Hello, Le Marteau. You have new messages at Thewinrat's talk page.
Message added 00:46, 17 May 2018 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.[reply]

Thewinrat (OS of this day: Ubuntu 4.10 (Warty Warhog) (talk) 00:46, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: ((unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~)).  Guy (Help!) 22:50, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Le Marteau (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I am Marteau and am appealing my block for socking. It has been nine months since I was blockend, and during that time I have in no way edited Wikipedia.

Why I am requesting this appeal using one of my sock accounts During a moment of frustration and in an attempt to enforce a Wikiretirement, prior to my being blocked for socking I removed the email address associated with my "sockmaster" account ("Marteau") and set the password to a random string. That was effective in locking me out of my "Marteau" account. It was obviously ineffective in enforcing a Wikiretirement, I love the project too much for that to happen any time soon. I am therefore unable to post my appeal to my sockmaster talk page as specified in WP:APPEAL. As specified in WP:APPEAL I therefore opened a UTRS ticket and entered my appeal there. UTRS is intended for accounts who are blocked from editing their talk page. Because I am not blocked but simply unable to edit my talk page, appealing using UTRS was deemed inappropriate. After some back and forth there, administrator @5 albert square set this account ("SaltySaltyTears") so that I could edit this talk page for 72 hours, and indicated that I could try appealing here. 5 albert square also asked that I explain to all why, hence this.

Appeal Besides my bright-line violation of policy by socking, I am guilty of using a sock (this one; "SaltySaltyTears") to taunt @Volunteer Marek and @Guy. Besides that taunting, and besides my per se violation of policy by socking, never have I on any account or IP vandalized or used a sock to feign consensus, cast a !vote or otherwise damaged the project. Although I demonstrated my contempt for Guy and Marek and used a sock to do it, I revere the project and its content and treating it in any way but with the highest of respect would be contrary to all that I value.

Remedy My block is due to my socking and my using one of those socks (this one) to taunt Guy and Marek. It is not due to my behavior in the article space per se. Should my editing privileges be restored, I would therefore object to any restrictions being placed which would inhibit my activity in the article space. My point is, my editing of articles was not why I am blocked. My editing of articles and talk pages as a sock was. That said, I do realize that I have sometimes become heated in my talk page discussions on political and ideological issues. My involvement on those talk pages is what preceded my taunting of Marek and Guy. Therefore, should I be granted edit privileges again, I propose the following restrictions: a lifetime ban on interacting with Guy and Volunteer Marek. To those, I will add two others I have found particularly challenging to my equanimity, namely SPECIFICO and Jytdog. In addition, for a year I am not to participate in talk page discussions on political articles or on articles involving people or things associated with the Intellectual Dark Web (including !votes) unless I am responding to a direct question from another editor to me, and then I will briefly answer the question without any unnecessary commentary and then disengage from the talk page. And I will, of course, edit only under one account.

Decline reason:

As you have indicated below that you wish for your appeal to be withdrawn, I am closing this as a procedural decline. I will also revoke TPA again for this account. If you wish to make future appeals, I would suggest that you lodge an appeal at WP:UTRS to get your TPA restored. 5 albert square (talk) 13:40, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the ((unblock)) template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This sock account was blocked by Guy. However, the admin who blocked the sockmaster account needs to sign off on this, and that was Bbb23, so pinging @Bbb23: SaltySaltyTears (talk) 16:28, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very unusual unblock request. I somehow doubt that others would agree with you that your edits in article space were okay. You edited in one of the more controversial areas of the project. But I'm not an expert on your edits before socking. That said anyone who needs four interaction bans to edit successfully at Wikipedia shouldn't be editing Wikipedia at all. You may think it's big of you to offer up those bans, but administrators will have to enforce them and why should we do that just so a disruptive user can edit? You also appear to agree to other restrictions on your editing, making the conditions of any unblock that much more complicated and difficult to enforce. I would not consent to unblocking you.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:55, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So be it. Withdrawn. Peace out. - Marteau 01:21, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Please see UTRS appeal #39563

I was blocked in June 2018 for using sock puppets to harass admin JzG (AKA "Guy") on talk pages. My "Sock Master" account was "Marteau" but I don't have the password and cannot access the email account for "Marteau" to reset the password. So I can never again use "Marteau" as an account. I have the password for one of my socks, "SaltySaltyTears" and want to use if for the appeal of my ban. I did appeal so on March 2019 and admin Bbb23 denied it. It has been two and a half years since I was banned for harassing Guy on talk pages using socks, and I would like to appeal now. Access to my talk page is blocked. I am requesting the ability to use my talk page to appeal my block. Thank you, Marteau, as "SaltySaltyTears" for the purposes of appealing my ban.

JzG seems unavailable. AmandaNP said O.K. as CU. 5 albert square said O.K. as a blocking admin. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:45, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Le Marteau (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I am editor 'Marteau' and I was blocked in June 2018 for editing using sock puppets, and for harassing two editors on talk pages using those sock puppets. I am unable to edit or appeal using my sock master account, 'Marteau', because in an attempt to enforce a Wikiretirement, I set the password and recovery email address to random strings, so I can never again use 'Marteau' as an account. I do have the password for this sock, 'SaltySaltyTears' and am using it only for the purposes of appealing my block.

I did use sock puppets to harass two editors, 'JzG' and 'VolunteerMarek', and also violated policy by using sock puppets to edit Wikipedia in general. However, beyond my harassing those two editors, I have never vandalized any article or talk page, nor have I ever used any sock puppet anywhere to feign consensus, to cast a !vote, or to otherwise 'game the system'.

I realize that what I did was not only in violation of policy, but also lead to interventions needing to be taken by administrators and check users. Admin time in general and check user time in particular is in short supply, and having added to their burden due to my actions is something I deeply regret. Should my editing privileges be restored, I will make it my top goal to follow policies and guidelines, edit using only one account, and should I become frustrated with other editors, I will deal with those frustrations in more acceptable ways.

- 'Marteau' appealing using my 'SaltySaltyTears' account for the purposes of this appeal. SaltySaltyTears (talk) 13:46, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Accept reason:

I have accepted this on the conditions below that you do not interact with JzG and VolunteerMarek. This will be registered with WP:IBAN and is indefinite. 5 albert square (talk) 22:36, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The decision is not mine to make, but unless I see someone objecting I support an unblock per WP:ROPE. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:49, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe unblock with WP:IBAN on JzG' and 'VolunteerMarek'. Maybe just a clear understanding of zero tolerance. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:51, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that could work Deepfriedokra. SaltySaltyTears would you be willing to be unblocked if we imposed an interaction ban on you interacting with JzG and VolunteerMarek?-- 5 albert square (talk) 22:07, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @5 albert square: Yes, absolutely. It was my intention to not interact with them ever again, even without an interaction ban, but yes, absolutely. SaltySaltyTears (talk) 22:23, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I see that you have been unblocked. Maybe I am wrong, but I have a good feeling about you and look forward to seeing many productive edits in the future. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:20, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thank you for the kind words! SaltySaltyTears (talk) 01:26, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia:Changing username/Simple#SaltySaltyTears → Le Marteau, SaltySaltyTears (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has requested a rename to Le Marteau (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I support allowing this change. SST, you need to follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:29, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support! I'm just going to drop the issue, though. Perhaps in the future. But as I intend to limit my editing to fixing the random error I incidentally come across, I'll just retain this cringe-worthy name. SaltySaltyTears (talk) 01:29, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like me to put in the name change request in your name? --Guy Macon (talk) 03:17, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Guy Macon:Well, if you're offering assistance, I'm accepting! Thank you : ) SaltySaltyTears (talk) 12:56, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have been trying to figure out how to do this, and I keep getting a "All requests must be made while logged in to the account that will be renamed" error, :(

All you have to do is go to Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations, click on the page edit button, and paste the following at the bottom of the page.

((subst:usurp|Le Marteau|reason=Lost password to account "Marteau".))

I am watching that page, and when I see your post I will add a comment saying that I support the usurpation. Probably not needed but just to be safe. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:50, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, again, for following up, and for your support. This, though, took the proverbial wind out of my sails: "Please do not request usurpation of another account if your own user account is less than several months old, or barely used." So I am again compelled to explain myself and make my case. Which is fine... I certainly do deserve such a fate, and the process is justified, and I've no one to blame but myself. It's just that I'm not into Wikilawyering ATM. Soon, though. Just not today. In the meantime, I'll do the ol' signature razzle-dazzle and sign this as Marteau (talk) 15:34, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Maylingoed. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Giuoco Piano have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thanks. Maylingoed (talk) 22:51, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Maylingoed: My edit[1] was good, and reverted vandalism. You have restored the vandal's edit. Please review. Marteau (talk) 22:56, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maylingoed, what the heck are you talking about? Marteau's edit was entirely correct. Did you accidentally notify the wrong editor? Giuoco Piano (Italian for "quiet game") is the name of the chess opening. Gucci is a fashion brand founded by Guccio Gucci in Florence in 1921. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:25, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First, thank you for fixing my overbroad deletion to the lede. You are, of course, right. I was careless. I have self-administered a trout-slap. Second, thank you for accepting my undueness edit, for now. As the story progresses, I suspect the topic my loom larger and may merit inclusion in the lede. Happily, there's no deadline. Third, I started a thread on the talk page, right after the story first surfaced. As it progresses, this may prove useful. Cheers. David in DC (talk) 18:55, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Pupsterlove02. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Grant Williams (basketball)—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help desk. Thanks. Pupsterlove02 talk • contribs 20:07, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Pupsterlove02: My edit was good. You restored vandalism. SaltySaltyTears (talk) 20:12, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have asked for a source, I provided a Source for her death.

Up, above and Over! 14:57, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi SaltySaltyTears, it's been a while since the short multi-user edit war in the article COVID-19, but I'm currently making sure that as many editors as possible are formally "aware" of WP:COVIDDS.

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in and edits about COVID-19. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

You probably know about this already anyway. Feel free to remove this message after reading.

Best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:17, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement § Shibbolethink. Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:57, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, typically the custom in a situation like this would be to use Template:Strikethrough. Of course you are welcome to do whatever you think is best, I just wanted to give you a head's up of what I would do if I were you. Thanks for your input. --Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:30, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As no one had replied to or mentioned my !vote elsewhere, simply removing it did not seem improper to me. SaltySaltyTears (talk) 20:56, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If deleting all flagicons in one record to create consistency is inappropriate, go out and add them all back to Larry Holmes' record and every other record affected by opponents with disputed or unknown nationalities. There's already no consistency in boxing records, so why even try to have any resemblance of it, right?CaPslOcksBroKEn (talk) 22:49, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@CaPslOcksBroKEn: It's a messy world and insisting everything be consistent, even when there is an exception or an unusual occurrence, is a recipe for madness. As you are a sports fan, I am sure you are familiar with the practice of putting an asterisk next to entries in records books which are special cases. I suggest we do something similar for the boxer in question, as a footnote. SaltySaltyTears (talk) 22:53, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This sort of consistency is not too much too ask for as I am and have been dedicated. I want every fighter to have ages next to them, however, not all fighter's ages are known. Flags are unnecessary and asking for one record to be consistent within itself is not madness as many others do this.CaPslOcksBroKEn (talk) 23:08, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We obviously have different senses of aesthetics and how information should be presented, and I am sure we're never going to agree on this issue. I think the best we can do is await the opinion of others, and work off consensus.SaltySaltyTears (talk) 23:10, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And not including ages, because some fighters ages are not known, is again something I do not at all agree with. SaltySaltyTears (talk) 23:11, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I add ages to every record I create in which the age is known.CaPslOcksBroKEn (talk) 00:06, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget that able sighted people aren't the only people on the planet. Consistency of ease of view is important. Flag icons alone can make it very difficult for the visually impaired to view careers so just imagine how hard it would be for someone to view a record where we "inappropriately" make a record a viewing mess with some fighters having flags and others not.CaPslOcksBroKEn (talk) 21:24, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I said before, I think it's perfectly clear we are not going to come to agreement on this issue, and that the logical course of action would be to wait for consensus. You seem to be highly invested in this issue... perhaps you should start an RfC. But anyway, for example, some people have verifiable birthdates, and some don't, that does not mean we remove the birthdates from everyone else in the name of 'consistency'. We work around them, understanding that there will be special cases, an that those can be handled, perhaps with a footnote. SaltySaltyTears (talk) 21:47, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I don't agree with your scenario about how a missing flag is going to throw off a visually impaired viewer, and even if it were an issue, it can be worked around with a footnote. But if that is the objection, perhaps put a blank image the size of a flag where the flag is supposed to be, with some "alt text" (MOS:ALT) briefly describing the issue. My point is, the world is an inconsistent place, and sometimes, representing our inconsistent world requires some exception handling in it's presentation in the encyclopedia. SaltySaltyTears (talk) 22:05, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User: 108.18.178.27 Burger cites the a Roman law which homosexuality a capital crime in his examples of moral teaching which he used to uphold the law. Technically, he does not say he approves of this, but it would be absurd to cite a law which you do not approve of in this context. I assumed this did not require sourcing because I had already cited the concurrence (which is what this came from) in the concurrence. I thought it was worthwhile to Falwell and Rushdoony to show how mainstream his views were, although I understand that you might believe this to be irrelevant on its face. Rushdoony's views can be found with a simple google search. Falwell was a leading figure in the conservative movement- If he had said anything like this, other sources would have noted it. None do (n.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Falwell_Sr. , n.wikiquote.org/wiki/Jerry_Falwell). With regards to the issue of separate section, I think it is noteworthy that as late as the 1980's, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, one of the most powerful men on the country, believed that gays should be killed. Again, I understand where you were coming from though.

@108.18.178.27: Inserting a comparison between Falwell and Rushdoony, and Burger without citing a source, is WP:SYNTHESIS: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.. We can't just go making comparisons and drawing conclusions on our own... it is up to a reliable source to do so, then we can include them in the encyclopedia.

You say, regarding his allegedly supporting executing homosexuals, "Technically, he does not say he approves of this, but it would be absurd to cite a law which you do not approve of in this context." Again, you are drawing conclusions unsupported by sources. It is not unto us to draw conclusions.

I am not saying you are wrong in your conclusions, per se. I am also not opposed to having a separate section for his views on homosexuality. But your edits had so many issues that they warranted being removed entirely, and not massaged into compliance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines by me or others. SaltySaltyTears (talk) 13:36, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will concede your point about the unsupported comparison, but I am not drawing a conclusion here. Burger writes in his concurrence "As the Court notes, ante, at 192, the proscriptions against sodomy have very "ancient roots." Decisions of individuals relating to homosexual conduct have been subject to state intervention throughout the history of Western civilization. Condemnation of those practices is firmly rooted in Judeao-Christian moral and ethical standards.

Homosexual sodomy was a capital crime under Roman law. See Code Theod. 9.7.6; Code Just. 9.9.31. See also D. Bailey, Homosexuality and the Western Christian Tradition 70-81 (1975). During the English Reformation when powers of the ecclesiastical courts were transferred to the King's Courts, the first English statute criminalizing sodomy was passed. 25 Hen. VIII, ch. 6. Blackstone described "the infamous crime against nature" as an offense of "deeper malignity" than rape, a heinous act "the very mention of which is a disgrace to human nature," and "a crime not fit to be named." 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries *215. The common law of England, including its prohibition of sodomy, became the received law of Georgia and the other Colonies. In 1816 the Georgia Legislature passed the statute at issue here, and that statute has been continuously in force in one form or another since that time. To hold that the act of homosexual sodomy is somehow protected as a fundamental right would be to cast aside millennia of moral teaching." In other words, Burger is citing a law which makes homosexuality a capital crime as an example of "Moral teaching". It is self-evident that he must agree with something in order to use it as a justification for a decision. You are probably correct that I should have cited it better, though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.18.176.243 (talk) 15:20, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@108.18.178.27:A person has to pick their fights in this world, and in the interest of my own equanimity, I am removing the Burger article from my watch list. The guy nauseates me almost as much as he obviously does you and I don't want him or his views in my head any more. So any edits you make to that page will be left to other editors to ensure compliance and/or offer guidance or advice. All the best, SaltySaltyTears (talk) 15:29, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You recently tagged an IP editor (173.87.170.14) in an RfC at Talk:Loudoun_County_Public_Schools. This user seems to be participating in the discussion with the sole purpose of being disruptive. He personally attacked another contributor, in an RfC comment that has been redacted by user:Primefac. He restored that comment, and made a second one where he declaring that the discussion should be closed. I warned him of disruptive behavior, but then he started accusing me of being disruptive. All of his edits are recent, and mostly made on that talk page, but he seems to be familiar with site terminology and wikipedia policies that he keeps invoking. I don't want to wrongfully accuse anyone, but this could be a sockpuppet. I figured I should bring it to your attention before engaging with them any further. 46.97.170.79 (talk) 10:50, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed your edit(s) at The Pentagon. If it helps, the US Military uses DMY dates per WP:MILFORMAT. Also, the military has quite extensively been using the metric system, with a few exceptions, for over 100 years now, to match up with their NATO pals. You can find supporting info here: Metrication in the United States#Military. (I could've sworn there was a MOS:x or WP:y P&G for that as well, but dunno where it might be at the moment (really tired). Anyway, hope you find this useful. G'nite - wolf 07:55, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Thewolfchild: Thanks for the info... I will keep it in mind in my Wikignoming. I have to admit, I'm kind of a crotchety old man when it comes to traditional American weights and measures, which means I'll follow policy and guidelines to the letter when it comes to that, except when the source uses otherwise. But in this case, the Pentagon's website itself publishes the dimensions of the Pentagon in feet and acres, e.g. [2]. To confirm they measured "Roof" in feet, I had to use the Wayback Machine, though. Although the point could be made that the source is intended for presentation to ticket buying civilians, so if the Wikipedia practice is to use metrics for military buildings, I will defer to that. SaltySaltyTears (talk) 09:22, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, fortunately we have conversion templates, so we can (and often do) use both systems. If a page is already established with say... imperial, but it's an organization that uses metric, doesn't mean we need to re-do the entire page in metric, we can just continue using imperial, and add in metric as we go along, using the template to display both values. That's my understanding, anyway (ymmv). I'm sure the pentagon page is just fine the way you left it. Cheers - wolf 13:31, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The information was directly from his LinkedIn account. Please put back the information on the page, thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.10.240.41 (talk) 01:20, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I removed your edit because it was unsourced, which it was, and I said as much in my edit summary. You said nothing about it being sourced in any way until now, and you chastising me for following Wikipedia policy by removing unsourced edits from biographies is ludicrous. SaltySaltyTears (talk) 02:36, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to ask you to stop removing my contributions. I know it looks like tomfoolery but it is indeed fact. I can confirm that the students there do refer to him as those nicknames and I felt it should be added to the page when I saw him mentioned in the article. There was no other information on him in the article just his name in the beginning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KirkLover69 (talk • contribs) 06:02, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We can't just add nicknames for people in articles unless they are sourced. Please see WP:VERIFY where it says, n the English Wikipedia, verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of editors. Even if you are sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it..

The source that you provided does not say he is called, The Kirkster, Kirky-Kirk, The Kirkmeister, Kirkman, The Marvelous Mulverhill or Kuuurk Muuulverhill" and unless you can provide a source which says so, it can't remain in the encyclopedia. SaltySaltyTears (talk) 06:14, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:47, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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. Please note, due to a technical error you may not have been able to previously vote, or you may have received this message twice or after opting out. This is a one-time notification. If you are having any issues voting now, please contact the election coordinators for assistance. Thank you! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:53, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Le Marteau. After reviewing your request, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when using rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into trouble or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! FASTILY 01:23, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed this recent edit you made with the summary: "The original is grammatically correct... the comma is otptional. Please do not needlessly edit other people's user pages." I would like to draw your attention to the notice Jimbo has under You can edit this page!: Really, you can! If you would like to, please feel free to do so.

Please don't bite the newcomers. That edit was fine, and Jimbo is actually encouraging users to edit his user page. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 12:41, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My edit was a revert of a revert, which the editor in question then reverted with no explanation. Had I to do it over again, I'd bring up WP:BRD and his not using edit summaries, particularly when restoring work others have removed. Le Marteau (talk) 17:41, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on COVID-19 lab leak theory. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Re [3]. VQuakr (talk) 03:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pot, meet kettle. Le Marteau (talk) 03:56, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nice deflection. I'm not actually the user that contested your proposed edit or the repeat of said edit, but since you seem to be aware of the talk page's existence now, hopefully you're finished with the warring. VQuakr (talk) 19:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm deflecting nothing. I did as you did: made two reverts over the space of a day to the material in question, and calling that "edit warring" is ludicrous. At least I had enough class not to template you about your two edits. Le Marteau (talk) 19:57, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You tried to force through the same content twice. If you don't know the difference between that and contesting a bold edit, you shouldn't be editing at all. VQuakr (talk) 22:07, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was attempting to fix a serious issue with the lead, namely, that it strongly implies that only Trumpers believed in the theory at first. That you don't see that as a problem, and think my trying to remedy the problem with two well-spaced edits was worthy of being templated as an edit warrior indicates to me that nothing fruitful can come from further discussing this with you.Le Marteau (talk) 22:20, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly see no implication in the WP:STATUSQUO; it doesn't say "only Trumpers believed in the theory at first". Your proposed edit wasn't supported by the source (or any reliable source, since it wasn't accurate) so it obviously couldn't remain as written. VQuakr (talk) 22:29, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory. See: [4] — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:52, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My response to your ludicrous implication that scientists looking into a thing is equivalent to supporting a thing is completely appropriate and I stand by it. Le Marteau (talk) 21:24, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not your assertion that I find inappropriate. The problematic sentence is: "But you know that already." Please refrain from assuming what other editors have in their heads. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:50, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

hi Le Marteau

sorry my bad, I don't edit often, by adding a source are you referring to a citation in the article itself or links in my edit "summary"?

thanks, apologies for sounding oblivious 142.166.18.76 (talk) 23:02, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, this is the edit in question: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Emergencies_Act&type=revision&diff=1071894095&oldid=1071894051

The issue is, WP:RS. Everything must be sourced. It may be blindingly obvious to all that the Act is "martial law" in fact and in effect, but without a source, we can't say that. Le Marteau (talk) 23:07, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry I understand now. I will try again and if I may ask would you be willing to see if I've done it correctly? I don't want to be considered a troll. thank you for understanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.166.18.76 (talk) 23:16, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it. But please don't be too frustrated if I find a problem with it and remove it again... this is currently a high-visibility article and we need to follow policy and guidelines to the letter. Le Marteau (talk) 23:20, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think that change was productive on the public hospital wiki 2600:1700:1900:BB70:F16B:AF60:B318:9ABD (talk) 21:17, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That you included a ":)" with your edit tells me you were not and are not to be taken seriously. Le Marteau (talk) 21:22, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello marteau it appears you sent me a warning , what warning???? What for? Plz clarify 🥺 😭😭😭😭🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🥺 103.199.200.230 (talk) 19:13, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jiang_Qing&diff=prev&oldid=1072439171 Le Marteau (talk) 19:15, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For your work combatting the botnet spam. Sea Cow (talk) 01:02, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sea Cow (talk) 01:02, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A belated thank you. That was quite interesting. Le Marteau (talk) 01:10, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is in regard to your edit to Andrew Soltis.

WP:BLP is a high level priority one policy on the Wikipedia. There isn’t a policy which trumps it. Indeed, WP:BLOG makes this clear: “Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.” (Emphasis in original). That in mind, we can not put contentious claims about Mr. Soltis in this article unless they are published by reliable sources. It doesn’t matter if Edward Winter is an expert. It doesn’t matter if we attribute the contentious claim to Mr. Winter. We can not put contentious claims about a living person in the Wikipedia until a more reliable source than Winter’s blog publishes the claim in question! That’s Wikipedia policy.

Should the contentious claims about Mr. Soltis be put in the Wikipedia again without being backed up by a reliable source—and a self-published web page is not a reliable source for a claim this contentious, even though Mr. Winter is an expert in the field of chess history—I may file a report at WP:BLP/N Samboy (talk) 18:02, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Calm down. I agree with your reading of policy. Le Marteau (talk) 18:07, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You need to be careful to not edit war. I agree the close was bad, and I've already started a thread at FormalDude's talk page, that's the best way to deal with this. Edit warring can lead to you being banned over a stupid reason, like this. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:40, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The premptive and unwarranted closure by that editor is so outrageous and so out of line I feel very comfortable in my actions. Thank you for your concern and advice, though. Le Marteau (talk) 03:44, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.
  

Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)}  If you reply here, please ping me by using ((re|Ks0stm)) in your reply.  00:05, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm not sure why my edit on "Head shaving" concerning comedian and close personal friend Stavros Halkias has been reverted. He is notably bald as well as fat and Greek. His baldness is sourced in multiple reliable secondary sources. I note that I had trouble editing the source for the page resulting in an unclosed reference, however, respectfully, I don't think this is a sufficient appropriate reason to revert my edit (which I was in the process of fixing when notified that my edit had been reverted). I do of course respect the learned gentlexirs of Wikipedia.org of course and will endeavor to make substantial and helpful edits.

Yours sincerely, Adam Friedland's Soiled White Pants (talk) 10:15, 21 April 2022 (UTC) (xe/xim)[reply]

Edit in question https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Head_shaving&diff=prev&oldid=1083886564 Le Marteau (talk) 10:21, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. Care to address my objection to your reversion? Adam Friedland's Soiled White Pants (talk) 12:59, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Of the multiple reliable secondary sources you refer to, none have been offered to verify that he is bald, and that a secondary source thinks that it's notable. _signed, Willondon (talk) 14:52, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Categorizing him as "racist" requires a source.Le Marteau (talk) 17:21, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am spreading the truth about the Russo Ukraine war,don't stop me Coolgame91 (talk) 13:47, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit in question is your unsourced opinion. This is an encyclopedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Russian_Federation&diff=prev&oldid=1084260081 Le Marteau (talk) 13:50, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Head shaving. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:20, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Head shaving shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:22, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That someone else thought you were the edit warrior in this situation and templated you for it is "same stuff, different day" on Wikipedia. Le Marteau (talk) 08:43, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You change it what I added was true you person Corey enright (talk) 04:38, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what you're talking about. You have never edited any page containing the word "apricot" in the title and AFAICT, neither have I. Le Marteau (talk) 12:08, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to assume your blanking my user page was some kind of "punishment" for this nebulous offense I allegedly performed to "your" page. Not cool. Le Marteau (talk) 12:56, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Andrew nyr. I noticed that you made a comment on the page User talk:NicktoonsDude that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Andrew nyr (talk, contribs) 03:04, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you're confused. This was the only comment I've made to NicktoonsDude's talk page (which was automated by Huggle, FWIW): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ANicktoonsDude&type=revision&diff=1088611185&oldid=1088611087 generated in response to their vandalism, namely https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Invader%20Zim%3A%20Enter%20the%20Florpus&diff=1088611154 Le Marteau (talk) 03:09, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm new to wikipedia. You left me a message about content on the Thornton Heath page? Can you please let me know what content is the problem, so I have the chance to correct it? 82.71.30.27 (talk) 21:45, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@82.71.30.27:Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. This is what happened. You made this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thornton_Heath&diff=prev&oldid=1088212903 References are supposed to follow text, but in this edit, there is no reference following your added text, and I marked it as "unsourced".

This may seem like nit picking. Your edit took place during a storm of vandalism from a bot net. I was reverting flagged potential vandalisms at a high rate, as were other vandalism fighters. A lot of the incoming vandalism was subtle, and your edits looked, at the time, suspicious to the scoring algorithm Huggle uses, and to my eye at the time. And when I told Huggle to revert your edit as "unsourced", Huggle also reverted your edits prior to that one as well.

Please make sure everything you add or change has a citation. Even if the text you are changing is not cited, any change or addition still needs a cite... just because it was done incorrectly before does not mean changes moving forward can still be uncited. For example, here you go on about how the grass is untidy https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thornton_Heath&type=revision&diff=1088924455&oldid=1088212962 this is unsourced and should be removed. Le Marteau (talk) 22:13, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi j am pretty please may you guide me how to edit or write an article Ladysalah mbappe (talk) 12:26, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ladysalah mbappe:Welcome to Wikipedia. There were two problems with your edit. First is, everything that gets added to Wikipedia requires a source. You did not provide one, and I left a message saying so on your talk page, with a link to learn more about the issue. Please go ahead and read that. Second problem is, please take pride in your writing. You used no capital letters or punctuation, and that is not proper English. Le Marteau (talk) 12:54, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks Ladysalah mbappe (talk) 05:09, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ladysalah mbappe::You continue to not use sources as you did with this edit. Also, another problem is, your edit does not improve the encyclopedia. What you removed was better than what you replaced it with.

One of the reasons Wikipedia requires citations is that it ensures that people are actually talking about a thing. If no one is talking about a thing, does it really need to be in the encyclopedia? Your addition: There are different questionnaires ,some of them are about diet ;about your details etc... not only blows away a perfectly fine and better sentence, but... do you hear people talking about that? Do you read writers writing about that? Of course not... because it's blatantly obvious and of no use to anyone.

We are here to improve the encyclopedia, not add to our edit counts. Next time, before going to change the encyclopedia, please ask yourself, "Does this improve the encylopedia?" and if not, don't click "save". Le Marteau (talk) 12:39, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your comment… with all due respect, my addition to McMurrin’s wiki is not vandalism nor is it libelous. If Wikipedia is meant to be a place for truth, my addition to McMurrin’s page should stay. I am sorry if you do not like what I have added, but sadly not liking something does not make it false. The man raped children for his entire career. Not only did people know and do nothing, they actively covered it up. If a couple sentences on a website are the only justice he receives, it’s better than nothing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheTruth0416 (talk • contribs) 12:41, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your edit as vandalism as it's an unsourced controversial addition to a BLP and you are not here to build an encyclopedia as evidenced by your editing history. Le Marteau (talk) 12:49, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

hi. how can I use this app to search for my assignment Annet Okello (talk) 22:17, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Annet Okello: I have no idea. You might try asking over at help desk. Le Marteau (talk) 22:24, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi...I noticed you reverted an edit that an editor had made on the Hillsdale College article calling it original research. Specifically, the edit added the fact that schools affiliated with Hillsdale accept government funding. The source demonstrated that one of the schools affiliated with the college received a government grant. It's true that the paper neglected to mention that the school is affiliated with the college but both the college's Website and the school's Website clearly mention the affiliation. Since the fact is correct by extension that affiliated schools do receive government funding, how would you source that? Personally, I'm thinking that adding references to both the schools and college's Websites would add that connection that is missing in the Ledger-Transcripts reporting would suffice but you may have other ideas. To me that meets the requirement that "you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented" as it cites a reliable sources and directly supports the material being presented. What are your thoughts? Dbroer (talk) 20:03, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dbroer:You talk about "adding that connection", but that is simply not a thing we can do, as that is synthesis and original research as the terms are used here. That something is a fact and is true is not enough for it to be included here. A fact must have WP:WEIGHT... it must be talked about or written about, and as far as I can tell, nobody is talking about how a Hillsdale affiliate takes government funds. It is not, to use the vernacular, a "thing", or else a reliable source should have written about it. As none evidently have not, that gives the fact almost no weight, and therefore, it should not, in my opinion, be included. Le Marteau (talk) 21:20, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.

Please read our page on the subject. There is no doubt that the text you are repeatedly removing is correctly sourced according to our policies. Please review my edit summary when I restored well-sourced WP:DUE text, and proceed accordingly.
SPECIFICO talk 18:58, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Two reverts is not an "edit war" and I am well aware of your bullying tactics so take your templates elsewhere. Le Marteau (talk) 20:37, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Le Marteau. I am trying to improve the article. I did not know about the "honorific prefixes" before you told me. Thanks for that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BVshnUCP (talk • contribs) 09:33, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @BVshnUCP:! We are all trying to improve the encyclopedia, and if there is anything I can do to help, please let me know. Communication is important here, and when someone un-does one of your edits, you should make sure you understand why before putting it back. Thank you for trying your best, and welcome to Wikipedia! Le Marteau (talk) 11:43, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Le Marteau - thank you for responding. I certainly respect accurate public information about living people. I apologize if I did not cite it properly, but here is the court docket and link to that public record supporting the statement - Elliott W. Wislar filed bankruptcy.

I will re-phrase the information to update the page as follows, which includes more factual information that is in public domain:

Elliott W. Wislar filed Chapter 11 bankruptcy with District Judge Kathryn C. Ferguson presiding in Case No. 12-28430 in New Jersey bankruptcy court with discharge granted October 28, 2013.

(reference: https://www.plainsite.org/dockets/my93e1s9/new-jersey-bankruptcy-court/elliott-w-wislar/

Please let me know if you have further questions.

Thank you for keeping Wikipedia public domain with factual information.

Regards Publicopinion2022 (talk) 21:11, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Publicopinion2022:I probably should have been more descriptive and more exact with my reason for reverting your edit. The big problem with your edit is that it violates Wikipedia policy, namely, WP:BLPPRIMARY which says, "Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person." Beyond that, I have my concerns about the reliability of the site you linked to itself... it is for profit, with advertising, and is hosting government records? I'd have to look into it further. Anyway, on Wikipedia we are hypersensitive about edits to biographies of living people, and we have to err on the side of exclusion. I hope this makes sense. Le Marteau (talk) 21:33, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find a reliable source which mentions the bankruptcy, it might be includable per WP:BLPRS. But for a number of reasons, we can't use just bare-bones court records. An outside, reliable source must refer to it first Le Marteau (talk) 21:38, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	For your efforts in responding to vandalism among other things... You deserve one of these... Keep it going! Volten001 ☎ 23:45, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you : ) Le Marteau (talk) 23:48, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! Volten001 ^☎ 00:06, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is not an hour in the week that I have not edited Wikipedia. Some might consider that an indication that I am in need of obtaining a life! https://xtools.wmflabs.org/ec-timecard/en.wikipedia.org/Le%20Marteau Le Marteau (talk) 05:25, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place ((Ds/aware)) on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place ((Ds/aware)) on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Newimpartial (talk) 15:30, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in COVID-19, broadly construed. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place ((Ds/aware)) on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:53, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You undid my closure of an edit request here, was there an issue with the decline? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:22, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish:Wow. My bad. Usually when I fat-finger something, I have some idea or recollections as to why, but in this case I have no idea why I reverted your edit. I have restored your edit. My apologies. Le Marteau (talk) 23:55, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, just making sure I wasn't stepping on any toes. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:02, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed the reversion of the edit I made to the Bongcloud Attack page. More than reasonable. I am admittedly quite new to editing on Wikipedia and should have read a little more on editing before doing it. I can easily fix the wording. I was curious if you had advice on sourcing. I have a suspicion it simply won't be a edit that will fit in Wikipedia. Essentially I linked uThermal's video of his actual gameplay including explaining why he calls it the Bongcloud it is essentially primary source but as video format. There are no existing articles or work discussing his gameplay and use of Bongcloud as such I don't think there is a lot of other sourcing options (reddit articles discuss the topic but that obviously wouldn't make for good sourcing). Is there a way to annotate the source as primary (his actual gameplay)? I completely understand if it should just not be included in the Wikipedia article but was curious if there is a good way to include it that would meet the standards. Thanks for your help. Rtpaul2 (talk) 10:34, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I will be glad to help you out on that, at my first opportunity. Welcome to Wikipedia, and sorry your first edit didn't stick! Le Marteau (talk) 10:42, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Rtpaul2: To illustrate the issue with your edit, consider an article I started eighteen years ago, the "Ensō" article. Check out the "Use outside of Zen Buddhism" section as it was several months ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ens%C5%8D&oldid=1079247071 Everyone with a software project named "Enso" has a line there. Every company with a logo looking like a coffee cup stain has a line there. And there's a bunch of them. I can't imagine that section being of use to anyone, and is actually a waste of the reader's time and a distraction from whatever good content there is in the article.

Every editor has their own opinion as to what should go in such sections. Some are 'anything goes, as evidenced by the Enso articles. Others, like me, are not. The issues are well-covered in the WP:POPCULTURE essay.

My standard for inclusion in such sections is that, at a minimum, someone else besides the creator of the thing must be talking about it. For your edit, you link to uThermal's channel, but he's the creator of it. For your edit to qualify for inclusion in the Bongcloud article, by my standard, I would want to see at least one good source talking about it.

Because if no one else is talking about a thing, do our readers really need to know about it? The Bongcloud article, for example, on a good day gets a thousand hits. Over a year, that's about a third of a million views. uThermal's channel has about 30K subscribers... should ten times more people read about his method in a year, than he has subscribers? Maybe. I don't think so, though...these are subjective decisions, but that's my standard.

And then there's the fact that, if we allow uThermal's channel to be the only external site referenced in the article, that gives a lot of weight to uThermal's project. It might make it look like he's the only one with a "Bongcloud" themed thing going on. The solution to that might be, of course, to find other examples of people calling things "Bongclouds"... there are many things to consider here.

Anyway, I hope this makes sense, and if I can be of further assistance, let me know! Le Marteau (talk) 10:23, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It does make sense. I appreciate your time helping and providing examples. The pop culture essay in particular was helpful. Editing wikipedia is certainly a realm I haven't ventured far into so I appreciate the guidance. 180.131.238.57 (talk) 11:03, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Rtpaul2: Well, you certainly dove in with both feet with your first edit, starting a new subsection, with citation and all. Not bad for a first edit... Wikipedia could use more editors like you. I hope you will not get discouraged, and edit some more! Le Marteau (talk) 22:20, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:TPG for a description of what Article Talk pages are for. Article Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects, like whatever beef you have about Weinstein and vaccinations). This[5] is completely inappropriate and disruptive to an article which already has more than its fair share of problems. Alexbrn (talk) 15:05, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Editors use talk pages to give their rationales regarding the includability, or excludability, of information and sources. Calling "bullshit" on another editor, when they are indeed full of shit in their rationale, is completely appropriate. Le Marteau (talk) 15:48, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I now see you have previously been blocked for harassing other editors. Alexbrn (talk) 16:10, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not socking now, am I? Nor am I harassing you, although I am sure you feel like I am. You seem to have a habit of selectively enforcing policy when it suits your agenda, and ignoring policy when it does not. It seems to be a pattern, and I consider such editors a liability to the project. The community needs to address the issue, and I relish the potential opportunity to make you a test case. Le Marteau (talk) 16:25, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You fought tooth and nail to keep material in violation of BLP for DAYS after I alerted to you to the issue, on the most RIDICLOULOUS of excuses, when the source's source DIRECTLY CONTRADICTED their assertion, and the material you added to the encyclopedia. And from a cursory look at your editing history, tactics such as this does not seem to be an isolated occurence, but a modus operandi. You need to knock it the fuck off. Le Marteau (talk) 17:28, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Le Marteau, please be more collegial in your interactions with other editors. This edit [6] runs afoul of several guidelines from my assessment:

1. I am of the opinion the community needs to have a discussion about such behavior, and soon, because it is damaging the reputation of the encyclopedia. WP:ASPERSIONS tells us not to make veiled assertions of others' misconduct, especially in a way which may discourage their participation in the project. Asserting that another user is "damaging the reputation of the encyclopedia" is basically never a good idea on article talk.
2. I consider such editing every bit as damaging, if not more, than the garden variety vandals I make a specialty of fighting. This is very similar in tone and verbiage to an assertion that you must right the great wrongs of Alexbrn. That's toeing quite close to the line of WP:BATTLEGROUND.
3. I am aware of the guideline whereby we are requested to assume good faith, so there will be no need to template me about it, however I am going to have to say that I highly doubt that This sentence basically says 'yes I know I need to assume good faith, but I don't do it with you'. You then went on a several sentence-long explanation of entirely unrelated conduct from a completely different article, as an attempt to stage an argument around Alexbrn's conduct. That's entirely WP:TALKOFFTOPIC, as are all discussions of conduct on article talk pages.
4. In this edit, you say, in my estimation, 'I'm not following you, but I am going through all of your contributions to see where I disagree and then replying/reverting to limit your impact on the project, because I think you're damaging to it.' WP:HOUND says Hounding on Wikipedia (or "wikihounding") is the singling out of one or more editors, joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work.
5. Above, you say Nor am I harassing you, although I am sure you feel like I am [7]. Your conduct on the project should aim to make others feel as though you are someone who it would be worthwhile to work with. Does this sound collegial to you?
6. You seem to have a habit of selectively enforcing policy when it suits your agenda, and ignoring policy when it does not. It seems to be a pattern, and I consider such editors a liability to the project. The community needs to address the issue, and I relish the potential opportunity to make you a test case. See points 1-4 above. I don't think anyone could read I relish the potential opportunity to make you a test case and think you are acting in a collegial or friendly manner which encourages other editors to work with you.

Be more collegial! This type of conduct, verbiage, etc. is very much the purview of WP:AE. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:42, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What you just did here was extremely inappropriate, disruptive, and very harmful to a difficult and ongoing discussion with COI editors. I hope to never again see similar and such shocking behavior on an article talk page from you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:15, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing this entire episode is going to have a negative impact on my planned run for admin : ( Le Marteau (talk) 20:50, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't advise it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:14, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

☹️ Le Marteau (talk) 22:35, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, things can always change, but sheesh, dealing with COI/POV/possible paid editing on that talk page was already bad enough. Keeping personal commentary on user talk pages is a good thing. We don't really need to give newly registered COI editors the idea that is the way to use a talk page, when I'm already having a hard enough time getting them to read policy and guideline and use the talk page approppriately. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:43, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

👍 Le Marteau (talk) 00:02, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I handled myself quite well throughout the conflict regarding the insertion of the contested material. I conceded the matter, I undid an edit of mine which introduced incorrect information, watched as FireFangleFeathers re-introduced the incorrect information, and just let it go. It was only after I see alexbr, not 24 hours later, said I cannot see any reason not to follow the secondary sources.... the "secondary source" in this case being a STAT source... a source from a publication he removed was aware had a history of sloppy work, seeing as he removed material sourced to that publication THE PREVIOUS DAY! Complete bullshittery in his rationale, in other words. THEN he proceeded with a very solumn few words about the importance of following the sources, no matter what. I admit, that set me off, and I then proceeded to let him have it with both barrels, and in my opinion, it's about time SOMEONE did.

We as a society do not accept selective enforcement in our gatekeepers in meatspace, and to the degree that cyberspace is an analog to meatspace (and with Wikipedia, I think the analogy is strong) is to the degree that we should not tolerate such behavior on Wikipedia. Amongst partitioners of the tactic, it seems like they believe that "everybody else does it" so they need to do it as well.

I am here to tell you that not "everyone else does it". There are MANY, MANY editors who take GREAT PRIDE in their ability to apply policy and guidelines equally, across the board, without regard to whether they have a dog in the fight. And I'm also here to tell you that we are disgusted with it, believe it is doing tremendous damage to the encyclopedia, and believe something must be done about it, before the damage is irreparable.

Regarding your chastisement of me, seeing as you are involved in the situation, and supported alexbrn's insertion of incorrect material based on a shitty source, I think it's understandable if I discount it a bit.

And the whole situation could, perhaps, been avoided if you had followed WP:BRD Alexbrn inserted fresh material. I challenged it. As Alexbrn was making a change to consensus material, per WP:BRD if you had an issue with it, you should have taken it to talk, but you did not, instead proceeding to re-insert incorrect material based on a source that turned out to be just as shitty as I said. Le Marteau (talk) 17:20, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:STOPDIGGING — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:36, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just getting started.Le Marteau (talk) 17:45, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FOC. This overall sounds like a declaration of a feud and a grudge against specific editors. Which, as discussed is WP:BATTLE, WP:HARASSMENT, and a blockable offense. Why don't we all just focus on building an encyclopedia? — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:46, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to clarify. I am just getting started in my fight to get policy and guidelines added to the encyclopedia to address selective enforcement of policy and guidelines to further an agenda. Le Marteau (talk) 17:52, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"my fight"? Alexbrn (talk) 17:56, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One might think that this user would be more careful since they have been blocked as WP:NOTHERE on at least one occasion. And on another as a sock-master, and as someone who harasses others they disagree with in quasi-vendettas (e.g. JzG, VolunteerMarek). I am seeing a pattern... If I were them, I would just WP:FOC and stay far, far away from any implication that I am WP:NOTHERE. It is seldom that someone who has experienced one reversal of an indef experiences another. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:00, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

must... resist urge... to talk about those guys... would violate my interaction ban... must not give in... must persevere... Le Marteau (talk) 18:15, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

must... resist urge... to talk about those guys...
Ah crap yes I'm sorry I did not mean to taunt or tempt you in any way, striking the related stuff from my comment, with my sincere apologies, I know stuff like that can be draconian and hard. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:16, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that was very gentlemanly of you. I will take the opportunity to say that, in my appeal to have my privileges restored, I said, Should my editing privileges be restored, I will make it my top goal to follow policies and guidelines, edit using only one account, and should I become frustrated with other editors, I will deal with those frustrations in more acceptable ways.. I believe I am dealing with "my frustrations" at what I perceive is the diminution of the encyclopedia, in "more acceptable way". I completely understand why you disagree with the acceptability of my new-found ways... we come at the project from different perspectives and with different motivations. In that way, we will have to agree to disagree. The only thing I will say about the situation was, I was motivated by similar feelings of protectiveness towards the project, and indignation then, as I am now, and my how I wish I could tell the tale. Le Marteau (talk) 22:21, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unwatching. Unhappy that Le Marteau carried this dispute to an unrelated page. Not my circus, not my monkeys, not a good thing. Ping me if needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:11, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes "my fight". I use the word "fighting" twice on my user page. There is literally a picture of a dude fighting things there. Wikipedians who specialize in dealing with vandalism often consider their work "fighting" vandalism, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism_Unit. I view the pervasive use of selective enforcement of policy and guideline to further agendas a blight on the project and a threat to its existence, and yes, I believe I am "fighting" for its integrity and future as a place people go to for information. I cannot prevent you from framing my POV as "battleground", but in a way, I understand it... when your actions are indefensible, you do what you can, which in your case is deflect and call me a meanie. Le Marteau (talk) 19:25, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do not consider you a vandal, though, but instead a "problem editor". But my advice to you is, if you don't want to come to the attention of vandal fighters, stop editing in ways which would tend to draw disrepute to the project. Le Marteau (talk) 20:12, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Le Marteau:. Is any of this supposed to be comprehensible? Just looks like WP:BATTLE to me. Stick to good sources, heed WP:NPOV and all the WP:PAGs and all shall be well. Doing otherwise savours of WP:NOTHERE. Alexbrn (talk) 17:39, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It needs to become policy that editors who have demonstrated an obvious pattern of selectively applying policy and guidelines based on whether they have a dog in the fight or not, need to be sanctioned. I will look forward to you being first in line. Le Marteau (talk) 17:48, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Probably best to WP:FOC or you might find your Wiki-career to be a short one, once admins notice. Alexbrn (talk) 17:50, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm telling you, this vandal-fighting thing... with Huggle, when the botnet spam starts REALLY coming in, it's basically a video game at that point. Between 13:25 and 13:37 Eastern, when the vandalism was coming in hot and heavy, I made 56 reverts/warnings in 12 minutes, or 4.67 per minute, and got one veiled threat to my well-being as a cherry on top! It's a blast, you should try it! (you need rollback permissions, or to be an admin, though) Le Marteau (talk) 17:56, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

can u help me to create a name Koduri kiran kumar (talk) 07:56, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Koduri kiran kumar:Maybe. I don't understand what you are asking for, though. What do you mean? Le Marteau (talk) 08:00, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Le Marteau, I did not add any content to the Presbyterian Church in America page. The change was a change in verb tense, because, as your own revert noted, misrepresenting what a source says is not how we work here; the cited source is from 1995. That is not current. Saying that what was said in 1995 "is" the case in 2022 is a misrepresentation of the source. That was 27 years ago. I have now changed it to read "In 1995..." which is exactly what the source says and is the publication date. Thank you for your message. SeminarianJohn (talk) 04:05, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically, Wikipedia:RS applies when it comes to "Age matters," which is also standard across academic disciplines when selecting sources, "Especially in scientific and academic fields, older sources may be inaccurate because new information has been brought to light, new theories proposed, or vocabulary changed. In areas like politics or fashion, laws or trends may make older claims incorrect. Be sure to check that older sources have not been superseded, especially if it is likely that new discoveries or developments have occurred in the last few years." - Wikipedia:RS SeminarianJohn (talk) 04:18, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That was 27 years ago. I have now changed it to read "In 1995..." Fantastic. You should have done that to begin with, rather than changing attributed text to what you feel reality now reflects. Had you done that to begin with, my reversion of your ham-fisted and improper edit would not have been required. Le Marteau (talk) 04:28, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No such thing was done. Changing "is" to "was" does not alter or attribute anything to the text. The cited source, that I did not add mind you, clearly states that it was published in 1995. That is in the past and therefore "was." I did not write the sentence. Your issues with the apparent lack of specificity is with whatever editor put the sentence there. Your reaction both in your edit and on my talk page (and here) are wholly inappropriate. SeminarianJohn (talk) 05:58, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Changing "is" to "was" does not alter or attribute anything to the text. Yes, it does. It changes the purport of the cited work, which is what I was defending, and which you eventually addressed by adding a date for their purport. Also, I did nothing nefarious on your talk page; what I did was refer them here for my response. I simply am not into duplicating my work. Le Marteau (talk) 06:13, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Referring to a change in tense as "ham-fisted" a) does not assume good faith (Wikipedia:Assuming good faith)and b) is clearly meant to be an insult. You had also claimed that using "was" misrepresents the book published in 1995. It does not. You also have reverted another edit that both had RS and was already accepted in the article in the "membership trends." I have not seen someone get so angry over a change in tense, but I regret that my edit, which was made in good faith as I was simply trying to note that the source was well dated by now, had upset you so. Your comments in the edit and here are unnecessary. Have happy holidays in the season. SeminarianJohn (talk) 06:23, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by classifying this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Presbyterian_Church_in_America&diff=prev&oldid=1120628749 as "ham-fisted". You attributed the author as saying something in the past tense, which implies a change they did not state, and that's not in keeping with policy. I'm going to choose to ignore any of your further histrionics in favor of my equanimity, which is, I admit, being challenged at this point, and it's time I gave it a rest for the night. I will have a look at your subsequent edits to the article, and your pattern of editing in general, after I have obtained some rest. Le Marteau (talk) 07:04, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry was talking to tom, the reason why you can't hear it, its because the music was too loud. He sounds like he's speaking gibberish and that is Hanna doing the talking voice 2.50.3.55 (talk) 10:36, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@2.50.3.55: ... and therefore, what, exactly? Le Marteau (talk) 15:08, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: ((unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~)).  Acroterion (talk) 02:38, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Being as Floquent was the one who shut down my opportunity to defend myself at ANI, and completely ignored my protestations about being censored (I was, actually censored without explaination... look at the strikeouts on my edit history) I was hoping that he who started it would therefore be he who then finished the task. But I understand your pre-emptive motive and your protectiveness to the work, Acroterion, and I thank you nonetheless. Le Marteau (talk) 03:36, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have yet to recieve any explaination as to who removed my two comments, or why. None whatsoever. I am going to drop the matter now, because I do value having talk page access. But I am going to re-iterate: I was censored without explaination.. two comments I made about "Bon Courage" were black holed, and no one has stepped forward to say who did it, and why, and why my comments should not be restored. Le Marteau (talk) 03:48, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You don't get the privilege to choose who takes action when you're being deliberately provocative. Acroterion (talk) 03:49, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"But I am going to re-iterate: I was censored without explaination.. two comments I made about "Bon Courage" were black holed, and no one has stepped forward to say who did it, and why, and why my comments should not be restored."

Those comments are: "08:34 10 November 2022" and "08:31 10 November 2022". Any admin lurkers wish to chime in on a) who removed them b) why, and c) why they should not be restored? They were key to the defense and understanding of my ire towards "Bon Courage" Le Marteau (talk) 06:00, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Floquenbeam:'s closure with "There does not appear to be anyone in this thread supporting your behavior." is particularly galling considering that perhaps my best comments against "Bon Courage" were literally censored and removed from public view. I was completely unable to present my case against "Bon Courage" and then mocked because not so much as "anyone" (emphasis theirs) was on my side of the argument. Le Marteau (talk) 06:09, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Let me be perfectly clear here about my motive in discussing this. I am NOT in ANY WAY seeking to in some way become an 'editor' of this fine work ever again. I am simply ensuring that when the final chapter is written on the dysfunction on Wikipedia, that I come out smelling like a rose. Le Marteau (talk) 06:17, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is absolutely going to the highest levels. I am NOT letting this go. Le Marteau (talk) 07:54, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You were already told in the ANI thread why your edits were removed. They were oversighted because you posted them after a previous edit by a now-blocked editor which was oversighted. Since the revisions with your comments in also contained the oversighted edit, they were oversighted as well. It appears that the oversighter concerned did not restore your comments, which usually would be done. You may want to contact WP:OVERSIGHT if you think they are worth restoring, but since the thread is closed now anyway, whether it is worth it or not is another question. An admin cannot see, or restore, those edits. Black Kite (talk) 08:25, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

whether it is worth it or not is another question Worth it? I write for posterity and on principle, not to get anything accomplished in this joint any more. TTFN. Le Marteau (talk) 12:15, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, HECK YES my comments get restored. When "Bon Courage" is searched on the archives of ANI, I want ME to be at the top of the list. I may be unable to work on this today, or this weekend, actually, but work on this I will... that is a promise. Le Marteau (talk) 12:28, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Any lurking oversighters? Do I REALLY have to craft a stern letter to the management of this fine establishment? Le Marteau (talk) 12:31, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You can email oversight using the link I placed above, and you can appeal your block by following the instructions WP:UTRS, as I am turning your ability to edit this page off now. Black Kite (talk) 13:13, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Noting for posterity that the OS actually didn't remove LM's comments. See this diff of the version before and the version after oversighting. No text by LM was removed. I don't want to go into this too much when LM can't respond, but LM is misremembering, and that diff makes LM look even worse. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:29, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]