Le Grand Bleu

Important

I'm not new per se, I've been around doing some little things here and there for years. But I've never done any serious editing or participated actively in this particular Wikipedia project. I'm finding it extremely difficult to navigate through and understand the numerous rules and procedures which changed enormously since I last looked at them in 2007. So... BE NICE! Le Grand Bleu (talk) 13:02, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

This warning doesn't work. Nobody cares if you're new or unexperienced. They'll jump on you with vengeance and press you with their warnings and abbreviations and whatnot. Be careful, this is an unfriendly place. Le Grand Bleu (talk) 09:43, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

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

---

Request reason:

Leo711 is not my "old username". It's my "present" username on Russian WP and due to some recent changes it is now also my "single user login" of which I have four actually. Merging them is not possible and I don't always remember to switch them when I switch from wiki to wiki. Could you please lift this block? It's hardly my fault that this mess happened. And I definitely had no intentions of using the other username as a puppet. If necessary, you can add a note on my user page stating that I have two "single user logins"... which kind of defeats the purpose, don't you think?

Decline reason:

You have already been unblocked. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:59, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

---

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.

That depends; there are very few reasons that we ever permit multiple userids, and would require appropriate linking - plus, in most cases, they can never be used to edit the same sets of articles. How does your situation satisfy this ... it is after all your "fault that this mess happened" (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:14, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Michael Grunwald

Although I'm somewhat sympathetic to your point of view, that shouldn't be how we decide whether or not to have an article, the article's already been made and it meets WP:AUTHOR without any doubt. Christopher Connor (talk) 16:21, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Wait a minute. WP:AUTHOR has very clear definitions. Four of them. Which one of them, you think, suits Grunwald? Not an important figure. No original concepts. No well-known works. Definitely no monuments, except his monumental ego. Leo711 (talk) 16:50, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I've replied to your question in the AfD now. Christopher Connor (talk) 17:05, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

A380 O&D

Thank you for your interest in A380 Orders and Deliveries. Unfortunately trying to total orders from press releases is meaningless, the only way we can put net orders up here is from the Airbus official, monthly O&D spreadsheet. At the moment Airbus itself does not recognise the Emirates orders so Wiki cannot. We have no way of telling what that press release actually meant. The December O&D may or may not include these, if it doesn't, then they are not yet a committed order but just a nice idea. Press releases are put out by the Airbus marketing department, the spreadsheet are real. Ex nihil ^(talk) 09:50, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I was actually looking at the German and French articles that do recognize this. I see all other sources state the bumber of Emirates orders at 140 aircraft. But OK, let's wait and see. Le Grand Bleu (talk) 21:20, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

February 2014

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Sami Jauhojärvi. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Prolog (talk) 00:55, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Sami Jauhojärvi shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:48, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Don't tell this to ME. Tell it to those who just revert my edits without any explanations. THEY should go to the talk page and explain. I asked them many times! Instead all I hear are threats of blocking. Le Grand Bleu (talk) 06:09, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Le_Grand_Bleu reported by User:NeilN (Result: ). Thank you. NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:09, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  DP 12:35, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I wanted to make some additional comments here. Your edit-warring, and refusal to understand that your actions are unacceptable are what led to this block. This essay makes the consensus process extremely clear: if you make a bold edit and someone reverts it, you may NEVER re-add it (ever) until you have discussed its inclusion and obtained consensus for it. It's that simple. Calling others "vandals" for actually following policy is unacceptable, as vandalism has a formal definition. It was your steadfast refusal to read, understand and accept what edit-warring means that forced my hand on this one - it's all about YOUR behaviour here DP 12:40, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at Talk:Sami Jauhojärvi, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. After looking at some of your other comments on the Article's talk page, I wanted to give you a final warning against making ad-hominem attacks on other editors. I issued a blanket warning at the edit warring noticeboard to stay civil, but you have persisted in attacking your fellow editors. If you continue when you Edit Warring block expires, their will be no recourse but block you. Discussion is how we are able to reach consensus, but attacking other editors like this makes that civil discussion impossible and just leads to bad outcomes. Mifter (talk) 17:02, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

LOL, great! :-))) I was the only one on the subject but I'm the only one to get a warning. Okay. Thank you. Anything else? Le Grand Bleu (talk) 19:04, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I've spoken with some of the other editors in private about similar issues, and I don't mean to seem like I singling you out. I (and the project as a whole) value your contributions and think you definitely have great things to contribute, its just trying to keep the topic on the content and not the people behind it. If you need any help with anything, I'd be happy to oblige. Best of luck, Mifter (talk) 20:06, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Sure you did. I bet the Finnish admin who started it all sure doesn't feel like anyone was singled out. Leave my talk page please. Le Grand Bleu (talk) 21:07, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

You were the only one making personal attacks, and you were edit-warring with three editors, so why so surprised? And let me also clarify that criticizing someone – for making personal attacks, for instance – is not the same thing as making a personal attack. I'm writing this, as it struck me as you were under the impression that I had made a personal attack on you – which I hadn't. HandsomeFella (talk) 21:32, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Who says I'm surprised? Le Grand Bleu (talk) 21:45, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Malaysia Airlines Flight 370

What's with this reversion and edit summary? Who are you calling a "rumor monger"? The aircraft has been identified as 9M-MRO, which makes it a Boeing 777-2H6ER. Wikipedia should strive to present accurate information, which is what my edits were doing. Suggest you cut down on the WP:ABF, lest you end up blocked again. Mjroots (talk) 15:48, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

See below. Le Grand Bleu (talk) 15:57, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Malaysia Airlines Flight 370

Excuse me! I do not appreciate the insult of being called Mr Gump!

Perhaps you would care to explain your revert instead of insulting editors who are following sources. Otherwise, continued edit-warring could see you in violation of WP:3RR. —sroc 💬 15:50, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm insulted I'm in the same encyclopedia as you! But I don't whine about it on your talk page, do I? Aircraft type is Boeing 777-200ER. H6 is a Boeing client code. We have an article about it. Why don't you READ something about aviation before you WRITE about it? Le Grand Bleu (talk) 15:57, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Why don't you provide useful information in edit summaries instead of insulting editors? —sroc 💬 16:03, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Good question. Maybe because other editors are too numerous and I barely have time to revert the idiocy they add to a "hot" article while violating the Five Pillars of the project? Or MAYBE because edit summaries are not intended for providing information? Le Grand Bleu (talk) 16:07, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Interesting perspective. If "edit summaries are not intended for providing information" (such as an indication to other editors of the reasons for edits), are they reserved exclusively for snarky comments and insults? —sroc 💬 16:57, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Well... YEAH! :-)) I did give you an indication. Did you listen? No. Anyway, you can enjoy uninterrupted adding rumors to the article for 24 hours. Don't forget to thank the ozzie below. Le Grand Bleu (talk) 01:49, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Block Notice

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for personal attacks and remarks on other editors (user is already on a final warning for personal attacks from a previous incident), as you did at Malaysia Airlines Flight 370. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  MilborneOne (talk) 16:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I like it how admins routinely ban users for discussions they actually participate in. Does ANYONE remember the stupid word called rules? Guess not. Le Grand Bleu (talk) 01:45, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Out of interest you were not blocked with regard to any interaction with me but your comments about others, calling me a joker when I was trying to help is bad form but not a blockable offence. MilborneOne (talk) 10:33, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

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

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

---

Request reason:

I was an a$$ and promise not to do it. I just get angry when I see people "sourcing" information from yellow press. I overreacted. My apologies.

Accept reason:

OK accept you were angry and blocks are to stop bad behaviour which you have agreed not to continue. MilborneOne (talk) 10:26, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Just for future awareness, any repeat personal attacks or repeat edit-warring will lead to longer blocks, and the chance of being unblocked will be less - a block is intended to prevent future behaviour, so repeating any of them will simply show either unwillingness or inability to restrain yourself. Please take that into account as you move forward. When faced with a situation where you're going to attack someone or edit war, click the X on the top right of your browser and walk away DP 10:55, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Have you ever thought about a career as a District Attorney? Duly noted, though, thank you. You, too, Ozzie! Le Grand Bleu (talk) 11:07, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

April 2014

Your recent editing history at Liz Wahl shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. GB fan 11:45, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Then maybe you should stop the edit war by telling all this TO THE PERSON WHO STARTED IT? Did you even look at the article history? I'm simply reverting the deletion of sourced information. Le Grand Bleu (talk) 11:48, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

PS If you want people to listen to you, stop talking in templates. Le Grand Bleu (talk) 11:49, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I have left the exact same message for the other editor also. You are both edit warring. If you don't like getting a template message about this, then don't edit war. GB fan 11:54, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Your warning is misplaced and leads to further confrontation. Either show me the exact evidence of edit warring or leave my talk page. Le Grand Bleu (talk) 13:23, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

The article's history shows that they removed the information 3x and you reverted them two of those times. Neither one of you have gone to the article talk page and discussed this information. GB fan 14:18, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

One of those reverts was actually yours. You SAW it was deletion of good information, yet instead of warning the real culprit you started carpet bombing. How clever is that! How long have you been an administrator? Two days or three already? Le Grand Bleu (talk) 15:01, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

You are right I reverted the first time the information was removed as the information was removed without explanation. The information was removed again with an explanation and you reverted, the information was removed again with explanation and you reverted again, the information was removed again with explanation. That is where we stand. My only complaint was that the information was removed without explanation. Then the two of your started edit warring about it rather than trying to use the article's talk page to discuss it. I would not say that leaving an edit warring message on the two editors' talk pages that are reverting each other without discussion is carpet bombing. Like I told you on my talk page, if you feel my actions are inappropriate ask another admin or at WP:AN. GB fan 15:09, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Would you like to see what she did in the article? Now she's under an IP. What are you going to do now? And what do you suggest I do? Le Grand Bleu (talk) 21:09, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh! I just saw you blocked her. Could you also revert the edit please until proper discussion on the talk page? Le Grand Bleu (talk) 21:18, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Vijay Mallya, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Southern California University (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) 08:53, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Tu 116

If you want to turn this redirect back into an article, there is no need to delete the old history that is still available. For example, you could work from this revision. (Be sure to remove the old merge tag). Thank you and happy editing, —Kusma (t·c) 08:21, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Then the author of the article will be the person who created a redirect. And I want to be one. Hence request for deletion. Le Grand Bleu (talk) 04:01, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I do not see that as sufficient reason to delete the work of other people who have written about the Tu 116. Who has created the page is pretty irrelevant anyway: if you write an article in the space now, everybody reasonable will credit it to you. If you still believe the page history needs to be deleted, please use WP:RFD. —Kusma (t·c) 08:34, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I hate to break it to you like that, but the work of other people who have written about the Tu-116 has already been deleted and turned into a redirect. But if you as an administrator don't want another article in Wikipedia and prefer a redirect instead, who am I to argue with that. Le Grand Bleu (talk) 12:20, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Their work is still accessible to all via the page history, and I do not like hiding it from non-admins by pressing the delete button without a better reason. Whether you turn this redirect into an article or not, you can do it by being bold and do not need administrator help for it. —Kusma (t·c) 19:27, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Whatever. Le Grand Bleu (talk) 06:22, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I have merged the page histories of the old and new Tu 116 pages – there is really no reason to keep them separate. —Kusma (t·c) 18:19, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I just tried to be useful

I really did. I only have four articles to my name and just wanted another one to be added. It was stolen by an admin and added to another article under his name (instead of, for example, letting ME do that if it's really necessary). Thank you Mel... whatever your name is... too lazy to go back to look it up. You're by far the worst Wikipedia administrator I've met. Meanwhile, I'm back to reader mode. Let other do the work, I'll happily consume. "Cheers". Le Grand Bleu (talk) 13:25, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Proper attribution was kept and there was no "stealing". Also, there was no use of admin tools. Finally, a reminder (again) about our WP:NPA policy. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:47, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

"Our"? Okay. Message received, duly noted, thank you. Could you all please stop? I think I've seen enough hostility for one day. I love Wikipedia but the little peek behind the scenes today wasn't fun. No more, thank you. From now on, I promise I'll be the very "client" who "never goes to the kitchen". Enjoy writing, I'll enjoy reading, everyone's happy. Have a nice day! :-) Le Grand Bleu (talk) 13:57, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Just to note that all the edits and moves which you did not like were done so your name remained linked to the text as you are entitled to. And if you look in the article history it is clear that you are attributed as the author of the text. We welcome your help but if this all confuses you then please ask so we can help you understand how it all works, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 19:12, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

July 2014

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons, as you did to Jen Psaki. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 09:08, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Please do not push your POV in Wikipedia. If you don't like something it doesn't mean it's not true or didn't happen. You deleted referenced material without any explanation. If you want to discuss it, do it on the Talk page not here and not in edit description. I'm reverting your edit and warning you that you've started an edit war. Thank you. Le Grand Bleu (talk) 09:10, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

You restored unreferenced and poorly referenced controversial text about a living person, which I will be able to remove each time it appears, per WP:BLP, while you will quickly get blocked if you continue to restore it. Binksternet (talk) 09:15, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Resorting to threats already? Okay, I'll only restore the sourced material and will find sources for the rest. Le Grand Bleu (talk) 09:29, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Jen Psaki shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. 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. Binksternet (talk) 09:31, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I'll seek dispute resolution. Le Grand Bleu (talk) 09:33, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Jen Psaki protection

Please discuss the issue on the talk page rather than engage in revert warring. Thank you. Go Phightins! 15:47, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

My mistake; please see my comment on ANEW. Go Phightins! 15:49, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

You guys seem way too button-happy. :-)) Le Grand Bleu (talk) 16:42, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

July 2014

You are suspected of sock puppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Le Grand Bleu. Thank you. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 16:52, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of two weeks for sock puppetry. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Bbb23 (talk) 19:57, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

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

---

Request reason:

That's ridiculous! Blocking based on duck test alone and "rather technical defense"!? What does it even mean! Blocking should be clearly explained. You found nothing! IPs don't match! You're not even a checkuser for that matter. And I know for sure I didn't use sockpuppetry. Read the rules! "Sockpuppet inquiry pages are only about account and IP misuse—nothing else. If the evidence is not there, then the case will be closed without any adverse finding of any kind." You had no right or ground to block me. Besides, if you were so sure it was sockpuppetry, why did you close the check before a checkuser got there?
I've just realized the futility of this protest: "If you are improperly blocked for sockpuppetry, you should realize that it may not always be easy or even possible to correct the situation." Great! So I did nothing wrong, got blocked and there is no way out of this because the rules give admins full rights to block users based on duck test alone without any technical proof. The saddest part is that the rules give clear directions for actual puppeteers to get out of the block, but for good faith users it's only "not easy or even impossible". I don't think I've ever seen a more unfair and easy to abuse rule than this. Le Grand Bleu (talk) 03:11, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Per discussion below. — Daniel Case (talk) 03:39, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

---

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.

At the risk of evoking more intemperate outbursts from you, I'll address just part of your misunderstanding of how things work. A check user will compare named accounts and set out their opinion of the technical relationship, if any, between the two accounts. A check user will not publicly compare a named account with an IP address because of Wikimedia's general policy of not publicly identifying a user's IP address. See WP:SPI ("CheckUsers will not publicly connect an account with an IP address per the privacy policy except in extremely rare circumstances."). Thus, when an SPI is opened where the filer claims that the named account is socking using only IP addresses (not another named account), the only way to determine whether sock puppetry is involved is through behavior, not technical evidence. This is what happened in your case.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:31, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity. When you looked at this particular "case" did it not occur to you that this "sockpuppetry" was WAY too primitive for someone who can fake three IP addresses and VERY convenient for someone who wanted to "punish" an inexperienced opponent? Whoever did this, knew what he was doing - copied edit descriptions, used IPs not another account, knowing the case will be judged on duck test alone, not technical check. How am I doing in this duck testing?

Like I said previously, if I'm smart enough to have three IPs in three different countries, wouldn't I be smart enough to NOT copypaste the exact same edit description AND use phrasing like "nobody's using alt IP"? I guess "duck test" doesn't include logic. This whole situation screams "set up" but somehow you don't see it. I have to say, it puts you in a very peculiar position but, well, whatever rocks your boat.

Anyway, as I found out yesterday, your actions are completely within the rules. If those work for this community, good. They sure don't seem to be working for me. Have a nice day. Le Grand Bleu (talk) 01:49, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I just tried to be useful - 2

Well, it's been two weeks, time for a little update. Less than two weeks ago I wrote my (admit it, tiny, insignificant and unimportant) article which I considered my first serious attempt at EnWP. It ended up being taken away and incorporated into someone else's work. Well, I huffed and I puffed and generally threw a major tantrum. But then I thought, hey, you're new! They've been here long before you and they have their own thing going on. Behave! Earn respect. Do small things. Work hard. Contribute in little things. And eventually they'll see you're good people and let you work on your own things. So I tried again. Took a tiny little article noone cared about and tried to do some tiny little things. Result - accusations of severe misconduct and a two weeks ban on the strangest pretext I've ever seen, which is "not easy or even impossible" to revert. Two weeks of my new life in EnWP - two lessons learned:

1. Do NOT try to create new articles because they'll be stolen.
2. Do NOT try to edit the existing ones because you'll get banned.

I wonder if there's some blocking policy for reading Wikipedia? So much to learn! Le Grand Bleu (talk) 02:19, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Since I have had no editorial interaction with you in the past, let me try to put the events and your above post into some perspective. First of all no one here owns any article or edit that is made to an article. This is a co-operative project. There used to be a disclaimer on edit pages warning that any contributions that you make are subject to changes, mergers or whatever. That disclaimer seems to have been removed but perhaps it should be reinstated. Creation of a small article that logically fits as part of a larger article, will almost certainly be merged into that larger article as an improvement to the later. If you are planning to expand such a small article into something self supporting, it is a good idea to put a {{Under construction}} tag at the top as an indication of further work. The larger article does not 'belong' to anyone else as you suggest any more than the original belongs to you. Please have a look at WP:OWNERSHIP for more on this. The upshot is that the material merged into the target article was contributed by it original author and, provided the merge housekeeping was done properly, that attribution will be preserved.

One of the prime pillars of Wikipedia articles is verifiability of any material added to any article. Sources used for support are required to be reliable. Wikipedia has rules as to what constitutes reliable. Please see WP:RS and WP:V for more. The rules are far more assiduously enforced for any article that is directly ot indirectly a biography of a living person. This is because of the potential for libel either by well meaning editors or opponents of the person in question. Negative and contentious information not backed by a reliable source must (by Wikipedia policy) be removed immediately. Many of the normal edit warring sanctions are waived for such removals. A reliable source for any claim about a living person must come from a reliable secondary source. A news journal (newspaper, TV news broadcast, TV documentary etc. etc. is not considered to be either a secondary source or reliable). Please review WP:BLP; WP:PRIMARY and WP:SECONDARY for more.

In the normal course of editing the principle that applies is that of WP:BRD. Basically, this means that you can be bold and incorporate your edit (as long as you don't violate any other policy). If someone reverts it with a valid reason, you are not supposed to just restore the change, but initiate a discussion on the talk page and seek consensus.

As for the rest, I just called it as I saw it. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 13:43, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Zengamina, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Powerhouse. 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) 13:35, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Your edits in Mein Teil

Hey!

“Mein Teil” does mean “my penis” in the context of the song. This meaning may not appear in dictionaries, but I as a native German-speaking can confirm that this is correct.

Regards, Gorlingor (talk) 23:51, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. What you THINK as a German speaker is you business and you're entitled to an opinion. But this is an encyclopedia. No place for private opinions. Find a source. Le Grand Bleu (talk) 04:43, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

May 2015

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Aurora (airline), without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Jetstreamer ^Talk 21:43, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Do you speak English? Do you know the difference between Director General and General Director? Have you ever heard of other rules and guidelines? I corrected something that was wrong. Le Grand Bleu (talk) 21:48, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Do what you want. Can't care less. Le Grand Bleu (talk) 21:53, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

June 2015

Your recent editing history at John Wayne 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 get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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. Calidum T|C 12:05, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for making personal attacks towards other editors, as you did at User talk:DoctorJoeE. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. Your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.  MilborneOne (talk) 16:19, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Surprise, surprise. Wikipedia and its administrators. Le Grand Bleu (talk) 00:13, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

August 2015

Please revert yourself, otherwise your account will be blocked. You are editing agains consensus.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:19, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Are you threatening me for disputing neutrality? I know in your country it's quite common to bully your way through a discussion and push outcomes you want. But this is not Russia. Le Grand Bleu (talk) 09:21, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean by my country then, if you think it is not Russia?--Ymblanter (talk) 09:22, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm done talking to you, bully. Read dispute resolution rules. Le Grand Bleu (talk) 09:26, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Notification: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Le Grand Bleu reported by User:Ymblanter (Result: )--Ymblanter (talk) 09:31, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  Acroterion (talk) 00:23, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh great! I'm simply amazed by how people want to destroy an opponent instead of talking to him. And I'm deeply ashamed that this is what Wikipedia has turned into. With attitudes like that, Wikipedia will eventually (and very soon) lose any credibility it has left (which is VERY little). History is a tough thing to bend and I know I'm right. Le Grand Bleu (talk) 00:27, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it had anything to do with the lack of discussion. It had more to do with your lack of consensus for what you were trying to do. The idea is to not continue to revert several other editors, even when you think you are right.--JOJ ^Hutton 00:29, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Lack of consensus!? And what do you think I was trying to do!? All throughout this stint I was trying to get everyone to talk about it. HOW do you get to consensus when a group of aggressive editors led by an adminitrator jump on you and just keep shutting down what you want to add?! Le Grand Bleu (talk) 00:34, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Well here is a tip. Get consensus first, then add or make the change. You do not make the change and then "YELL" at everybody who reverts you and tell them to discuss. JOJ ^Hutton 00:40, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Really!? New rules? Get your edit pre-approved by a biased group? How interesting! I didn't even realize how dead the whole idea of free encyclopedia is. Thank you for opening my eyes. Le Grand Bleu (talk) 00:44, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

It's a wonder how you were blocked so many times. JOJ ^Hutton 00:51, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

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

---

Request reason:

The entry disappeared from the Administrators noticeboard within seconds from the block. What is the blocking admin hiding? Why remove it so quickly? All other requests hang there for weeks. Just want someone else to look into this. Le Grand Bleu (talk) 00:31, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Not an unblock request. The entry is still there at WP:AN3. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 00:54, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

---

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.

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 17:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Retarded or just malicious?

Which one are you? I am nazi (?!) for reverting a section which looks like it has been written by a five-year-old struggling to come to terms with grammar. Quoted below for evidence: "However, Goran Ivanišević, who was born in Split in 1971 and, thus, is technically a Yugoslavian (is it Yugoslavian or Yugoslav?), was three times Wimbledon finalist in 1992, 1994, and 1998, until he finally won Wimbledon, which is technically a Grand Slam event, in 2001. The fifth game, amigos, was a sight to see - the tie-break finished at 9-7! Goran was also twice the Grand Slam finalist in doubles - in 1990 at French Open with Czech Petr Korda and in 1999 with... American, I believe, Jeff Tarango. Both times he fought fiercely but, alas, lost. The latter match was especially sad because they lost to an Indian double and India is not really a tennis nation. So, technically, Yugoslavia had three Grand Slam finalists and actually DID produce a Grand Slam champion, but whoever wrote this section didn't know that."

If you want to write in this manner, I suggest creating a journal, blog or tumblr page, but please stay away from wiki articles. Also, if you persist with ridiculous personal attacks, you will be reported, and I see you have a reputation for being blocked continuously. Have a nice day. Sideshow Bob 09:42, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

If you didn't like the style you could've corrected it. Or marked it for correction. Instead you just removed it. Your page clearly shows you're Montenegrin. And your actions make me think you hate Croatians. I'm known to be Russian and your angry behavior confirms my guess - you hate every other slavic nation. You know who else had that habit? A little known German person called Adolf Hitler. And no, I won't lower myself to reporting your personal attack. Unlike you, I KNOW I'm not who you called me. Enjoy. Le Grand Bleu (talk) 03:40, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

January 2016

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for personal attacks. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

--Ymblanter (talk) 09:49, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Oops, I did it again. Le Grand Bleu (talk) 19:34, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Just stop doing it altogether, and you will not be blocked on a regular basis anymore, at least not for personal attacks.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:22, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh, you want some variety? No problem, just tell me for which violation you like to block people and I'll do my best to accomodate. Le Grand Bleu (talk) 01:09, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

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

---

Request reason:

Sideshow Bob is a Montenegrin (I just found out what the denonym is) and he deleted proven and widely known information about a Croatian athlete to make Croatia look bad as a sports nation. If he didn't like the style, he could've just corrected it or marked it for correction. Instead, he just destroyed it. Considering the amount and the nature of hostilities in the Balkans in the past quarter of a century, I had every reason to presume it was a deliberate ethnically driven attack on Croatia. Only in this particular case, he's not fighting with a gun in his hand, but with a keyboard in Wikipedia. Don't they still have an international tribunal for that in Geneva? Le Grand Bleu (talk) 01:03, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Not an unblock request. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 01:26, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

---

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

---

Request reason:

It's an unblock request by definition. This is the unblock request template. You know what template is, right? What I wrote was the REASON for that request. Somebody, please, explain all that to him in some simplified language. I can't go down to that level, I'm afraid of heights. Le Grand Bleu (talk) 01:31, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Decline reason:

So... After you've been blocked for personal attacks, you responded with more personal attacks in unblock requests? If you allege misbehavior from another user, you should start with diffs to their policy-violating edits, not their ethnicity. Max Semenik (talk) 02:08, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

---

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.

They demand following rules to the dot yet forget to post diffs that caused the block. They only remember the rules that protect them. Typical Wikipedia admins. Angry, humorless, having long forgotten why they are here and what their purpose is... which is a good question, by the way! Is there a position in the world less respected or coveted? Doubt it. But, however pathetic they are in their tiny little lives, in here they are kings. Let them enjoy this little moment. Cheers. Le Grand Bleu (talk) 03:15, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Per your request, I've extended the block to 3 months. You may want to stop digging at this point. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 06:01, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for proving my point, sweetie. Le Grand Bleu (talk) 06:07, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

June 2016

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 months for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:32, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

• Considering the history and long block log for personal attacks, and the fact that you once again resorted to insultsand aggressive behaviour when faced with a situation with which you disagreed, I have reblocked your account for an escalated duration of 3 months. If you continue insulting others after or during your block, please expect the next step to be an indefinite block. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:37, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Ah, shit! He's an admit. You can't call a moron admin a moron! Dayem! Now I won't be allowed to edit the least respected project on the Internet. PS Please console the moron admin in question. I hope he's not crying too hard. Le Grand Bleu (talk) 05:51, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

dead links in Geely

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, please do not remove citations or information sourced through citations simply because a link to a source is not working, as you did to Geely. Dead links should not be deleted. Instead, please repair or replace the link, if possible, and ensure properly sourced information is retained. Often, a live substitute link can be found. Links not used as references, notes or citations are not as important, such as those listed in the "External links" or "Further reading" sections, but bad links in those sections should also be fixed if possible. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Gab4gab (talk) 15:39, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

I'll put a citation needed tag and you have two weeks to find "a live substitute link". :-) Le Grand Bleu (talk) 17:25, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

You do understand you reply is extremely rude, right?--Ymblanter (talk) 19:09, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

You do understand that you have a known bias against me, right? For example, what are you even doing here? Did user Gab4Gab file a complaint? Or are you watching my talk page in order to find fault to retaliate for my complete lack of any respect to you as an administrator or a human being? Now would you please so kind as to explain how my reply is "extremely rude"? Other than you just wanting it to be in order to find an excuse to ban me again. Le Grand Bleu (talk) 21:03, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

I opened an ANI topic about you: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Problematic behavior of user Le Grand Bleu--Ymblanter (talk) 21:18, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

So predictable. So is the outcome. Le Grand Bleu (talk) 10:52, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Blocked yet again

Blocked for one year due to violations of the BLP policy. 96.237.20.169 (talk) 23:37, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for one year for your BLP transgression at Geely today, an edit serious enough in itself to warrant a block, especially given your block history. When the block expires, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.Moriori (talk) 23:44, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Could someone other than the stupid admin please explain to me what BLP is? The idiot who blocked me didn't even bother to leave a link. He was in so much rush to react to an anonymous complaint, for some reason. Le Grand Bleu (talk) 10:59, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

wp:blp--Adam in MO Talk 19:22, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Ah, thank you. Le Grand Bleu (talk) 17:47, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

October 2016

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. Your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.  Mkdw^talk 02:35, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Le Grand Bleu. 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)