User talk:Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant/Archive 1

Archive 1

Atlantic International University

Hi, I was wondering why you declined the speedy tag on this article? The article was nominated under section G4, not A7 - it was already deleted at AfD. At the time, it had been noted that the institution was accredited (though widely believed to be a diploma mill) but it was determined that this was not sufficient evidence of notability. astro (talk) 13:51, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes I saw that. I felt that the article had more references this time which showed notability. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant (talk) 14:20, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Fouetté, which new references are you referring to? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 14:29, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The article only has one reference, to the government of Hawaii, which only mentions the university twice in 44 pages and which in fact contradicts the article's only indication of notability, that the institution is accredited! (it is listed under a table of "Unaccredited Degree Granting Institutions in Hawai‘i and Student Enrollments") In the AfD under the hat "sources collected by 73.49.178.221 - collapsed by Dr. Fleischman for readability" there are 53 examples of such mentions, yet the consensus was still to delete. In the article as it stands, there is no indication of notability or even significance whatsoever, as simply being accredited is not sufficient evidence of notability in the first place. As there no policy stating speedies declined by non-admin users cannot be repeated (especially if the speedy is justified), I have reverted your removal of the tag; let's allow the patrolling admin to make the determination of whether G4 applies. astro (talk) 14:30, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

I added references today. It looks that someone removed them thereby gutting the article. I will repair it. The speedy has been declined. If you feel so strongly, AFD is always an option. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant (talk) 14:36, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

It appears the reference you added was a primary source to the university itself, which is not appropriate. The article has already been through AFD and consensus was reached so there is no need to waste the community's time if nothing has changed. astro (talk) 14:40, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

If Fouetté doesn't have a better explanation then I'm ready to take this ANI. This smacks of bad faith and disruption. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 14:42, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Fouetté seems to have removed the speedy a third time despite my request to allow an admin to make the determination. I don't see what harm could come from getting the opinion of an admin; it's not an automatic delete, if the admin declines it then we'll go to AfD. astro (talk) 14:45, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Bloomberg and the state of hawaii are appropriate. There are four references on the article now. I think more credible references are present in this new version of the article. It is different than the article that was previously deleted. This statement "This smacks of bad faith and disruption." is in violation of WP:AGF. I am acting in good faith and within wikipedia policy. We simply do not agree. This is now a moot point as another editor has AFD'd the article. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant (talk) 14:52, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

The Bloomberg and State of Hawaii sources are only incidental mentions, not the significant third-party coverage required to establish notability. Bloomberg has such an automatically generated profile about every company. The State of Hawaii source is a passing mention as an example of an unaccredited university which has been sanctioned for posing as an accredited one. Neither of these sources demonstrates notability. astro (talk) 15:00, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

This very sort of discussion was already had as part of the old AFD, which very unpleasantly involved a steady stream of canvassed editors or meatpuppets making the exact same arguments that Fouetté is making. Another AFD is a waste of everyone's time. This is a subversion of the deletion and consensus-building process and I will not hesitate to seek administrator intervention. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 15:32, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Rosiestep (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:10, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

May 2016

Please be careful about what you say to people. Some remarks can easily be misinterpreted. Wikipedia is a supportive environment, where contributors should feel comfortable and safe while editing. Thank you. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 18:43, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Note

Quick note, Fouetté, about the discussion above. People come to Wikipedia for many reasons, but very, very often, it is to add promotional content about some thing, person, company, whatever, to Wikipedia. HappyValley generally does a great job removing unsourced, promotional content. I urge you to be very aware of the mission here - to create and maintain articles that summarize accepted knowledge that are encyclopedic and that there are a lot of ways that people try to use Wikipedia that are off-mission: we are not a newspaper, not a webhost or place to post your CV, not a place to catalog every one of anything, not a how-to manual, and not a vehicle for promoting or advocating for or against anything.

Sometimes it is debatable, in good faith, if some content is off-mission in one of those ways. Please do AGF and just talk through things. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:55, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Your opinion has been noted Jytdog. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant (talk) 21:02, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm Julietdeltalima. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Joseph Metz, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you. Julietdeltalima (talk) 19:45, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

No

Hello! Just a question: are you WIkihounding me? I see you following me around from page to page. I'm seeing your edits following mine, in a combative way, on enough pages to sense that you may be violating policy on Wikihounding. PLease read Wikipedia:Harassment#Wikihounding and stop hounding. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 15:05, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Cool your jets there, No wikihounding here, I ran across a page you had gutted needlessly that was on my watch list here. [1] I repaired that page from your excessive "editing". I checked a few of your edits and did some copyediting on them to correct problems, and I found another article where you did the same sort of gutting on its page. [2] An editor has a right or duty to do the "Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles." Total guttings of articles are not recommended or within policy. Your editing has become destructive and disruptive to wikipedia. I will be watching all articles on my watchlist, plus I do new page patrolling, so we may run across the same articles there. Do not take it personally. Please cut out the gutting! Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant (talk) 17:07, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm seeing the same thing, HappyValleyEditor - at your edits and at mine. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:34, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Winkelvi! I found another gutted article by the same 'editor", [3], [4]. This looks to be a pattern of destructive, disruptive editing. If this sort of editing does not stop, where could I report this incident Winkelvi? Thanks for your help. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant (talk) 17:40, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Here's the editor interaction report, for the record. WV, I have no idea what you are talking about... the report shows basically nothing. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 18:13, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

the MAccoby article you liked to above was a likely piece of self promotiont hat contained one reference when I came to it. the long biography that you keep reverting had zero references. It is completely within policy to challenge and remove material that is uncited. It's called deletionism. I'll caution you again to not wikihound my edits. The editor interaction page above shows that you have been doing so for a while now. You edit after me on twenty or more pages, while I edit after you on two or three. I read about Justus Rosenberg in the New York Times, create an article, and bang, you are editing the page. Same goes for many unconnected pages. You're clearly specificially following my contribs, and going after my edits. That is wikihounding. If you have a problem with my fine edits, file a complaint. Consider yourself warned regarding the Wikihounding, and have a nice day. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 18:26, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

You just do not get it. As I quoted to ypu, "An editor has a right or duty to do the "Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles." Total guttings of articles are not recommended or within policy. Your editing has become destructive and disruptive to wikipedia. I will be watching all articles on my watchlist, plus I do new page patrolling, so we may run across the same articles there." If this gutting continues, I will report the matter of your repeated disruptive editing. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant (talk) 18:39, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

May 2016

I have redacted accusations of vote collusion on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brenton_Lengel [5]. Esoteric10 (talk) 08:10, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Sweetman-Kirk

Hi, WP:ELOFFICIAL states (emphasis added): "An official link is a link to a website or other Internet service that meets both of the following criteria:

1. The linked content is controlled by the subject (organization or individual person) of the Wikipedia article.
2. The linked content primarily covers the area for which the subject of the article is notable.

Official links (if any) are provided to give the reader the opportunity to see what the subject says about itself. These links are exempt from the links normally to be avoided, but they are not exempt from the restrictions on linking.

In this case, the twitter link is acceptable. Hmlarson (talk) 17:19, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

I really do not agree with your interpretation there, but hey, you created the article so have at it! Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant (talk) 17:24, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of James R. Hansen

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on James R. Hansen requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a clear copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://cla.auburn.edu/history/people/faculty/james-hansen/. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(✉) 17:14, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

GPX global systems wiki page

Dear Fouette,

I am an MBA student and as a part of my curriculum I am doing research on data centers. I have been an avid reader of Wikipedia and when I found pages on other companies, I think this company should also have a page because it has got sufficient media coverage notable enough to be on Wikipedia. First of all I am not related to this organisation and I tried to create this page along with a friend who is also a student and not related to the organisation. We have read the notability guidelines and cited everything we have written. Other wiki pages on data centers like Equinix, Ctrl S and Netmagic that we went through, lack encyclopedic content but still they are on Wikipedia. Taking that in mind, and respecting wikipedia we linked so many technical terms to other wiki pages to make it encyclopedic rather than an advertisement.

I sincerely request you to please tell us what specifically is making the page not suitable for wikipedia, so that we can learn from it for this page as well as other contributions we make.

Best regards, Ankit Asthana Ankit (talk) 11:33, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

This article is now undergoing a deletion discussion. You are of course allowed to comment there. The link is at the top of the article page. Thanks Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant (talk) 08:09, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Dear Fouetté,

Suggested improvements have been implemented. Kindly reconsider the article.Arnab2803 (talk) 05:52, 17 May 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arnab2803 (talk • contribs) 05:51, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Please don't delete the Davide Anselmi Page ...

Dear Fouette,

I'm Anna , and i'm here with my staff and we're going through all of wikipedia user ... it is an important piece of the international music that makes charitable with his albums and classic works in mixed rock..è was honored four times by the BBC, and we'll keep this article remain online for his fans and for all the people who support it, deleting it would be a lack of respect ..

Please,

Kind Regars

Anna Quindlen ( Journalist at NYT )

— Preceding unsigned comment added by AnnaQuindlen (talk • contribs) 07:59, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Your best bet would be to state your arguments on the talk page of the article, and do not remove any more speedy deletion templates. Please have some respect for wikipedia rules and procedures as well. Best regards! Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant (talk) 08:06, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

FYI. Yellow Pages is a bad reference.

FYI, your edit here added a Spanish-language Yellow Pages as as a reference. Just so you know, paid advertisements like the Yellow Pages are not considered to be good sources. This is because people can pay to have their address and company published there. Does that make sense? Perhaps have a look at the reliable sources page. Let me know if you need this explained more! Happy to help you out in your editing efforts. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 23:07, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Incomplete DYK nomination

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/ Aya Haidar at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; see step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 11:12, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Nathan Lee vs. Nathan Hongwon Lee

Could you please delete one of them? Thanks NathanLeeFanPage (talk) 04:55, 4 May 2016 (UTC) NathanLeeFanPage

Nathan Lee

Thank you NathanLeeFanPage (talk) 05:01, 4 May 2016 (UTC)NathanLeeFanPage

no problem. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant (talk) 05:02, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

note to self [6]

see here: [7]

(reprinted from above diff for convenience in keeping a complete record to refer to of personal attacks by an editor) "May 2016 | Archive

Information icon Hello, I'm Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Articles for deletion/Centro Gumilla that didn't seem very civil. 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. personal attack against Jzsj, a specific editor, and also quite offensive in nature. "You have said you have a master's degree from somewhere. I'm hoping that I can infer from that that you have the mental ability to understand the following," Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 6:35 pm, Today (UTC−5)

you are so sensitive! The comment I left was entirely correct. the editor in question is very thick in the head in terms of the rules. That condition is going around, I see it in many editors recently. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 6:42 pm, Today (UTC−5)

Also, where is the personal attack? You might be just being overly sensitive here. I said a) the editor says they have a Master's degree and b) I hope that he is educated enough to understand the basic policies... So where's the attack there? Basic statements. Have a nice day!HappyValleyEditor (talk) 6:46 pm, Today (UTC−5)

The attack is very clear to see, " I'm hoping that I can infer from that that you have the mental ability to understand the following" You are clearly implying that the editor does not have the mental ability to understand your statements to him. A back-handed insult and personal attack is still a personal attack toward Jzsj. First you make it even worse by trying to deny your personal attack against him, then you do it again here on your page by stating above, " the editor in question is very thick in the head in terms of the rules." Thick in the head? Really? You are acting quite uncivil, and have attacked the same editor for a second time now. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 7:04 pm, Today (UTC−5)

Information icon Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 7:07 pm, Today (UTC−5)

OK listen, do you not have some kittens to resuce somewhere? You are hereby banned from my talk page. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 7:09 pm, Today (UTC−5)"

Work group

Hello, I see you have used "| artist-work-group=yes|artist-priority=" on some artist Talk pages; the correct usage is "| a&e-work-group=yes|a&e-priority= ".--Johnsoniensis (talk) 08:24, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I copied the syntax I used from the instructions at the Women in Red pages. You might want to adjust the instructions there. Best regards! Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 08:27, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

One of the WIR pages is here [8] Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 08:33, 26 May 2016 (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. Thank you. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 08:37, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Social media link

Regarding your edit here, the exception at the top of WP:ELNO, which is often overlooked, clearly states "Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject, ...". In this case it's fine as she doesn't have a website. Only one should be used though, per WP:ELMINOFFICIAL. nyuszika7h (talk) 10:16, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Actually, never mind that, the Twitter account is not verified. nyuszika7h (talk) 10:17, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I am aware of the exception, but as you have noted, unless it happens to be a verified account, I do not apply the exception. Thanks for the note. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 10:22, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

July 2016

Your recent editing history at Noel Neill shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the 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. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:29, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

.

Hello, I'm HappyValleyEditor. I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil, so it has 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. Do not call me a liar in edit summaries. I have no interest in your activities. Drop the stick and move on. Any further hostile activity and I shall be filing a fomal harassment complaint. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 01:16, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I did not call you a liar. I said edit summaries are supposed to be honest. Everything is not about you. Leave me alone and stop posting bogus threats on my talkpage. I will not even discuss how you have said three different versions of the journal references today. I do not have to say anything. Nothing ever goes away on wikipedia, it is all in the history. You are banned from my talk page. Do not post here again. I am preparing a formal report about your repeated harassment of me. Stay away and leave me alone. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 01:26, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 01:51, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant.
Message added 18:41, 4 July 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Seems legit... GAB^gab 18:41, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Issuing level 1 warning about removing AfD template from articles before the discussion is complete. (Peachy 2.0 (alpha 8))

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates, as you did with Kevin Hardcastle. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. This is an automated message from a bot about this edit, where you removed the deletion template from an article before the deletion discussion was complete. If this message is in error, please report it.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:15, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration case request declined

In response to your request for arbitration of this issue, the Arbitration Committee has agreed that arbitration is not required at this stage. Arbitration on Wikipedia is a lengthy, complicated process that involves the unilateral adjudication of a dispute by an elected committee. Although the Committee's decisions can be useful to certain disputes, in many cases the actual process of arbitration is unenjoyable and time-consuming. Moreover, for most disputes the community maintains an effective set of mechanisms for reaching a compromise or resolving a grievance.

For grievances about the conduct of a Wikipedia editor, you should approach the user (in a civil, professional way) on their user talk page. However, other mechanisms for resolving a dispute also exist, such as raising the issue at the administrators' noticeboard for incidents.

In all cases, you should review Wikipedia:Dispute resolution to learn more about resolving disputes on Wikipedia. The English Wikipedia community has many venues for resolving disputes and grievances, and it is important to explore them instead of requesting arbitration in the first instance. For more information on the process of arbitration, please see the Arbitration Policy and the Guide to Arbitration. I hope this advice is useful, and please do not hesitate to contact a member of the community if you have more questions. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 17:36, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Fouetté, that was the standard message for a premature case request. This request was dismissed in accordance with arbitrator instructions on clerks-l. I would encourage you to take up The Wordsmith's offer to help sort this out. For the Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 17:36, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

July 2016

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Amaury (talk | contribs) 06:56, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

AN/I

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 02:45, 8 July 2016 (UTC)