User talk:Domdeparis

Domdeparis is currently wikibonked and is operating at a lower edit level than usual. Hitting the wall is a temporary condition, and the user should return to normal edit levels in time.

It is approximately 5:52 PM where this user lives (Paris). [refresh]

User page Talk page Contributions To Do Sandbox Watchlist (yours and not mine!)

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

September 2021

Don’t you dare add unfounded templates to my talk page just because you have a stick up your ass, especially after hounding my every edit for which I already told you to stop. In fact, do not engage me again. Consider this a civility warning. Kingsif (talk) 20:26, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah good to see you are finally open to discussion despite the unpleasant tone. Warning templates are perfectly acceptable if the editor is refusing to engage and I will not hesitate to use them again and take this matter up at the BLP notice board if you continue your disruptive editing. I tried to discuss your edits and the agressive edit summary when reverting me twice on your talk page as a means to find consensus but you reverted my messages each time with some pretty unpleasant edit summaries. You seem to be under some kind of persecution complex as I have most certainly not hounded your "every edit" but simply cleaned up some WP:OR and tendentious material on a single page that you have edited. As I stated I did not even know that the stuff I cleaned up had been added by you. We have never interacted before as far as I know so your accusation is totally unjustified. Please try to stay WP:CIVIL. --Dom from Paris (talk) 20:42, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just read your reply threatening me with an IBAN request. Please do not hesitate to make a report on ANI if that is really what you want to do rather than seeking consensus. I do not believe that I have done anything wrong and have acted in good faith and in accordance with WP rules and standards and will be happy to discuss this matter if you wish to report me. You seem to be taking editing on this article very personally but please remember you do not WP:OWN the articles you edit. Cheers Dom from Paris (talk) 20:52, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted one of your edits, because, as I explained in the edit reason, there was no good reason for the edit and, which I did not mention but assumed you knew since you claim so much knowledge of the article history, the text you removed was the result of a compromise that I had not made, but which I maintain. The article in question is fairly contentious, and I have it on watchlist because two incompatible sides like to make bad edits. When someone swoops in to simply erase consensus compromises without reason, it gets reverted. When that user - you - doesn’t want to accept this and leaves three paragraphs at my talk page accusing me of OR right off the bat, that is uncivil. Every edit I have made is justified, and for the record, since you must be struggling to interpret edit history, I did not add any of the things you are claiming I did - amend to compromises and clean up, yes - and certainly not in the very slanderous way you are suggesting that I would deliberately use poor sources or OR to misinform. I do not care about your opinions or intentions, but since for every edit I have made you have hounded me with ridiculous accusations, do not interact with me again unless actually necessary. I tried to keep an article clean because before I did it had “he is a nazi” on it for three days, and as soon as I revert a pointless edit, I get you acting like you know it all - you don’t OWN shit, either - and claiming I am acting deliberately against policy from our very first interaction. You assumed bad faith in me from the start, and were a JERK in the process. But sure, put on the charming act now. It is not pleasant getting a new message from you accusing me of shit every time I open this site, when I have done nothing wrong. Kingsif (talk) 21:24, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said try and stay civil. A lot of the stuff you added did contain OR an example is the "aristocratic de Balkany family". This is not mentioned in any source. You may have made the assumption that a "de" in front of a name automatically means that it is an aristocratic family. In reality according to sources Marshall's great grandfather added this to his name when arriving in France. This is a quite a common occurance here in France from people wishing to give themselves a certain stature that they do not have in fact. You seem to be particularly invested in this article and it's spilling over and clouding your judgement and the insults that you have imagined from my part and the real insults that you have posted are indicative of this. I know nothing about Marshall's "Nazi" shitstorm and could not care less I was simply cleaning up some poorly sourced information. This is not a personal attack towards you and I assume good faith but everyone can make mistakes when editing and make poor edits, I most certainly have done in the past. Try and step back and WP:AGF as you can see I have made no contentious edits and have tried to add an WP:NPOV. Have another look at my edits and try and be objective about them. Dom from Paris (talk) 21:41, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see you clearly don’t understand English, or at least “leave me alone”. Here is my final word. How about you take the step back and look at my edits objectively, huh? I watched an article that got a lot of POV edits. I don’t know anything about the guy, and the talk page clearly shows how I moderated over a controversial selection of edits from others very recently. That’s what I watched it for, and I added a bunch of career details when the article became more personal/controversy heavy. So then you came and edited parts that had previously needed local consensus on a compromise because it is a controversial matter apparently. I didn’t plain revert you, I amended to keep that compromise intact while incorporating what I assumed the intent of your edits was. It was a stability edit with a long reason attached. You then immediately left an essay on my talk page accusing me of bad faith OR. I didn’t even make the edits you contested; as I said maybe I made the edit implementing compromise but I did mostly the career section. Yet you were immediately hostile, to the point of overkill even if it was a truly egregious longstanding dispute. When I then explained why I had made the edit to a different user, you HOUNDED me, leaving comment after comment both at my talk page and in response on the article talk page, accusing me of every editing and behavioral issue in Wikipedia’s arsenal, when I had literally made one edit and given someone else an explanation. None of this was called for. Why on earth do you think you should be able to continue doing that, to continue defaming me, especially days after the content issue was resolved in a manner we both agreed is best? Especially when each of your comments, hypocritically, consisted entirely of “stop making personal attacks and comment on content” - you were attacking me and didn’t mention content at all, and when I was defending not attacking to boot. So yes, regardless of any editing dispute, you are extremely unpleasant and even with notifications off and me asking you several times to leave me alone, you leave a message at my talk page so I can’t avoid you. Every interaction with you, a guy who doesn’t seem to care about the content and just wants to yell at me, makes me want to punch a wall. Thankfully, every other part of Wikipedia is still calm. You are the only issue. Now I haven’t seen anything else of your editing but as long as you don’t demand every edit be exact quotations, you presumably aren’t very disruptive, so enjoy continuing to edit, just NEVER INTERACT WITH ME AGAIN. Kingsif (talk) 23:38, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And after I ask you to leave me alone, you ACTUALLY THREATEN ME?! Yeah, I don’t know how you think you’re in the right, but you clearly do. Obviously, I believe I have done nothing wrong and have been unreasonably attacked by you. Never the Twain shall meet. The only solution here is to never interact; I would say I’m sure you’ll agree, but since you chose to threaten me instead of ignore my existence last time, maybe you really enjoy pursuing a fight instead of editing productively Kingsif (talk) 23:45, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kingsif: you have banned me from your talk page and do not wish to interact with me but you still come on mine to continue the drama. Please consider yourself banned from my talk page. If you wish to reply to me please do it through the ANI discussion. I have never ever banned anyone from my talk page and pretty sad that it has now happened. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:54, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol newsletter September 2021

Hello Domdeparis,

Please join this discussion - there is increase in the abuse of Wikipedia and its processes by POV pushers, Paid Editors, and by holders of various user rights including Autopatrolled. Even our review systems themselves at AfC and NPR have been infiltrated. The good news is that detection is improving, but the downside is that it creates the need for a huge clean up - which of course adds to backlogs.

Copyright violations are also a serious issue. Most non-regular contributors do not understand why, and most of our Reviewers are not experts on copyright law - and can't be expected to be, but there is excellent, easy-to-follow advice on COPYVIO detection here.

At the time of the last newsletter (#25, December 2020) the backlog was only just over 2,000 articles. New Page Review is an official system. It's the only firewall against the inclusion of new, improper pages.

There are currently 706 New Page Reviewers plus a further 1,080 admins, but as much as nearly 90% of the patrolling is still being done by around only the 20 or so most regular patrollers.

If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process or its software.

Various awards are due to be allocated by the end of the year and barnstars are overdue. If you would like to manage this, please let us know. Indeed, if you are interested in coordinating NPR, it does not involve much time and the tasks are described here.

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. Sent to 827 users. 04:31, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

November 2021 backlog drive

New Page Patrol \| November 2021 Backlog Drive
On November 1, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Redirect patrolling is not part of the drive. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. (t · c) buidhe 01:58, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Boo!

Happy Halloween!

Hello Domdeparis:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
—usernamekiran • sign the guestbook • (talk) 21:34, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

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) 00:37, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Minor-attracted person for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Minor-attracted person is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minor-attracted person until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

— Mhawk10 (talk) 06:32, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AFC Helper News

Hello! I wanted to drop a quick note for all of our AFC participants; nothing huge and fancy like a newsletter, but a few points of interest.

AFCH will now show live previews of the comment to be left on a decline.
The template {{db-afc-move}} has been created - this template is similar to {{db-move}} when there is a redirect in the way of an acceptance, but specifically tells the patrolling admin to let you (the draft reviewer) take care of the actual move.

Short and sweet, but there's always more to discuss at WT:AFC. Stop on by, maybe review a draft on the way? Whether you're one of our top reviewers, or haven't reviewed in a while, I want to thank you for helping out in the past and in the future. Cheers, Primefac, via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:59, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]