User talk:Gabriel HM
Welcome Gabriel Haute Maurienne!
| Some pages of helpful information to get you started: | Some common sense Do's and Don'ts:
|
| If you need further help, you can: | or you can: | or even: |
Alternatively, leave me a message at my talk page or type {{helpme}} here on your talk page, and someone will try to help.
There are many ways you can contribute to Wikipedia. Here are a few ideas:
|
|
Remember to always sign your posts on talk pages. You can do this either by clicking on the 
button on the edit toolbar or by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your post. This will automatically insert your signature, a link to this (your talk) page, and a timestamp.
To get some practice editing you can use a sandbox. You can create your own private sandbox for use any time. Perfect for working on bigger projects. Then for easy access in the future, you can put
{{My sandbox}} on your user page. By the way, seeing as you haven't created a user page yet, simply click here to start it.Disambiguation link notification for May 1
[edit]Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Strasbourg, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Battle of Kufra (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:42, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for August 6
[edit]Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Italian irredentism in Savoy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Moutiers. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi Gabriel. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. However, your edits to Left Bank of the Rhine are tending to paint the impression that these territories were really French all along and that the Germans only conquered them in 1871. In fact they had been part of the German-led Holy Roman Empire for centuries and most of the people had spoken a German dialect since the Alemanni settled there in the 5th century A.D. France seized them during the Thirty Years' War, devastating a lot of the region as they did in 1815 when Napoleon's troops swept across Europe. In the Franco-Prussian War, France was defeated and the territories reclaimed by the German Empire, still officially part of the Holy Roman Empire. The modern German state did not come into existence until 1949. Meanwhile France took advantage of being on the winning side in the Second World War to take the area back under its control. If you'd like to dispute the article's rendering of history, please discuss it at the talk page. Cheers. --Bermicourt (talk) 07:52, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
- I apologise if I upset you. I have no axe to grind, nor am I Scottish. Just want to ensure the article retains balance by reflecting its long history: settled by the Alemanni in the 5th century, part of East Francia - the "earliest stage of the Kingdom of Germany" - from 870 and then part of the Holy Roman Empire from 962. Whilst it is true that not all of the HRE was German-speaking, this region was predominantly German-dialect-speaking and under the rule of a German-speaking (Habsburg) emperor. AFAIK it was never part of the Kingdom of France until the Peace of Westphalia in 1648. Whether Alsatians consider themselves French or German today or who they supported during the world wars or earlier is a different question that I didn't address. I was simply referring to who ruled over the region. --Bermicourt (talk) 21:04, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
- I've already apologised, so please chill out, stop ranting and drawing inferences that aren't there. By the way, England was never part of France however far back you go; William the Conqueror was a Norman. They were descended from the Vikings. That said, we still love France! --Bermicourt (talk) 08:41, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
- Mon Dieu et mon Droit..., Le Roy le veult, Honnis soit qui mal y pense... and as I remember the statue in London about Guillaume le Conquérant near the parliament is in French... You really have some issues about nationality and ethnicity....There is a word for that.. The normands were French from viking descent. They accepted the rules of the French kingdom. And by the way if they spoke French, there were French according to you 😋. . Farewell --Gabriel Haute Maurienne (talk) 13:02, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
- Yes the Normans spoke a type of French, but so did many of the royal houses of Europe. They were not part of the Kingdom of France which was a separate sovereign state. Check out Rollo, who founded the "first Viking principality". They were ruled by Norsemen and did not come under French rule until 1204 when Philip of France invaded, setting something of a trend I think. Anyway, I think you're right, time to pull plugs on this discussion which is going nowhere interesting and not contributing to the improvement of English Wikipedia. --Bermicourt (talk) 15:11, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Change of location
[edit]Hello again,Gabriel Haute Maurienne. As our correspondence has moved well outside the subject of the talk page where it started, I have taken the liberty of moving it to my own talk page, where we can talk about any subject without confusing other readers. I did this earlier today, intending to reply to you straightaway, but I suddenly became very busy and I am only now coming back to WP.
I shall now go to my talk page and pick up where I left off. LynwoodF (talk) 21:38, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
L1+2 German speakers
[edit]No one has contributed to the subject on the German language talk page so far. As the article stands right now, we have one non-verifiable source, and one, that does not mention speaker numbers at all. Vorschläge? --37ophiuchi (talk) 23:09, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
- Hallo,
I've posted my results from Ammon (2014) as well as the redesigned infobox. I'd appreciate your feedback! --37ophiuchi (talk) 14:10, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for August 20
[edit]Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited French Towns and Lands of Art and History, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tarentaise. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
August 2015
[edit]
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Cottian Alps may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- The '''Cottian Alps''' ([[French language|French]]: ''Alpes Cottiennes''; [[List of English exonyms for Italian toponyms|
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:52, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
5 million English articles
[edit]
|
We've reached five million!!
The English Wikipedia now has over 5,000,000 articles! Woo-hoo! Feel free to pass this message on! You can never celebrate too much. |
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) 17:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Your war against German
[edit]I do not know your motivation for your fight against everything German. I actually do not care. But you should be aware that there are common standards in Wikipedia for place names e.g., you can find at Wikipedia:PLACES. Another point is that, when you change the meaning of a sentence and there is a reference, you should check what is written there otherwise it can lead to source forgery. And last: Allemanic is not a language but a group of different dialects and also not the only one spoken in Alsace-Lorraine. A simple wikipedia research would help.--78.55.50.76 (talk) 10:46, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- First of all, you have absolutely no right to insinuate such things. And as far as I'm concerned this kind of insinuation can be punished under the Wikipedia rules. For the rest, you are changing articles that were written by many others contributors after discussion. You have no right get to act this way, and after saying that the people that prevent you unilateral edits are "against Germans" Are you saying that all the Wikipedia users are anti german? I'm from Alsace, and you are from Germany so I guess I have a better understanding from my region. There are hundreds of articles about the communes in Alsace, I have kept ONE in French only which is Saint Louis. The city was named after the French King Louis XIV, so there is no historical reason to add a plain German translation, besides if you are motivated by something other that the historical accuracy of the article. If I were an anti German person I would have changed all the articles names about the Alsatian communes. And in all official German maps Saint Louis is only spelled in French. Besides it seems that you have issues to make a distinction between Germany and Alsace wich is a bit awkward. You added this comment with a revert, that it was because the region was bilingual... Here again you are not right. There is no legislation nor law that say that the region is bilingual. And in the reality a small amount of people understand and speak German. And finally if the region would be bilingual it would be in the local language. And this not German but Alsatian like in many road signs and some street names. So if we wanted to be fair all translation would be in Alsatian and not in German. By acting this way I really wonder who is really the politically and motivated person between us. Alsace in not a German region, the translation in another language of a name in an English article is related to historical reasons. --Gabriel HM (talk) 13:19, 17 March 2016 (UTC)--Gabriel HM (talk) 13:19, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
I am not a German and sorry but it is hard to believe that you are from this region. Noone living in this region would call the dialects of Alsace-Lorraine simply as Alemmanic, as Lorraine-Franconian is not even a Upper German dialect. Nevertheless you keep on to claim this without any referencing. And no, this was not written by many contributors only by you, so do not come this way -> Your edit in the article Francization That you found a German map where a place name in a different country is not written in German, is no proof of the nonexistence of a German name. That you are simply deleting the name, ignoring the past of the region, makes it a bit difficult to believe in sth else besides an antipathy against it. That Alsace is not part of Germany and German is not an official language is completely irrelevant -> WP:PLACES --78.55.50.76 (talk) 13:43, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- The edit reached a consensus for a long time, until you decided to intervene. Your assertion is not correct. One thing is for sure, and I don't speculate on your origin nor your affirmation. Your are editing from Germany, and you are new to Wikipedia with this IP address. You have no right nor proof to say that my family is not from Alsace. As for Saint Louis just open a good book of history or go to the Mairie site, and it will state the the city was named in honour of Louis XIV in 1684. So there is no reason to add a German translations unless for personal ideological motives. In the English articles the name in another language is when there is a historical reason. And here there is not. You remind me another contributor under IP as well that added a German translation for the French military ouvrage of the maginot line in Alsace. I have serious doubts about your motives, especially that your edits are concentrated in a very specific topic. Between us, the one that has an obsession is not me.--Gabriel HM (talk) 13:59, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Your edit in the article Franiczation stayed there for some time. No one protested against it or noticed it. I would not call this a consensus! You should have a look on a map of the historic varieties of German in the region -> Distribution area of Western Upper German You would wonder but the saint Louis is called Ludwig in German -> Ludwig IX. (Frankreich) - "When there is a historical reason" - So you would not call it a reason to mention the name even though the region was German speaking until the 20th century? Well, I would call this an obsession. --78.55.50.76 (talk) 14:18, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- I have opened several discussion in the articles, feel free to expose your point of view and follow the rules and bring sources. I remind you that this is an English article and not a German one. So the link to the German article is pointless. And as far as I'm concerned I don't want to change the name in the German article.... Nobody in the region even in Basel say Sankt Ludwig but Saint Louis.... If you are so sure please show me sources that show that people say Ludwig and not Louis.. Personnaly I did not find any. I have spent enough time already with you. And once again, you have no right to say that I'm anti German nor that I'm not from the area. If I was this King of person I would have tried to change the hundreds of articles about Alsatian names and not just this one. This is called libel--Gabriel HM (talk) 14:33, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
It is just that many of your edits can lead to this assumption. Concerning St. Ludwig: The area was German speaking until the 20th century. The name was even official from 1871-1918. According to WP:Places historical names have to be stated in the lead. I would say you are the one, who is not following a consensus. By the way I never said that you are not from the region. I said it is hard to believe, as I would expect someone from there to be aware about the local dialects. That is a difference. --78.55.50.76 (talk) 14:54, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Oh please at least try to be fair. Your assumption was clearly stating the I'm not from Alsace. And it is because my family is from here that I'm perfectly aware of the varieties of the locals dialects, and that they are not German. It is very imperialistic to want to resume them to standart German. The town was named after a French King under French governance, there is no reason to add a plain German translation, that does not have any historical nor pertinence for a reader. The English articles are not here as a German/English dictionary. I don't argue about the pertinence of the translation in the German article.. Your translation does not bring any pertinent information about the town. Among the local and the people living in the surrounding, and even in the German speaking area, nobody says Sankt Ludwig. it is strange that you keep insisting to add a German translation for a minor citie so far away from you, especially that you even don't have any connection to it. That is looking more like a doctrine that a will to add a pertinent information to an article. What would be next, adding a German names to all the French military forts like I saw once with another contributor? If I follow your point, should we add a French name to all the towns that have be conquered and annexed by napoleon? Because, indeed, they were under French rule like Saint Louis was under German administration for 48 years. Now, I stop talking with you here, if you want to change the articles, please expose your sources and motives on the talk page and let't fing a consensus with the other readers, like it is supposed to be.--Gabriel HM (talk) 15:12, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
To say that Alsatian or Franconian is not German is like saying Bavarians do not speak German but Bavarian language. Before WW2 it never was an issue. The thing is that the town was German speaking (yes, and standard German was taught) and was named after a saint not a king, as you think. The town of Fort-Louis for example was named after the king but did not get a "German" name. See the difference. --78.55.50.76 (talk) 15:26, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Two things, first, if you want to make your point at least bring correct info, (see talk page on Saint Louis), before making a point open a book of history and try to collect real and descent info, if you don't want to make a fool or yourself. Saint Louis was a French King before being a Saint, [1] and is considered to be the father of the French monarchs like Louis XIV. So now we do agree, I considered that you had bad sources, since we both agree that if it is name after a French it should just stay in French your quote: "The town of Fort-Louis for example was named after the king but did not get a "German" name. See the difference" I see :) so we do agree now.... And second, for the last time, stop arguing on my talk page, I have a life, and I have spent too much time arguing with you especially when it is based on wrong info like this--Gabriel HM (talk) 15:39, 17 March 2016 (UTC).
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Eastern Europe, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.Arguing about which language versions should be used for a place name is a favorite subject of nationalist edit warring in Europe. If you revert to enforce your personal preference you are risking a block. Please be careful. EdJohnston (talk) 01:01, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello Gabriel, I've added the history for Saint-Louis, Haut-Rhin which explains the origin of its name. I've also restored the German name in brackets. Although the town was created under French rule, it seems reasonable to include its German name in brackets as it is a border town with Germany. If you wish to challenge that, please would you do this on the article talk page and not by engaging in an WP:EDIT WAR. Thank you. --Bermicourt (talk) 12:14, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
WikiProject Mountains of the Alps
[edit]Thanks for your recent input into the Mont Blanc massif article which reached the GA goal today. You clearly have an interest and knowledge across the whole Alps region, and I wonder whether you might like to consider adding your name to the WP:Alps project? It would be good to show that the number of contributors is growing, and that article standards can be encouraged to rise. I'm keen to get related alpine content improved, not just the mountains themselves. Parkywiki (talk) 08:50, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- Just a courtesy note to let you know that I will shortly be removing the photo gallery from the middle of the Mont Blanc massif article. I'm about to submit this article for Featured Article status, and apparently galleries no longer fit with WP:MOS so, I will find a way to put the images elsewhere on the page, and possibly remove one or two to ensure everything fits within the relevant sections. Cheers. Parkywiki (talk) 23:35, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Eupen Malmedy
[edit]Bonjour. Je réponds ici à votre message depose sur ma PDD. La plupart des images (ou des films) d'origine allemande illustrant la Seconde Guerre mondiale sont des images de propaganda et je ne vois pas en quoi il serait serait dérangeant d'illustrer un propos avec ce genre d'image. Cet article n'est pas le seul sur WP(en) ou d'autres Wikipedia à être illustré par des images de propaganda et si vous voulez préciser dans l'encart de toutes les photos concernées (parce qu'il n'y a pas que les photos d'origine allemande, il y a aussi celles d'origine soviétique, japonaise, chinoise, britannique, américaine, française - rien que pour la SGM) je crains que vous y passiez votre vie. Pour le pourcentage de Malmédiens accueillant avec bienveillance voire enthousiasme les troupes de la Wehrmacht, je ne pense pas qu'il s'agissait de la majorité, mais d'une partie néanmoins substantielle. Je n'ai pas immédiatement sous la main d'ouvrage qui l'évoque, mais je note tout de même qu'aux élections législatives de 1939 le Heimattreue Front avait fait dans le canton de Malmedy 43% des suffrages exprimés et était le premier parti du canton en termes de voix. Et ce résultat était à peine inférieur à ceux obtenus dans les cantons germanophones d'Eupen et de Saint Vith. Ca permet aussi d'avoir une idée de l'ampleur de l'accueil reservé par la population aux troupes de la Wehrmacht. Les Malmédiens allaient déchanter par la suite, mais c'est une autre histoire. --Lebob (talk) 11:57, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
[edit]
Hello, Gabriel HM. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Poodle
[edit]Although I understand your point, that isn't what the sources discussing the origin of poodles actually say, and we must go by the sources for the origin, not your interpretation, which I also note isn't used in the sources. Doug Weller talk 06:17, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
[edit]Hello, Gabriel HM. 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)
Occitania
[edit]You should search for what is a nation, and know why regions like Catalonia, Andalusia, Aragon, or Basque Country since years are nations or historical nations, and in the case of Catalonia, your French people are supporting them right now so I do not understand the annoyance against the Occitan secessionism.--ILoveCaracas (talk) 17:59, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for August 27
[edit]Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Poodle, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CKC (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:33, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
August 2018
[edit]
Your recent editing history at Poodle shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Doug Weller talk 11:18, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
- Was just coming here to warn you about this. You are now at 3 reverts for today and it's pretty clear you don't have consensus for these edits. Simonm223 (talk) 15:57, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
- OK, I've reported this at WP:3RR/N Simonm223 (talk) 16:23, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:17, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
Gabriel HM (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
UTRS appeal #22472 was submitted on Aug 27, 2018 17:40:48. This review is now closed.
--UTRSBot (talk) 17:40, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee
[edit]See WP:Arbitration Committee. We don't deal with content disputes. Nor does WP:ANEW. Please read again the warning message I gave you earlier today. Doug Weller talk 17:48, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
Gabriel HM (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
UTRS appeal #22473 was submitted on Aug 27, 2018 18:05:56. This review is now closed.
--UTRSBot (talk) 18:05, 27 August 2018 (UTC) This not de democratic nor fair to be denied from editing by the very same person that initiated the blockage aka Doug Weller, neither erasing my explanation on the arbitration page. Thus against all the basis principle of habeas corpus and right to defence.--Gabriel HM (talk) 18:07, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
- That's not factually accurate - Doug Weller is not the person who initiated the block. Simonm223 (talk) 18:10, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Doug Weller didn't deny your unblock request, because you didn't make one here. And he's not the blocking admin.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:11, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
SarekOfVulcan entre amis admin faut savoir s’entraider, y’a pas de honte à ça, le vice est la mère de toutes les vertues. Gros bisous
- By reading the serie of cancelation who can say who really stated to POV, and especially it is right to cancel pertinent proved information? What on earth is so disturbing to you to assert that 93 countries of of 100 states the poodle as a French breed, without altering your opposites or contradictories affirmations? You hate the contradiction, or you really want to believe that the breed is german after all even when Germany officially declined the paternity for France. What is wrong with you on this issue? It is just a dog breed!!! Does it deserves a blockage or such an opposition? It is easy the be against one when you know each other. This is abusive, and for the record, it is more than weird the two main opposants are keen to warn me instanltly about my unblocking request. There is something not right in this procedure, and the one that is dishonest and unfaithful is not me. You can block me as much as you want, it won't change the fact, that the overwhelming majority of the world asserts without any doubt that the poodle is a French breed. So good luck to change the facts ...--Gabriel HM (talk) 18:27, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
Block
[edit]Hmm I have just noticed the block. It's short (31 hours) so if the appeal is refused I recommend simply waiting. There's no urgency and it'll take some time for me to check what the debate is about too, in any case, to provide third opinion... —PaleoNeonate – 19:48, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
Adding: blocks for edit warring don't have to do with the content dispute itself which will be able to resume. It only has to do with the prevention of disruptive editing (when edits are contested one should seek consensus before restoring such edits, for instance. Related: WP:BRD, WP:CONSENSUS). —PaleoNeonate – 20:04, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
Hey User:PaleoNeonate,First of all,you need to know that the totality of the countries affiliated to the FCI that gather more than 93 countries all have agreed of the origins of each breed registrated at the international kennel club [2] should I add the 93 breed sheets of each countries affiliated to the organisation??. So, if the FCI states that the poodle is French, it is the fact for the entire members affiliated, from Pérou to New Zealand. Also, why are they keeping erasing this a fact with such rapidity.. This is totally unfair, the two admins that initiated the blockage know each other and concerted the blockage and one of then within mn after my demand to be unblock wrote me to say that it would not occur. Furthermore they are the one that initiated the POV so in the essence it does not count that you are right, you just need to be two and start to cancel systematically a pertinent edit and then claim POV to block a honest contributor. How on earth can we be blocked just by adding a simple, justified and well documented sentence saying that 93 countries out of 100 are considering the poodle as French origin, especially when you do not modify the facts brought by the other contributors saying that the 3 kennels clubs on the other hand support à German origin. What is wrong with them to trigger such a compulsory deletion fury about the rightfull fact?. Am I ”punished” because the facts displeased them? Does wiki becomes a place of Totalitarian regime, where only some admins can add the info that pleases them and block all the people that bring different but proved info by acting in group? I would have understood the blockage if my contributions were wrong fallacious or incurate, or if was trying to delete their contributions. But how come I can be blocked because the facts are not in accordance with the personal ideas of some admin that gather to initiate a wrongful blockade with unfair procedure, this is not the idea that I have of wiki and its principle. If there is another committee beyond the arbitration one, i will go for it, because being blocked even for few hours on fallacious basis, this is not justice, since when someone can be blocked from POV because I just try to keep rightful and pertinent info on an article?? For god sake, all I wrote is the 93 countries out of 100 including Germany declare the poodle as a French breed, assorted with numerous ref. Does that deserve a blokage? Is that what wiki, a place where only concerted admin can act to initiate POV blokage without taking the time for the arbitration person to see what is exactly the issue?! This is so disappointing --Gabriel HM (talk) 23:09, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
- Accusing other editors is usually not helpful. In any case, the block was for WP:3RR which is policy. It's true that Wikipedia is not a democracy, it's private resources managed by WMF and in the case of the encyclopedia content, volunteer editors; the reliability of the sources and what they say dictate what the article must contain (since that's what we should summarize). As for WP:CONSENSUS which is also policy, like WP:!VOTE it's not a question of the number of people, or if they're apparent friends, but also in relation to policies and sources, of course. Admins that are involved on a topic are normal editors at those articles and will like any others report to others as necessary instead of applying blocks themselves (WP:INVOLVED) so that normally shouldn't be a problem either. In any case, I'm writing all that without even having read the article yet so will avoid adding more: I'm about to go read it. —PaleoNeonate – 00:37, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
- Oh I forgot to add an important thing: the status-quo is usually considered the current consensus. When we edit the WP:ONUS is on us, if reverted/contested then we should proceed as WP:BRD suggests. Once changes added/refused by consensus, that's the new consensus (and talk page archives can serve to assess it). —PaleoNeonate – 00:39, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
- So there currently is an RFC there, I suggest selecting 1 or 2 explaining why. Someone else who's not involved will (generally after 30 days) close the discussion and evaluate the consensus. That is of course only a choice between two specific versions, it doesn't prevent future article improvements. Unfortunately dispute resolution like RFC takes time, but sometimes it's necessary. While that RFC persists, it's best not to touch the article except in relation to other things (and those become new edits again subject to consensus if reverted). The issue was that instead of peacefully forming consensus the article was still edited/reverted again and again, up to a WP:3RR violation so that triggered the temporary block.
- I've not been blocked yet personally but have always tried to avoid edit warring. Here's an example where I was wrong and "dropped the stick": my concern (in some instances right, but wrong that it shouldn't be covered as a separate religion rather than an Islam denomination); here's a case where I was right but still didn't revert until consensus was reached (in fact someone else reintroduced the material which I then only improved): My initial edit, the revert (I didn't restore), the discussion thread I started which ultimately confirmed the lead should mention it's a conspiracy theory (new result). Often the best is to provide a good policy-argument with sources, then let go and see the result. That kind of process is the only way building a community encyclopedia remains possible... —PaleoNeonate – 04:45, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
- Merci de partager ton expérience à ce sujet, mais dis moi en quoi apporter la preuve que 93 pays sur 100 considèrent la caniche comme race francaise le tout assorti de plusieurs réf de premier ordre est une erreur? Et surtout je n’ai jamais effecé ni altéré en aucune manières les refs apportées par mes détracteurs? L’erreur serait donc de tenir bon et maintenir la véracité des faits aux dépends des étranges susceptibilités de certains admin qui se concertent pour créer un POV et un blocage en 45 mn chrono. Ce n’est ni juste, ni en adéquation avec les fondements de cette organisation ce blocage est injuste....--Kindly yours 08:21, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
- I didn't report or block you. Since you still insist in communicating critical comments in French, I'll post the standard notice explaining why we ask editors not to. Doug Weller talk 10:59, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
- user talk:Doug Weller do you know what the word diffamation means dear user and the legal consequences of such an iffy nous accusation. Do you have a proof of the accusation? If not I expect an apology. Neither your name nor any personal negative comment have been made in my French conversation. As far as I know wrong affirmation do fiffations from a user are not tolerated either. Before posting comments saying that I make critical comments, indulge yourself to translate the sentence, and refrain to affirm such fallacious statements and for the last time, please leave me alone THANK YOU and stop your constant threats--Kindly yours 13:40, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
- I didn't report or block you. Since you still insist in communicating critical comments in French, I'll post the standard notice explaining why we ask editors not to. Doug Weller talk 10:59, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Please communicate in English
[edit]
I noticed that you have posted comments in a language other than English. At the English-language Wikipedia, we try to use English for all comments. Posting all comments in English makes it easier for other editors to join the conversation and help you. For more details, see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 10:59, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
- I will talk in French with any french speaking contributors on my own private talk page, don’t you have more interesting things to do than spying my comment on MY talk page especially that you are the last person to whom I would like to communicate at the moment. But if the craving will to read all my comments are so important to you, according to the guideline I will be glad to provide you a translation. So please I am asking kindly to mind your own business and let my talk page and my private conversation with other French speakers contributors the way they are. If I have something to tell you, I won’t miss the point to tell it to you in the probably only language that you can master. Kind and loving regards to you. It looks though that you nourish towards me weird attention. I am blocked for 36 hours what do you fear for reading my talk page like that ?--Kindly yours 13:33, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
- Correction: it is not your "own private talk page". Please read WP:UP#OWN. Favonian (talk) 13:46, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
- We do not have private conversations on Wikipedia.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:44, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
- I will talk in French with any french speaking contributors on my own private talk page, don’t you have more interesting things to do than spying my comment on MY talk page especially that you are the last person to whom I would like to communicate at the moment. But if the craving will to read all my comments are so important to you, according to the guideline I will be glad to provide you a translation. So please I am asking kindly to mind your own business and let my talk page and my private conversation with other French speakers contributors the way they are. If I have something to tell you, I won’t miss the point to tell it to you in the probably only language that you can master. Kind and loving regards to you. It looks though that you nourish towards me weird attention. I am blocked for 36 hours what do you fear for reading my talk page like that ?--Kindly yours 13:33, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Gabriel HM (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
UTRS appeal #22483 was submitted on Aug 28, 2018 14:27:52. This review is now closed.
--UTRSBot (talk) 14:27, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Gabriel HM (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
UTRS appeal #22485 was submitted on Aug 28, 2018 16:38:33. This review is now closed.
--UTRSBot (talk) 16:38, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Hmm
[edit]Well it's unfortunate, it seems that I couldn't help as I hoped. To get unblocked, you'd need to clearly retract any legal threat (they also appear unjustified to me). It also seems that I couldn't convince you to stop accusing other editors like Doug and that there are proper processes for everyone to follow (including admins). Au revoir, du moins pour l'instant, —PaleoNeonate – 01:35, 29 August 2018 (UTC)