User talk:Der Statistiker

Welcome!

Hello, Der Statistiker, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Anna Lincoln (talk) 12:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with File:GuadeloupeFlag.png

Thanks for uploading File:GuadeloupeFlag.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 15:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for File:Guadeloupe.png

Thanks for uploading File:Guadeloupe.png. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 16:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikilinking

I see you've been adding Wikilinks to articles, which is great, but you are overlinking a bit, eg normally you only link the first occasion. Take a look at WP:MOSLINK for guidance. dougweller (talk) 13:37, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brittany

Don't you think you should discuss a page move of this type first? I have placed a request that it be reversed on ANI. --Snowded (talk) 15:30, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article is now restored, please use the talk page if you want to make a case for a move. --Snowded (talk) 16:28, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3rr warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit waraccording to the reverts you have made on France. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. --John (talk) 17:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Logo cr Martinique.gif)

⚠

Thanks for uploading Image:Logo cr Martinique.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 05:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Logo 973 guyane.gif)

⚠

Thanks for uploading Image:Logo 973 guyane.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 05:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:LogoCentre.gif)

⚠

Thanks for uploading Image:LogoCentre.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 05:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries by population

You may want to check out List of countries by population. Someone else wants to split out Hong Kong and Macau. --Polaron | Talk 22:45, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your invitation to participate in a Wikimedia-approved survey in online behavior.

Hello, my name is Michael Tsikerdekis [1][2], currently involved as a student in full time academic research at Masaryk University. I am writing to you to kindly invite you to participate in an online survey about interface and online collaboration on Wikipedia. The survey has been reviewed and approved by the Wikimedia Foundation Research Committee.

I am contacting you because you were randomly selected from a list of active editors. The survey should take about 7 to 10 minutes to complete, and it is very straightforward.

Wikipedia is an open project by nature. Let’s create new knowledge for everyone! :-)

To take part in the survey please follow the link: tsikerdekis.wuwcorp.com/pr/survey/?user=45298403 (HTTPS).

Best Regards, --Michael Tsikerdekis (talk) 12:04, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PS: The results from the research will become available online for everyone and will be published in an open access journal.

UPDATE: This is the second and final notification for participating in this study. Your help is essential for having concrete results and knowledge that we all can share. I would like to thank you for your time and as always for any questions, comments or ideas do not hesitate to contact me. PS: As a thank you for your efforts and participation in Wikipedia Research you will receive a Research Participation Barnstar after the end of the study. --Michael Tsikerdekis (talk) 18:11, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

		Research Participation Barnstar
		For your participation in the survey for Anonymity and conformity on the internet. Michael Tsikerdekis (talk) 13:54, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New Caledonia

Your recent editing history at New Caledonia shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you 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. TDL (talk) 00:56, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please self revert on New Caledonia. There is no consensus for the changes you are proposing. The long term consensus on the page must be respected as per WP:BRD until you establish a consensus to change. If you don't self revert I'll be forced to report you for edit warring. TDL (talk) 02:28, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:Logo Champagne Ardenne.png)

Thanks for uploading File:Logo Champagne Ardenne.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:11, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:FlagCentre.gif)

Thanks for uploading File:FlagCentre.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:13, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paris

I thought I should write to apologise for my mistake in thinking you were a sockpuppet. I've had similar experiences in the past and I know how it can feel, so I'm sorry for any hurt I may have caused.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 16:43, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain why you reverted my edit - the discussion is ongoing and so the image should not have been changed back. I would appreciate it if you would revert yourself, as I do not wish to get into an edit war, but really you should have waited for consensus to emerge until changing it back.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 22:06, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Making threats to report me for 3RR are hardly helpful; I wasn't going to revert you anyway, but accusing me of "forcing my way into the article" are simply wrong - I was returning the article to the state it was unchallenged in for several weeks, and you are insisting on forcing your change by changing the image. I have requested a neutral 3rd opinion and am perfectly happy to hold an RfC. If the consensus from that is that the single image is better, so be it and I am fine with that, but if it is that the montage is preferred, please respect the consensus.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 10:41, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Paris

Firstly please do not be so uncivil to other editors. "Editor lazily moved..." is not acceptable I am afraid. Secondly, please do not introduce unsourced material into articles. You replaced information which was adequately cited, with unsourced material: this is unacceptable. You have added bloated demographic trivia into an article when it now has its own article: that goes against the Mos and you shouldn't have done that at all. If you do not like what the recent series of edits has done - taking the article from a morass of unsourced bloated trivia and turning it into a GA, then I suggest you discuss the matter on the article's discussion page. - SchroCat (talk) 20:55, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

July 2013

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. We always appreciate when users upload new images. However, it appears that one or more of the images you have recently uploaded or added to an article, specifically Template:Table Paris Region top countries & territories of birth, may fail our non-free image policy. Most often, this involves editors uploading or using a copyrighted image of a living person. For other possible reasons, please read up on our Non-free image criteria. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Werieth (talk) 17:04, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Paris, again

Sadly I note that you have again decided to revert to uncivil language to another editor, notably in this edit summary. This is unacceptable language to use to another editor. I suggest you try and use the discussion page to have a civil discussion to come to a consensus on the article's future. - SchroCat (talk) 18:34, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You might find that if you dropped the attitude and negativity towards me and started communicating like an adult human being we might come up with something more constructive. Your attitude towards me over the Paris article is like a 2 year old who had his toy cars confiscated from him. Grow up and accept that you shouldn't contribute to wikipedia unless you're willing for your work to be reedited! You have some of the most serious OWN issues I've ever come across on here and still a month on you're moaning about it.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 18:56, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3RR

You are engaged in an edit war and have already breached WP:3RR. Do not revert again without the discussion having finished on the talk page. - SchroCat (talk) 17:06, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to intrude, but to be fair to Der Stat I can only count 3 reverts by him and 4 others (including mine).--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 17:12, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1,

2, 3, 4. The earliest does count towards wp:3rr - SchroCat (talk) 17:28, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh ok, I thought the original post didn't count as a revert ... unless I suppose he was reverting Dr. B's earlier removal of the info I presume ... --Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 17:33, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Paris

Hi, I totally agree with you that there are major flaws with the article about Paris, but I think a bit less confrotational can only help with sorting things out. Clearly, we are not going to agree on everything, but there are some points where we should be able to reach a consensus. I think working on drafts and discussions pages rather than on the main namespace for some time would help make keep things more quiet. I might try to propose a few things, but not sure I will have much time for that in the next few weeks. --Superzoulou (talk) 12:50, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I think we are faced with a geek with whom civil discussion is impossible. A guy who has two user accounts (Tibetan Prayer and Dr Blofeld), who spends his days and nights editing Wikipedia (any social life?), a guy who has rewritten 80% of the Paris article in one month (any normal and sane editor would never do that; imagine if I went into the Israel article and rewrote 80% of it in one month, crazy!), and who complains to his friends when someone corrects his edits. Hard to see how we can have a fruitful discussion with someone like that. My only hope is that it draws the attention of enough editors so we can override his crazy edits. Der Statistiker (talk) 13:42, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Geek??? I'm one of the least geeky types on wikipedia and spend a lot less time on wikipedia than you might think. That I might make a few edits every few hours doesn't mean I'm on wikipedia the whole of the time in between. I rarely spend an hour at one sitting on here straight at the moment. Most of the Paris text still remains and all I did was source it and added some new content with a few other people and remove some of the warbling bloat. Most of my work was done on it while I was watching Wimbledon on a split screen. As for being a geek, you call yourself Der Statistiker, a name itself which implies that you're a statistics freak who has nothing in his life but to tot up figures!! It's just an article, stop obsessing and move on.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 16:15, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If I restore the article version before I and Gilderien started editing it it wouldn't last 5 minutes. Clearly you know nothing about the importance of sourcing and focus. Again, if you can't accept your work being revised, DON'T contribute to wikipedia.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 16:19, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1- It's not "my" work. I contributed very little to this article, apart from updating the figures from time to time. But I feel sorry for the many editors who have spent long hours bringing content in the article, and wording it, only to see all their work erased by one guy who has suddenly decided he would rewrite the entire Paris article to get a medal.

2- If your edits had only consisted in sourcing the unsourced bits, or rewording the awkwardly worded parts, nobody would have had anything to say about it. Your edits, however, have consisted in a- entirely rewriting the lead of the article, by adding superfluous and clichés things such as accordion and bal-musette, b- changing the picture at the beginning of the article without even paying attention to the discussion that had taken place on the talk page and which had concluded that there was no consensus for a montage, c- cutting and deleting lots of information from the article that cannot be found anywhere else.

I'm sorry but your edits in this article (and in Bangui, and God only knows where else) have been mostly deleterious from what I can see. Wikipedia articles are not DYK articles, they are not a collection of clichés, anecdotes and tourist tips. Der Statistiker (talk) 17:20, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bangui went from 10kb to 46 kb. That's deleterious? Ipigott and many others here believed that the lead was the worst part of the Paris article and didn't adequately summarize the article as it should. He mentioned it several times. I really didn't delete most of the article, far from it. The history, geography and many of the others section I'd didn't delete anything, I referenced it. I and others then added new section such as media and simply revamped the bulleted non sourced cityscape into some sort of coherent order. All I did then was simply condense a few of the sections which seemed very long such as Demographics and admin and try to give the article the focus that several others thought it lacked. I believe I split info into sister articles before condensing and to my knowledge I did not delete any work of anybody which is worth carrying on like this. Perhaps you could highlight exactly what you're upset about that was deleted? Because if the info is important I would put it in a sister article. The bulk of what I sanded down is in Administration of Paris and Demographics of Paris, I don't think I deleted anything significant which I didn't retain in a sub article, so what's the problem? You say also about my adding cliches, well Paris has many of them, and historically it has long been associated with that music and the accordion and it is the home of gypsy jazz. The accordion is definitely a musical icon of the city and whenever in film and TV somebody goes to Paris they usually end up playing that accordion music and the viewer instantly knows its Paris. Cliche=icon. Perhaps more could be added on contemporary music, but above all I think you're missing that I edited it to do what I believed was an improvement and that Tim riley, one of the finest editors on wikipedia, only passed it once I'd edited it says it all.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 17:52, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article was 128kb before Gilderien and I started, it got to 178kb at some point and is now 158kb. That is indicative of a surplus of information rather than a deletions. I've put the original article in User:Dr. Blofeld/Paris and as far as I can see virtually all of the content in it is in the current article we have on it. Things like tourism weren't deleted but merged with economy. As I say the only two sections which were condensed significantly were Demo, Admin and Education which now have sister articles. Yes, I think that much detail in the main article for those topics is difficult for the average reader to read. They're very good, but I think the average reader wants to learn more about the city itself. As far as I can see I've not made a hash of it and unfairly removed valuable content.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 18:26, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Demographics of Göttingen

Feel free to expand and weave your magic!♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 15:59, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pathetic. Der Statistiker (talk) 17:24, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you really want to do something constructive you could write a decent piece on your own city. But I see you're not here to be constructive.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 17:53, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

August 2013

Hello, I'm Crisco 1492. I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Note that comments such as this and this are nowhere near conducive to building a consensus regarding the article and show an astounding lack of good faith towards other editors intentions. Remember, please comment on the content and not the contributors. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:08, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is a good point, and I was not aware of any of those (will be reminding Blofeld shortly). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:51, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Paris archive

By all means archive the very long talk page rather than delete it all, but can you restore the project and GA banners at the top? ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 21:06, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

August 2013

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. We always appreciate when users upload new images. However, it appears that one or more of the images you have recently uploaded or added to an article, specifically Template:Table Paris Region top countries & territories of birth, may fail our non-free image policy. Most often, this involves editors uploading or using a copyrighted image of a living person. For other possible reasons, please read up on our Non-free image criteria. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Werieth (talk) 22:37, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want blocked? WP:NFCC#9 states that non-free files can only be used in article space (see Wikipedia:Main_namespace#Namespace) which is namespace 0 templates are namespace 10. next time you violate nfcc I will be taking this to ANI seeking your block. Werieth (talk) 09:31, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Threats now? These templates only appear in articles, so you're being sophistic here. These flags are official flags of French regions, so what's the point of having them on Wikipedia if they cannot be used to represent French regions? I'm not sure what you're up to here. As if the Guadeloupe and Réunion regions were going to sue Wikipedia for using their public flags to represent them on Wikipedia. Like LOL. Der Statistiker (talk) 09:59, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Its not a threat, Our policies are crystal clear on this matter. Also our usage of non-free media is far stricter than fair use so that isnt the issue. Werieth (talk) 10:29, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What's "crystal clear" to me is that you're engaged in countless edit wars with many editors, you have an aggressive attitude not just with me but with other editors as well, and your argument is sophistic (I'm still waiting for an explanation as to why these flags are ok in articles, but not in templates that appear only in articles). Also, what's that "our"? Wikipedia doesn't belong to you. Der Statistiker (talk) 10:43, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It refers to a collective membership. Usage of non-free media in templates also fail WP:NFCC #1,3, & 8, along with 9. Non-free media enforcement is not a popular activity and often people who are un-familar with policy tend to try to ignore it. I just took EnglishEfternamn to ANI for #9 violations that resulted in their block if you disagree with policy take it to WT:NFC Werieth (talk) 10:53, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You persist in your sophistic enforcement of rules, but still haven't addressed the issue of having two French regions that can't be represented on Wikipedia. Der Statistiker (talk) 15:20, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have never stated that those two regions cannot be represented on Wikipedia. What I stated is that their flags cannot be used in templates, and that the usage of their flag as identification must be limited. You can Link to articles and provide representation that way. My enforcement is not that complex in this case, yes using the flags as icons makes the template prettier but because those two files are non-free media their usage is restricted to a very limited usage. Making a template pretty isnt one of those uses. Please explain why you think those files should be exempt from policy. Werieth (talk) 15:38, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, because those flags were paid for with taxpayer money, are public flags, and the Réunion and Guadeloupe regions will never sue Wikipedia for using them to represent the two regions? It's not difficult to understand. Der Statistiker (talk) 18:48, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just because something is paid for via the general public doesn't mean that copyright doesn't exist. If fact most works by most governments are fully copyrighted. If something is not under a free license it must be treated as non-free, regardless of the risk of us getting sued. Wikipedia's m:Mission is to provide free content, not only in regards to access, but also released under a free license. If you think there should be a new class of images that should be exempt from WP:NFCC WT:NFC is the place to go to start a discussion to change that, regardless of your agreement or disagreement with policy it is policy not something you can ignore if you want. Werieth (talk) 19:01, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Right, so how come the article Brussels is allowed to use the copyrighted logo of the region, but the articles Guadeloupe and Réunion aren't allowed to use the regional logo? Double standards. Der Statistiker (talk) 20:14, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Its not a double standard, I didnt remove the file from the article on the subject, I removed the flags from a template. Réunion does use File:ReunionLogo2.PNG and Guadeloupe had it until November 13, 2012 when an IP removed File:GuadeloupeFlag.png. Justification for using the file in those two articles are not being debated, rather what the issue is, is including them in a navigational template. Please make sure you check your facts before making a comment like above, as it shows your failure to understand your own talking points Werieth (talk) 20:37, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the Brussels logo is used in a template too: [3]. There goes your theory! PS: no need to write condescending comments in small font. Der Statistiker (talk) 22:11, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you are referring to File:Belgium brussels iris.svg the file is released under a free license and thus not subject to WP:NFCC (However I am going to be looking into the copyright status of that file as it is pd-author which isnt correct). Werieth (talk) 23:13, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a copyrighted public logo, just as Guadeloupe and Réunion. The guy who uploaded it just didn't say it. I suppose I could also upload the Guadeloupe and Réunion logos at the Commons and pretend they are public domain then. Der Statistiker (talk) 11:25, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not do that, uploading content and knowingly claiming a false license is a serious issue. There is no such thing as a copyrighted public logo in regards to copyright restrictions. A file cannot be fully copyrighted and exempt from WP:NFC at the same time. Werieth (talk) 12:35, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Possible legal threat

At Talk:Paris you wrote ". Since you live in France, you should know that this word carries legal consequences:". Would you please state unequivocally that you do not intend to take or encourage others to take any legal actions regarding any editors here? You might want to read WP:NLT first. Thank you. I'd also like you to state that at Talk:Paris so everyone there is clear. Dougweller (talk) 19:04, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The one that I've seen making vague legal threats is The Pronemander, and I've simply pointed that out. He has accused us publicly of being "revisionists", a word which carries a legal indictment under French law. It would be like accusing someone publicly of being a "rapist" under English law. Is that allowed on Wikipedia? How can no admin react and warn The Promenader when he publicly refers to several of us as "revisionists"? Der Statistiker (talk) 20:57, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's no legal threat in that, we are not operating under French law. I ask you again, will you make the statement I've asked for? If you haven't done this by the time I log on again tomorrow I'll have to block you. Dougweller (talk) 21:12, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And there is no legal threat in my comment either. I only pointed out that the word he used on purpose is not neutral under French (and many other) law. Der Statistiker (talk) 21:19, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was (like most of your comments) completely inappropriate to even mention legal indictment. You've even turned Promenader against you with your socially dysfunctional approach and inability to talk to anybody fairly who doesn't share your opinion. It aint a warzone, and your latest stunt canvassing support from a skyscraper forum shows your true colours in all their glory. Nobody wants people around on wikipedia like you Der Stat, and if you keep this up it's only a matter of time before you're topic banned from Paris or blocked.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:33, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

a- What was inappropriate was to refer to several editors as "revisionists". b- Drop the accusations of canvassing and whatnot. It's just amazing the amount of ad hominem and accusations I've received from the same usual suspects in that talk page. The Paris article is a major one on Wikipedia, so it's no surprise it attracts the attention of many people. Are you going to accuse me of being behind any person that post a comment disagreeing with you on that talk page? Der Statistiker (talk) 21:49, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All the people from the forum, who never edit wikipedia, suddenly turn up within a few hours to support you? Do you take us for mugs? [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] . All turn up within a few hours. Doug, isn't that sort of organized canvassing of non editors to try to sway an argument on wikipedia considered disruptive and blockable anyway?♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:59, 27 August 2013 (UTC) ♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:53, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To support "me"? Oh Gosh, that's precious! The issue is not "me", the issue is the picture used at the beginning of one of the major articles on Wikipedia. I'm not conceited enough to think that these people have posted comments on Wikipedia just for the sake of me. But since you continue with your accusations, I would be very happy if some admins could inquire into this, as this is getting frankly obnoxious. I've already been accused by one editor of being User:Metropolitan because he/she had agreed with what I said on the talk page, but was cleared of that accusation. It seems some people just can't accept dissenting views, and assume that there must necessarily be some bad tricks if several people disagree with them. Frankly sad. Der Statistiker (talk) 22:07, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you run sockpuppets, but I do think you're incapable of dealing with anybody who doesn't share your opinion on something and seem to think your viewpoint is fact and are willing to go to exceptional lengths to try to sway your argument by getting non editors to turn out en masse supporting you. It has been obnoxious from the very moment you posted on the Paris talkpage Der Stat and you've been little else since. Even the forum people find your behaviour disagreeable. i've been quite open to improvement suggestions but I don't accept radical changes like completely obliterating sections and leaving empty. The landmarks section needs a lot of work, and i'm sure something better could be produced. Photograph really isn't important. I tried the La Defense daylight image in the montage and it looked up much poorer quality.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:12, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so the forum people find my behavior disagreeable. Make up your mind! Either they are here to "support me", or they find me disagreeable, but it can't possibly be both. As for being incapable of dealing with anybody not sharing my opinion, I think that describes you very well. Didn't you tell The Promenader that he was "a danger to society" because he disagreed with you? You also said this to a French editor who wished to edit your edits in the demographics section: "Please draft a version of the demographics section in your sandbox and you might be surprised that I might be accepting of it if it isn't too long and doesn't have too many tables." The admins should know the entire story here, don't you think? Der Statistiker (talk) 22:22, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Editing at WP:RM

Please be aware that edits such as this one are not worthwhile, because the bot overwrites whatever human editors do on that page. Since the bot makes updates once an hour, you should wait and see if the result you expect will appear there. Generally only the original move reason that was submitted with the Requested move template will appear. If you disagree with the original move proposal, it is best just to add your own comment in the move discussion. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:34, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your behaviour today

…was exceptionally disruptive. Your dogging revert-envy aside, your opinions are not at all shared by any of the country's official publications or terminology, yet you WP:GAMEd the system to make them seem fact to the unsuspecting, even administrators. That kind of behavior is frustrating to those who know better because a) they know what you are saying to readers and arbitrators isn't true (it just 'sounds plausible' to anyone not knowing any better) and b) they know they will tire those reading/arbitrating (who care only to a certain point) if they spend too much time explaining the fact of the matter to them - and you obviously know this very well, which is why you always ignore pertinant points to answer with ad hominem comments, strawman arguments or other distractions that wreck any constructive spirit and create 'read fatigue'.

You know very well that your propos today is pure whimsey, and even we were to say that the INSEE was (chuckle) 'faulty', you know already that you can find no comparable reference of your own. Your message - "La Defense 'is' Paris, the entire aire urbaine 'is' Paris" - is quite clear, but it is not reality, and you cannot make it so on Wikipedia. You're only promoting your agenda here because a) English wiki is more popular than French wiki and b) English contributors generally know much less about French matters than French people do, so are easier to dupe, and c) French wiki would never accept those kind of shennanigans. You're only fooling yourself (and your 'skyscraper friends'), and you cannot expect Wikipedians who know better to let such delusions present themselves as fact unopposed. THEPROMENADER 21:12, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The French Wikipedia accepts File:Paris - Eiffelturm und Marsfeld2.jpg as the main picture of the Paris article. Enough said. Der Statistiker (talk) 01:19, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the Paris talk page you'll see that the image is there for another reason than La Défense - Paris has two tall towers from which to take a picture of the other and the surrounding city, so when the choice is between Eiffel and Montparnasse… go figure.

Apologies for the tone of my messages yesterday: you really got to me (for reasons we both understand), but there was no call for me being incivil. I regret that today now that the has passed. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 05:33, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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/Der Statistiker. Thank you.

…and would you mind not mentioning me in your commentary when you revert other contributors? This seems very non-sequitur and disingenuous seeing that I had already notified Jeppiz about it earlier in the day, as I'm sure you very well knew anyway. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 16:32, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Today was exceptional. Reverting to unsourced data (that even now I don't even know who added) still without providing sources (you need to read Wikipedia:Verifiability: 'Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed.") and complaining about it.. In addition complaining that I've 'contested every phrase you've ever made' on Wikipedia? That is a flat-out… there's a word for that. Especially since I've only been around since late July. What exactly are you trying to do here? Can you do something here that ~doesn't~ require seeking out/maniplating contributors/administrators who aren't knowledgable about Paris (and too occupied elsewhere to care)? I only contact those who ~do~ know something on the matter, so (for all those 'watchers' out there that I should be scared of - chuckle), go figure. THEPROMENADER 22:39, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can be a little more candid here than on article talk pages - does the WP:OR 'metropolitan area table' protectionism mean that you are DerBorg as well? Exactly how many names (and proxies) do you have? I'm asking ~you~ this, by the way, I'm not making complaints to any administrators in an attempt to libel you (like you have attempted to do to me). THEPROMENADER 07:32, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Paris Metropolitan Area

Thanks for telling me. But I don't really want to get involved in this kind of endless discussion. And as a Frenchman who is not very well aware of the wikipedia-en conventions, I am not the most qualified to give an opinion... ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seudo (talk • contribs) 06:02, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

October 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of French regions and overseas collectivities by GDP may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

[[Category:France geography-related lists]

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:24, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Overseas departments and territories of France, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gustavia (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) 11:29, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Paparā

Should this have been moved back as well? CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 07:15, 13 November 2013 (UTC

Yes it should. Neither the apostrophes nor the macrons are official spellings for French Polynesian communes. Der Statistiker (talk) 16:37, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2014

This greeting goes out to all those I have worked with this year - it has been a pleasure. Whilst we might not have always seen eye-to-eye on Paris, I don't doubt you have the best interests of the article at heart, and if and when I get back to working towards a peer review, I would welcome your collaboration. To another good year! Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 21:44, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Overseas departments and territories of France, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ISEE (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) 09:03, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ile-de-France

Could you stop to change templates Table Ile-de-France Region top countries & territories of birth and Collapsible Table Ile-de-France Region top countries & territories of birth. There are NOT 10 million of people in Paris but only 2 million. Your statistics correspond to the Ile-de-France Region, including the 8 Departments : Paris (75), Seine-et-Marne (77), Yvelines (78), Essonne (91), Hauts-de-Seine (92), Seine-Saint-Denis (93), Val-de-Marne (94), Val-d'Oise (95). You are confusing the "Region" with "Department". Paris is only a "Department", Ile-de-France is a "Region". Please check official list of Departments of France and Regions of France. There is NO region in France named Paris, only a Department. If you want to talk about Paris only, please create a new tempalte with statistics of the Department of Paris only (2 million of people, not 10). Thank you. Radarm (talk) 22:58, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The conseil régional d'Île-de-France itself calls the region Paris Region in English (here, or here), so why are you trying to be plus royaliste que le roi? This is the ENGLISH Wikipedia, not the French Wikipedia, and if the regional council uses this term in English, we can also use it here too. Der Statistiker (talk) 02:01, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3RR

Your recent editing history at Île-de-France 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.
I will have to report you if you make another revert and breach the 3 revert rule. Discuss things on the talk pages of the relevant articles instead. Radarm (talk) 18:48, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request

I don't think it's a good idea to start a new editorial war. I am myself of germanic origin (Flemish / Dutch / Alsatian), I speak german and I love Germany. Could you consider that this conflict is over ? We are in europe now. Thank you. Radarm (talk) 15:16, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There would be no conflict if you wouldn't a- track all my edits and revert them systematically (that's completely uncivil and frankly qualifies as harassment), b- would consider the sources that are given to you instead of believing that you know better, and c- discuss things on the talk pages of the relevant articles if you challenge those sources instead of reverting, and reverting, and reverting. I'm quite decided to file a complaint against any new violation of WP:3RR you will make now. Der Statistiker (talk) 15:25, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Paris population

I'm curious to know why you deleted the population ranking of the Paris metro area compared with other European cities. The population figures are recent and sourced, and I think people are interested to know how Paris compares with London and the other top cities. What was your reason? SiefkinDR (talk) 16:44, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no uniform definition of metro areas across Europe, unlike in the US, therefore any ranking is biased, since it's comparing apples and oranges. Der Statistiker (talk) 17:01, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're of course correct that there is no uniform definition of a metropolitan area, and the French like to push theirs out a bit more than others, but by all the different systems of measurement and rankings I've seen for the EU cities, Paris is number two, and London is number one, and that's been the case for two centuries. Saying that Paris is one of the largest metropolitan doesn't really need to be stated. Is there any reason to believe that it's not number two? Respectfully,SiefkinDR (talk) 12:48, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The French like to push theirs? Oh dear... End of discussion for me here. Your francophobia is all too obvious. Der Statistiker (talk) 13:15, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SiefkinDR, Der Statistiker: No, the French do ~not~ like to push 'their' metropolitan area, in fact the concept of 'metropolitan area' is practically inexistent in public, economic and political spheres and minds (only basic census data is taken there (proper name: aire urbaine; all other data is divided between communes and regions), and the sparsity of references using this measure is obvious proof. The 'pushing' is a purely local phenomenon (on Wiki) authored by a very few who would like to (in a practically WP:OR way) make French cities 'look like' other major city centres that use the 'metropolitan area' concept in a broader way, and probably also because 'metropolitan area' sounds... thrivingly nice. Also, 'Metropolitan area' isn't even a proper translation for 'aire urbaine' (it exists as a translation in no official French government documents (only in foreign studies cited by these), it is translated in this way only here on Wiki; the vast majority of foreign documents are referring to the Île de France région when they say 'Paris metropolitan area'). Cheers THEPROMENADER 09:12, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I did do some proposals that had the agreement of several people (including promenader) By order of maximum importance, should be added to the current photo :

Include a representation of the French power (Elysée or National Assembly or Senate.. ) as on almost all political capitals. Place Vendôme with Ministry of Justice could be good too ;
Include a symbol of the metro : clearly one of the most important symbol of the town, as for Parisians than tourists ; Art Nouveau station can be good in a tourist point of view. Complete map is more informative for a reader , it give geographic bases.
Include a 2nd part of XX century building. If they don't want La Défense nor Montparnasse, there are a large number of 1 class building (architecture, art, politic...) , IMA, BNF, Centre Pompidou, Opera Bastille, Le Corbusier, City of Science, PCF headquarters, ministry of economy & finances, Musée du quai Branly, Cité de la Musique... now the new art gallery opened on Sunday on an island, and tomorrow Philharmonie de Paris. Well I stop here, there are toooo much ;)
Maybe a Photo with people (fr:Printemps Haussmann (inspired Au Bonheur des Dames) : very historical (Haussman), very touristic (see solds!) and very Parisian (see people)... )

But, I think you can defend easily this point of view, I think very consensual ; I don't want to contribute on this project. I need peace, and I don't think that will be a peaceful and constructive discussion. Thank you for yours messages v_atekor (talk) 06:38, 28 October 2014 (UTC) PS : for sure, you can use this post in future argumentation, but don't ask me for more. v_atekor (talk) 10:26, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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. - SchroCat (talk) 21:54, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to do this, but this has gone on long enough.

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. THEPROMENADER 19:50, 25 September 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Hello, Der Statistiker. You have new messages at Jmabel's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Nothing to do with your views, all to do with behavior. Jeppiz (talk) 21:45, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

October 2014

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for persistent disruptive editing, as you did at Paris. 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. Drmies (talk) 02:42, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not just Paris, but also Talk:Paris. You came this close to being topic-banned; only User:Future Perfect at Sunrise's intervention prevented that. And now I see that you continue your disruption, in this summary revert of sourced content, and in your explanation thereof on the talk page.
First, you remove sourced content with an edit summary that is not pertinent; whether or not Demographia.com ranks Paris somewhere else is irrelevant if the information is about Eurostat and sourced to Eurostat. A valid edit would be to add Demographia.com's information, if that is reliable and referenced. But then you go on, on the talk page, to first cite Fut.Perf.'s dictum, "comment on content, not on contributor" (which indeed is the rule all over the project), and then to throw WP:OWN in SiefkinDR's face: false claims of disruption are disruptive in themselves. What's more, the reason for your revert is completely backasswards: "If we have to ask for prior permission/consensus/vote on the talk page for any uncontroversial sentence modification or deletion in the article, frankly we're going to spend decades to make any progress in this article". In itself this is true, but here its application is facetious to say the least: an editor adds sourced information, you remove saying other information is available as well, the editor complains, and you say "well I don't have to discuss everything I remove, do I?"
This is well beyond borderline disruptive, hence your block. If you continue this line of behavior, blocks will escalate in length, and a topic ban--for which consensus existed, in my opinion--is still a distinct possibility, for Paris and perhaps Paris-related articles. Drmies (talk) 02:50, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request reason:

Is this a joke? Both ThePromenader and SiefkinDR have broken the rule set by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise for the Paris talk page, and I am the one who is blocked? As for my edits, I have explained clearly everything. Are the edits of SiefkinDR so sacred that none of them can be touched? This is absolutely insane. Der Statistiker (talk) 12:21, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your unblock request makes it clear that you do not understand why you were blocked, and your comments below show that you fully intend to continue in the same way, so unblocking is out of the question. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:46, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

You all were specifically told not to comment on contributors. Your unblock request already fails to recognize the accusation you made, and the section below, where you mention "little games" and seem to indicate you're going to use sock and/or meat puppets in violation of your block, certainly crosses that boundary. Rather than insult other editors and admins, you should take a deep breath and responsibility for your actions, lest your block be lengthened. Drmies (talk) 13:21, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm still waiting to see a similar block for ThePromenader and SiefkinDR, who violated User:Future Perfect at Sunrise's rule by making attacks against me and unspecified editors in the Paris talk page. By not doing this, you look like an involved party. Der Statistiker (talk) 14:32, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Der Statistiker

Hello Statistiker. You should not edit (in any way) this article. Just wait some time that the people realize that they are writing an obsolete-on-birth article. Just wait some time and you will be fully right. La Defense Arch will be naturally integrated. What is obvious for Frenches is not for others, other people don't know/understand so much of the big problem of this article. Well, you did what you can to advise them, I did too, Le Monde did its work. Now let the History speak, and people waste its time in useless works. Don't worry... and don't care of this article. At the end, the reality win, not its description. v_atekor (talk) 09:06, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will not bow to intimidation. I will continue to edit the article, come what may. Their game is pretty clear: have me and several other editors banned or feeling so disgusted that we leave the article, so they can edit it freely and put their touristy museumy mummified-Paris POV in it. I suggest you should also continue to edit the article. By leaving in disgust, you're only helping them win their little game. Der Statistiker (talk) 12:28, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Two things :

You really need to think to another article.
This is an encyclopaedia, not the reality. What is written here has overall consequences on the reliability of Wikipedia, not on the subject itself. Paris, absolutely does not care of its en:WP article. Paris described as Palmyra, or as Singapore or as a green bean should have quite the same effect on the town. v_atekor (talk) 14:03, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Content edit summaries, please.

"Please do not start yet another edit war. You've already reverted other editors 4 times in the past 2 days."

Can it with edit summaries like the above, and none of the accusations made are true: it was reverting three times one contributor who "I just don't like it" removed a phrase no less than six times within 24h. The edit this edit summary was on was a revert, whereas the edit reverted was a moving of a section, not a putting back of anything the way it was.
Disingenuous accusations like these are doubly disruptive because those falsely accused are obliged to defend themselves or be defended - the Paris talk page is filled with this already. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 19:50, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked again

After I didn't look very closely for a few days, being under the impression that with some of the recent edits people were at last back to constructive tinkering with the content, I see that the old hostilities between you two have flared up again. I'm really at a loss about what to do with you people – you seem both to be knowledgeable and good-willed contributors, but the bad blood between you seems to be simply too strong for you to get along. I can't see anything else to do for the moment than to block you both, for the same time period. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:10, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Answer to your question

@ User:Dr. Blofeld: apparently I cannot answer you on the Paris talk page for the next 60 hours (it will be some well needed holidays! so I don't complain), but what I was referring to took place on Caden's talk page, and you even responded to it at the time: [9]. ;) Der Statistiker (talk) 22:18, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I know about that...♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:21, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One-sided embastillement support

Thanks User:Blue Indigo for sharing the misery of my embastillement too. Appreciate.

Oh wait... Der Statistiker (talk) 18:58, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sehr geschätzter Herr Statistiker!

You must feel awfully lonely to miss my support! How unfair of me! I didn't mean to hurt your feelings, which I know can be easily bruised...

I must say that without you & THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ en.wiki Club de Paris is boring. You two are the life of the place. Guess what, some are even thinking of closing it up.

Nicht mehr Meinungsäußerungsfreiheit! Could be saved if you & The Promenader signed a peace treaty, or at least agreed to a truce... You both have great ideas.

Viele Grüße! --Blue Indigo (talk) 22:30, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited New Caledonia, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages ISEE and European. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:PRincomes.png

Thanks for uploading File:PRincomes.png. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to [email protected], stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to [email protected].

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:55, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Paris, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page South Pacific. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:23, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) 13:54, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Once again...

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Cheers. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 21:01, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Topic ban

Per community consensus at the Administraor's Noticeboad/Incidents you are indefinitely topic banned from editing all articles pertaining to Paris (France) and its region. More specifically this includes Paris, Île-de-France, Paris Metropolitan Area , and any articles about the individual arrondissements, communes, and other geographical or political divisions of that region, and the talk pages of those articles. You may appeal this topic ban at WP:AN after an initial elapse of 12 months from today.

Any infringement or evasion of this topic ban may be met with an immediate block without prior warning. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:50, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Der Statistiker. 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)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:GuadeloupeFlag.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:GuadeloupeFlag.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:30, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]