed to owning them. — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 10:06, 2 December 2012 (UTC) Well, we don't generally block older abandonned accounts; but you needn't worry about sockpuppetry accusations stemming from them: disclosed past accounts are – by definition – not socks. Good return to editing. — Coren (talk) 12:32, 2 December 2012 (UTC) favorite novel Do you have a favorite novel or author? Just wondering. I used to like John Barth. 66.127.54.40 (talk) 06:31, 2 December 2012 (UTC) Actually the above question is maybe a little too sneaky. What I'm getting at is that you don't write like a 16 year old. If you're really who you say you are, it might ease some doubts if you were to contact WP:OTRS to confirm your identity. 66.127.54.40 (talk) 06:34, 2 December 2012 (UTC) Did I accidentally stumble into some surreal parallel world here? 66.127.54.40 is some random not-very-anonymous IP address, so is not going to be identifying to OTRS, or to anyone else, anytime soon. So it's asking someone else to do so? Eh? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:42, 2 December 2012 (UTC) I'm not claiming to be a named person connected with a WP biography subject. 66.127.54.40 (talk) 06:44, 2 December 2012 (UTC) Good. Keep it that way. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 07:01, 2 December 2012 (UTC) (edit conflict) Meh, after further thought, none of of the above seems like a bright idea. I'm uncomfortable with this whole picture, and I probably shouldn't have said anything. I hope Coren is still keeping an eye on this page to stay aware of further developments if any. I'm going to disengage. I think Coren's advice is good. Happy editing. 66.127.54.40 (talk) 07:03, 2 December 2012 (UTC) While I'm aware that this user's retracted their suggestion, I think they're asking a question that a lot of you out there, my friends included, are probably wondering about. I didn't get to it in my unblock request mostly because I'd already written so much, but not, as I move forward, it's what matters most in terms of my community standing. I think I'll write a little subpage on it. I'll put a link up here when I'm done. Thanks. (Oh, and my favorite author's probably Asimov, favorite novel's Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451. What did you expect me to say? Harry Potter?) — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 08:42, 2 December 2012 (UTC) Please accept my apologies I will take Coren's unblock as an affirmation that you are who you claim to be. Please accept my apologies for accusing you of being another incarnation of PaoloNapolitano/Fluttershy, but the resemblance was uncanny. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 06:32, 2 December 2012 (UTC) Coren's admission of guilt does not absolve you. If the resemblance was uncanny (which seems rather unlikely, as I have the same edit patterns as any number of WikiGnomes), then the proper procedure was to take it to SPI, which I waited 4 hours asking you to do. I'm afraid, as much as I'd like to let bygones be bygones, DC, that this is the case of "too little, too late." You insulted me repeatedly, and dismissed all honest communications on my part; I can forgive Coren because, as I've explained above, he undid his mistake, and apologized for it in no uncertain terms. You, on the other hand, have just gotten away with a string of incivil remarks that you refused every chance to retract, and now, to boot, I won't be able to participate in any discussions the next time you do this, because I'll be considered too involved. So I appreciate your willingness to say you're sorry, but what you wrote above is not an apology. Rejecting it is the one solace I may take from this whole affair, and, respectfully, it is a solace that I will take. — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 07:42, 2 December 2012 (UTC) Involved only applies to administrators taking administrative actions. You don't have to worry about that. However, you said that Coren undid his mistake and so you forgave him. I believe that DC is now trying to "undo" his mistake when he said "Please accept my apologies for accusing you." I am sure DC has learned a big lesson about being hasty to spot a Fluttershy reincarnation and I think it would be generous and highly dignified of you to accept his apology.--v/r - TP 15:28, 2 December 2012 (UTC) If your symbolic non-acceptance of my apology makes you happy, then stand your ground, but I don't think you have quite grasped the situation. I erred in identifying you as a Fluttershy sockpuppet and my comments very likely influenced Coren's decision to block you. I made a mistake and Coren made a mistake. We have both apologized. What you seem to have missed, however, is how this ended up happening. Coren had already identified you as someone to keep an eye on. I took one look at your contributions when you suddenly appeared in that WP:AN conversation and knew without a doubt that you were not a new user. Even adding in the other accounts and IP you identified (which have a small number of edits), you really haven't done very much on WP. Yet here you are expressing your opinions on WP:ANI about WP:IAR and sockpuppets after having had this account for only a couple of weeks. I mean, you can understand why people might find that suspicious, can't you? I'm just glad we cleared this up and can both get back to doing whatever it is that we do. And don't feel like you can't comment on my activities, although it might help if you toned down the rhetoric a little. Again, sorry for the misunderstanding. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:22, 2 December 2012 (UTC) I can understand why you might find that suspicious. I'll be writing a little userspace essay on all that in a bit, to clear up any lingering doubts. However, your response was highly inappropriate. You launched an ad hominem attack against my valid points, repeatedly insulted me and dismissed me, in a way that users are told not to treat even the most obvious vandals, and called into question my very identity. TParis, I very much agree with your point; I would love to accept DC's apology. However, I go back to some of the things he said - "you aren't the new and uninvolved 16 year old gay user you pretend to be." If you want any indicator of my youthful naïveté, it's that I cannot think of any situation in which that statement would ever be acceptable on Wikipedia. For you, DC, I have the same standard as an administrator reviewing an unblock request: I am perfectly willing to forgive your mistakes, if and when you acknowledge that you did, in fact, make mistakes. There is a certain level of mistake for which an explanation is all that's needed - if you'd taken me to SPI, for instance, that would have been that sort of mistake. You have provided me with such an explanation; but you went outside of the bounds of common sense, and its an acknowledgment of that that is now appropriate. That's the difference between Coren's apology and yours, and that, not any personal grudge against you, is why I'm not yet prepared to accept an apology. Please don't take this as any sort of righteous indignation, DC. I'm trying to be frank with you. If you think I'm setting the bar too high, or being too full of myself, I understand. I'm glad, at the very least, that you don't bear me any ill will. Likewise. — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 23:35, 2 December 2012 (UTC) F&A, I don't mind apologizing or admitting my mistake, but your arguments in the WP:AN discussion were completely without merit. you complained that I violated WP:NPA by making unsupoorted allegations, yet this is exactly what Shrigley did, only their accusations were of a much more serious nature. Odd that you can't see that. Incidentally, Shrigley's first edit is strongly suggestive that they were not a new user and they too were mistakenly blocked early in their time here, so you are in good company. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:21, 3 December 2012 (UTC) RevDel request Given the extraordinary circumstance under which I felt obliged to publish some personal details, would an admin be so kind as to delete all revisions of this talk page starting with my unblock request and ending with the one immediately before this (timestamps 5:03 to 7:03)? Such information will always be available if someone stalks my contributions extensively enough, but I'd prefer not to have it all in one place. — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 07:54, 2 December 2012 (UTC)  Done - Please send a request to oversight to finish it up, though. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 08:01, 2 December 2012 (UTC) Oversight declined, but they didn't say to undelete. I think I'll change my editnotice to note that some revisions have been deleted for privacy reasons, and that if editors need access to any diffs, or would like to request that the revisions be restored, they should contact an administrator. Cross the bridge when (and if) we come to it, but not hide the bridge's existence from anyone. That sound fair? — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 08:53, 2 December 2012 (UTC) No, I see no need for a notice. Oversighted edits are, unfortunately, a dime a dozen, and if the idea is to not reveal information, then pointing anyone to the existence of information is not the best suggestion. Just leave it be, and if anyone asks, the standard answer is "protection of privacy". A la prochaine, Drmies (talk) 00:58, 3 December 2012 (UTC) Don't think I've ever caught being too cautious before. Now you've done it twice in a row! Good point, Doc. — Francophonie&Androphilie(Je vous invite à me parler) 01:01, 3 December 2012 (UTC) I guess "better safe than sorry" is better advice than whatever I suggested, I suppose, but one does get tired of hoops and the jumping through thereof. I wouldn't be surprised if it's that kind of scrutiny makes some editors wary. But on the internet no one know you're a dog--that goes for me, you, and everyone else. It takes years here to figure out the reality behind the user name, and sometimes one finds very unpleasant surprises. I met a few of these here folks in real life, but I suppose even that's not a guarantee of anything. Maybe I should stop watching the Bourne movies. Anyways, let me know if I can help with anything, and don't neglect your school work. It's not French or English you have to work on, it's math, always math. Drmies (talk) 01:41, 3 December 2012 (UTC) Could you possibly add an article to the French Wikipedia for Miklós Kretzoi? Hello Francophonie&Androphilie, I'm Peter aka User:Shirt58, quite possibly one of the most bizarre yet low-profile editors in the top 2 000 by edits, or something like that. This rather eminent scientist has already extant de:Miklós Kretzoi, it:Miklós Kretzoi, and hu:Kretzoi Miklós articles, but there is no fr:Miklós Kretzoi at present. "Uncle Miklos" as he was known to his students and colleagues does get a mention here. Teh Dramahz aside, we are here to write an encyclopedia. --Shirt58 (talk) 09:08, 2 December 2012 (UTC) For the real French expert on this talk page, you might want to talk to the flipside of said Dramahz - Coren parle Français comme langue maternelle. — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 09:15, 2 December 2012 (UTC) D'accord. To be completely honest, I was suggesting this in an attempt to steer you away from all teh dramahz. Someone else might possibly take that topic it up. I'm still concerned that - if you are possibly a minor as you claim you are, in whatever jurisdiction you are in - you are giving far too may details about yourself here.--Shirt58 (talk) 11:45, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Visual Culture

This was a very difficult work for me. I am a French student. It is useful page. I finally did the translation. But could you Francophilie&Androphilie have a look to write it in a better way ? That would be great. Many thanks.

PlurofuturoPlurofuturo (talk) 11:25, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

your talk page

In response to your ANI query -- given that that the block has been lifted, you can dump anything you want off your talk page per policy. (archiving is better though). NE Ent 20:31, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh, that was about the ANI thread itself. Uncle G did exactly that - closed the part on me and left the main thread open - before anyone had a chance to reply. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 20:36, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

A belated welcome!

Sorry for the belated welcome, but the cookies are still warm!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Francophonie&Androphilie. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! TBrandley 20:40, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

• That IS a bit late, TBradley! This user has already racked up a bunch of edits, been blocked indefinitely, had their name dragged through the mud and then polished up again, and is hanging out at ANI 2 being helpful. Now, about those cookies, I kinda missed lunch, and dinner isn't here yet... Drmies (talk) 00:00, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

• Indeed. DTTR! No, just kidding. Better late than never. Pleasure to meet you, TBrandley. Though I agree with Drmies that someone should change that template so the cookies are a bit less tantalizing. It's just cruel.

Doc, I think that's the first time anyone's ever called anyone's actions at ANI "helpful." I wish there were some way to filter out all the timewastes... maybe create an Administrators' Noticeboard/Bullshit? Although, in all seriousness, it'd be helpful to have some sort of noticeboard specifically for "admin abuse"... not because there's any need, but because the volume of claims is horrendous. I actually think Coren made a good point in his unblock post above, when he said that spending too much time at ANI and the like jaundices one's view; it'd be nice if we could quarantine the content responsible for that somewhere else - heck, that way you could topic-ban perennial complainers from that noticeboard without taking away their right to file ANI reports for legitimate complaints.

Point is, mmm, cookies, yummy. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 01:11, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

ANI moves in waves, up and down. It was much worse a half a year ago, and then I and a couple of others (Fluffernutter, for instance) started cutting things off quicker: threads that linger generate drama, and ditto with threads that shouldn't be there in the first place. For a while, there was a proposal that one of the editors who is perceived by some (not me) as a professional ANIDRAMA whore should be in charge of the board, but in the end that didn't happen. There's a few non-admins (including Nobody Ent) who are keeping an eye on things and I think that it's a lot more workable than it was a year ago. I personally think that comments should be made only by admins, and by non-admins only if they are directly involved or invited; that cuts down on a lot of ambulance chasing, IMO. Besides, ANI seems to be like a kind of kiddy pool where those who want to be admins come out and play, and sometimes do little more than chime in, or chime out, depending on which way the wind blows. But I've probably ruffled enough feathers for today; good thing usually people don't listen to me. A la prochaine, Drmies (talk) 01:42, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Ahmadce

Thank you for the info. Clearly I could have extracted the past history if I had known that it was there but, as you say, it was not readily apparent. I think that my actions would not have different had I been aware of the history of which you speak; in any language his text is still inappropriate. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 09:35, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Definitely. Clearly deserved the block, the declined unblock, and the threat to remove talk page access. One of the worst unblock requests I've seen, and I had to fix the template for him, to boot! Was just clarifying that on the long list of policy violations he's committed, that specific advertisement wasn't one (directly, at least). I don't know User:Sobreira, but if he seems like the troutable type, I say go for it. ;) Though really, this was all just desserts for Ahmad for deleting his speedy warning... it never seems to occur to problem editors that the warnings are for our convenience, not theirs. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 09:46, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

If any admins are awake and watching this page...

...and want to increase their admin-log block count by 25, here ya go. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 09:26, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Request

Hi Francophonie&Androphilie: Since you had agreed [6] that the Natalie Khawam page could be redirected to the main Petraeus scandal article where there is a section about her, you may want to chime in at Talk:Natalie Khawam#Edit request on 10 December 2012. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 09:53, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Saw this right after I posted my reply. Incidentally, I'm actually the one who created the redirect, and left the note saying that it should not be turned into an article without consensus. I assume that note was the basis under which it was protected. I have no opinion on the decision to protect, myself. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 10:01, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I've also revised Natalie Khawam Wolfe to reflect the section title change. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 10:07, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Dilogy

Hi, have a look at de:Mehrteiler, e.g. Since Dilogy stems from an ancient greek word (just like the line of trilogy tetralogy, etc.) there should be plenty of source, so I do not see the point in picking one random, possibly not-best source for quotation. Also, you might have a look at [7] --84.185.81.72 (talk) 01:36, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Yup. Sorry. That was a dumb revert on my part. I've restored your revision. Someone should probably throw up citations for all of the ones there other than trilogy, but there was no reason for me to single your edit out. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 01:43, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Proof of proxy/sockpuppetry of IP foe

OP blocked for harrassment, sockpuppetry, etc.

Bonjour, please see: http://whatismyipaddress.com/ip/220.255.2.142 and note the following: ":IP: 220.255.2.142 Decimal: 3707699854 Hostname: proxy-220-255-2-142.singnet.com.sg ISP: SingNet Pte Ltd Organization: SingNet Pte Ltd Services: Confirmed proxy server Recently reported forum spam source. (1) Type: Broadband Assignment: Static IP Blacklist: Geolocation Information Country: Singapore City: Singapore Latitude: 1.2931 Longitude: 103.8558" Note, "Confirmed proxy server". Thanks for your understanding. 142.161.182.190 (talk) 02:28, 11 December 2012 (UTC) It may have something to do with this. Regardless, the IP has never denied being the same person as those adjacent IPs. Furthermore, as you'll see here, the IP admitted to being the same person as the user with the other IPs. So no sockpuppetry concerns. — Francophonie&Androphilie(Je vous invite à me parler) 02:37, 11 December 2012 (UTC) (talk page stalker) To further comment: sockpuppetry requires an intention to deceive or otherwise harm the encyclopedia; I see no such intention on the part of your "IP foe". I do for you; it's pretty obvious that you are an IP sock, and evading your block is enough deception on your part to constitute sock puppetry, even apart from other concerns with your editing. However, I've decided not to block (though of course that can be overruled by any other admin at any time) and instead temporarily semi-protected the page, so that IP editors can't edit it. If you really want to improve the encyclopedia, now is a perfect time to discuss without reverting. If not, well, not much more to be said. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 02:48, 11 December 2012 (UTC) Well put. A few more talk page stalkers like you, Writ, and I'll have as exciting a page as Drmies.... Well, perhaps not quite as exciting. His reminds me of descriptions of 19th-Century Parisian salons. Incidentally, I'm afraid I'm responsible for the "IP foe" label. — Francophonie&Androphilie(Je vous invite à me parler) 03:02, 11 December 2012 (UTC) Socking or not, it is block evasion. Blocked. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:49, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

City image montages

Hello. I'm new to Wikipedia and I was just wondering if you could inform me how to make an info-box montage for a city? Is there any particular photo editing program required? 124.177.186.253 (talk) 05:11, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. I actually have no clue. It's possible some of the editors watching this page might (Writ Keeper? Riley? Theo? Yunshui? Drmies?), but otherwise I'd advise that you ask at the Teahouse, or that you paste the text {{Helpme}} onto your talk page, describing what you'd like to know below it. The Teahouse generally has a faster response time, I believe. There's also the Help desk, but the Teahouse is geared more toward new users. Hope that helps. Sorry I couldn't be of greater assistance. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 05:49, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

December 2012

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Do not accuse me of having "European pragmatism", young man! BTW, thanks for the help. Drmies (talk) 05:22, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

You can't tease me about my writing skills, and then get all hurt when I put them to good use. As for the conversion therapy, having just flipped through every single picture of lesbian sex on Commons, I think it's safe to say you've failed. And thanks for the RfC link. I'll take a look as soon as I get the chance. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 05:42, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Haha, every single one? Do we have many? (PS: I take offense to the charge of pragmatism--I'm a Calvinist, sure, but in my heart I'm totally rock and roll, and a Dutch Baudelaire to boot.) Drmies (talk) 18:40, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

From all the talk that happens on Jimbo's talk page, it would seem that there's not much else on Commons. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:46, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hardly matters if you intended to be a pragmatist: God decided that you would be before you were even born, whether you ever behave like one or not. And do we have many pictures? We have infinitely too many, from where I stand, traumatized. Perhaps that's one thing Delicious carbuncle and I could agree on: Commons is no place for lesbian erotica. It's disgusting. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 18:49, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Diljaan

Housekeeping tags are usually so routine that I delete everything within reach on autopilot. In this case it appears that I should have actually read the tag, my apologies. I've restored and moved to article space. Probably needs tagging for something. Speedy? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:19, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

No problem. I have no particular attachment to the article, of course, but I googled him earlier, and it appears he is a legitimate singer of some (minor) repute, which means the article does provide a claim to notability. I was planning on throwing up a BLPPROD and seeing how it goes. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 15:26, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Fine avec moi Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:29, 11 December 2012 (UTC)