User talk:Emigré55

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome![edit]

A cup of hot tea to welcome you!

Hello, Emigré55, 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 talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, or you can click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! We are so glad you are here! Sm8900 (talk) 22:14, 1 March 2020 (UTC) Sm8900 (talk) 22:14, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Marwan Lahoud has been accepted[edit]

Marwan Lahoud, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 02:08, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started[edit]

Extended content

Hello, Emigré55

Thank you for creating Marwan Lahoud.

User:Scope creep, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Don't use external links in the body. Use External Links to link to external websites.

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Scope creep}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

scope_creepTalk 08:42, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep:
Good afternoon Scope creep,
Thank you for your editing of this article.
Not sure why you deleted this §...:
N.B.: Complete versions of the 3 agreements signed can be found here: Martine Orange et Yann Philippin, «Airbus paye 3,6 milliards d’euros pour solder douze ans de «corruption massive», on Mediapart.
It is in my opinion useful (although a primary source) to give all unbiased info to the reader.
Should it be as a footnote?
Can you please tell me?
Also, is the article now marked as "reviewed"?
cheers,
--Emigré55 (talk) 09:56, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good article. External links in the body of the article is illegal. This: Mediapart is an external link the body of the article. Put it in the "External links" section and refer to there as something [Reference External links], or create a reference out of of it, and use something similar to this: <ref name="mediapart">blah blah blah</ref> to reference it in the body, use <ref name="mediapart"/> It has been reviewed. Hope that helps!! scope_creepTalk 10:06, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Scope creep:
It sure helps!
thank you very much!
and thanks for the compliment!
--Emigré55 (talk) 10:10, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Portrait of a Noble Young Lady (Pourbus) has been accepted[edit]

Portrait of a Noble Young Lady (Pourbus), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Hoary (talk) 23:32, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am amazed (and impressed) to learn from here that you are the infrared photographer of this work. I imagine that you have a wealth of knowledge of the painting. Remember, though, that Wikipedia can only use published material.

Note that the article doesn't yet provide such expected information as dimensions, condition, significant "restoration" work, or even location. (I mean, it has been shown at Museum Gouda, but where is it now?)

The painting probably never had a title, and now it doesn't seem to have one either. Instead, it has nonce titles, for convenience. I retained your title, because I had no good reason not to, and then found "the" (in reality, a) Dutch-language title from a source you provided. Even I, who know no Dutch, can see that the latter means "Portrait of an unknown lady". I think that the article should briefly list whatever titles of convenience have been used to a significant degree, saying who has used which. (A more comprehensive list should appear in the Wikidata entry for the painting.) -- Hoary (talk) 01:07, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'd overlooked the dimensions, which are provided (but unsourced). The French article says that the painting is in private collection, but gives no source for this statement. ¶ How/where was the painting "discovered" in 2006? -- Hoary (talk) 04:33, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your kind words and nice editing of this article. As to your comments and questions, I will continue to add to this article, in as much as I can give all references needed.--Emigré55 (talk) 06:25, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pieter Pourbus[edit]

Thanks for your expansion here. I've removed the excess categories (see WP:OCAT). Two points: at the moment the lead is far too short, and there are too many one line paragraphs, making it read rather like notes. Johnbod (talk) 11:39, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anna van Egmont[edit]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Anna van Egmont shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. The Banner talk 14:13, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon Hello, I'm The Banner. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, it's important to be mindful of the feelings of your fellow editors, who may be frustrated by certain types of interaction, such as your addition to User talk:The Banner. While you probably didn't intend any offense, please do remember that Wikipedia strives to be an inclusive atmosphere. In light of that, it would be greatly appreciated if you could moderate yourself so as not to offend. Thank you. The Banner talk 18:24, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@The Banner: Hereunder, copy of the message left on your talk page:
Extended content
Although Wikipedia is not a source, as you should know, you have aggressively/bluntly demanded to check the German and French version of this article as the only justification for your deletion of the title, and better-known name, of Anna van Buren.
In so doing, you only prove to be wrong again, unfortunately for you :
  • The German version is beginning with these words, which you either have chosen to ignore or probably did not even read : "Anna von Egmond (niederländisch: Anna van Buren....)..." https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_von_Egmond, which means that Anna van Buren is her name in the Netherlands language.
  • If you had only read the French version, you would have first noticed that I am the main contributor/author of this page, which contains numerous sources for the information I added. You would have then also noticed that I wrote in the article « Anna succède alors à Maximiliaan en tant que comtesse van Buren », which translates as follows in English « Anna then succeeds Maximiliaan as Countess van Buren ».
And what is proved by her father’s biography, and numerous sources, but which you did not bother to check either.
All this evidences that your blunt assertion that “She was not Anna van Buren but became countess of Buren by marriage”, as a justification to your previous deletion, is based on nothing, and hence a pure invention on your part.
And indeed, that is how she is even called in the Netherlands, Anna van Buren, or Anna van Bueren, as many secondary sources prove it :
As you are a Dutchman yourself, judging from your personal page, it is puzzling why you don’t even know this and/or want to ignore this fact.
So please, acknowledge your “error”, and revert your abusive deletion yourself.
Or I will do it, based on the numerous sources I showed you.
Finally, I would like to add that this new deletion from you shows unfortunately also that you persist in ONLY deleting information in this article (Unless I am mistaken, you haven’t brought a single addition, or positive information, to this biography). Which begins, at this point, to be a disorganisation of the encyclopaedia and could even be characterised as vandalism.
As you are not an art historian, and not even interested in art, as your personal page shows, I advise/urge you to stay now away from this page. Your skills are certainly better at expanding Michelin stars.
You can/should also consider that there are 6,818,442 other articles on the English Wikipedia to improve and discuss.
--Emigré55 (talk) 07:32, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nice try to hide your battleground behaviour and the fact that you simple do not have a clue. The Banner talk 10:21, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Message left on TheBanner talk page (04:18, 28 August 2020 (UTC)): 

 ::* WP:PERSONALATTACKS: Again a personal attack. 
 ::* And a new fault against WP:GOODFAITH: in saying you are "suspecting" me of being Marc Couwenbergh. My personal page says that my mother language is French, and does not say I speak Nederlands. Check it out before accusing me. --Emigré55 (talk) 04:18, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at User talk:The Banner. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Being aggressive is not the way. The Banner talk 08:25, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Paragraphs removed by TheBanner from his talk page (08:26, 28 August 2020 (UTC)):[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The_Banner&oldid=975372172
Ow, you really want to show off your harassment of other editors? Great show...
You are really the only one I know that is will to advertise his own harassment.The Banner talk 17:10, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Couwenbergh[edit]

See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Marc_Couwenbergh where I have started a discussion about the reliability of the two Marc Couwenbergh sources. The Banner talk 16:18, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid you do not look for the right sources in Google on this author. Or want to deliberately ignore them?? Just read, for instance, here: "Marc Couwenbergh, Journalist specializing in art - Marc Couwenbergh - Biography : Marc Couwenbergh (1958) is a political scientist and writes about art, culture and history as a journalist. Marc has written several books on these topics." (translated into English from the Dutch page). Of course this information is also posted where you started this discussion. --Emigré55 (talk) 16:24, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It means that you are reading badly, as it states nowhere that he is an art historian. Even his Linkedin-account does not state that. But the "reliable sources noticeboard" can help with this. The Banner talk 16:34, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"I read badly": A personal attack, to top up your continued harassment? --Emigré55 (talk) 16:37, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Another source on Couwenbergh, commenting on one of his book about Vermeer and the women (not art history? really??)--Emigré55 (talk) 16:39, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Portrait Young Noble Lady by Pourbus.IR Details 05 gauche.tif[edit]

Extended content

I noticed you claimed File:Portrait Young Noble Lady by Pourbus.IR Details 05 gauche.tif as your own work. We commonly understand that to mean that you are the photographer. Since Infrared Reflectography requires specialist equipment, I was wondering if this photo is part of a research project that you were part of. Has any of that research been published anywhere? thanks, Vexations (talk) 20:49, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Emigré55: I see you're around. Could you take a moment to respond please? Thanks,Vexations (talk) 15:03, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes the photos are part of a research project. Other than the parts of that research published in the catalogues of the exhibitions of Bruges and Gouda, I do not know of other publications. Can you please also let me know about the progress of your own research, especially in the directions you have pointed? To my best knowledge, at least 2 out of the 3 scholars you mention know the painting well, for having written in these catalogues and organised or contributed to this exhibitions. Are you an active research scholar in art history yourself? thanks in advance. Cheers, --Emigré55 (talk) 15:27, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Emigré55, I'm not an art historian, nor am I a researcher. I do know a bit too much about imaging techniques. I was looking at the provenance of the painting. I know it appeared at auction but, even after going through every single Old Master auction of 2011, I still haven't found the lot. I did find the Weiss catalogue from 2011. I haven't got access to a copy of the Gouda catalogue. Can you tell me something about who conducted the research that you mentioned? Did you take those infrared reflectograms? Vexations (talk) 15:48, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am afraid I cannot tell you more, unfortunately. As much as I would be happy to share what I know, I'm now stopped by the rules of wikipedia first, and second by the privacy protection owed to the few individuals, included myself, involved in that research project.
As to the rules of wikipedia, I am sure you will understand my prudence, all the more after the harsh attacks I and/or this article have suffered, which I find unbased, or biased, and terribly negative. This has also deeply slowed, if not killed, my willingness to contribute to the encyclopaedia. To be frank, I now ask myself if I will continue edit the biographies of other old masters I had in mind to edit, and for whom I have sometimes already achieved extended biographies in my own computer. The same applies to entries on remarkable paintings I have seen in my long career, which are poorly represented at the time being in the encyclopaedia, and which I intended to share with wikipedia, digging in decades of observation and experience, and in my very large personal art history library.
Thank you for your understanding. --Emigré55 (talk) 16:08, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You're entitled to your privacy of course, but I don't think Wikipedia should rely on unpublished sources. Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's most fundamental policies, and we do not allow original research. I'll see what I reliable sources I can find. I welcome suggestions. I don't have access to Van Oosterwijk: The nearest Library that holds a copy is 4000 miles from where I live. Vexations (talk) 17:13, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Vexations, Everything I wrote is of course verifiable. You are welcome to check. And I believe other people did it before you. This is also the reason why I cannot answer your questions above, because I would also then give you informations which have not been published.--Emigré55 (talk) 19:55, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello[edit]

Extended content

Emigré55, I am reaching out to you here instead of in a more public forum so that hopefully I can help mitigate the stress you are feeling. You have been here just over 6 months and to reach emotional burnout that quickly suggests that this community has probably failed in making you feel accepted. For that I'm honestly sorry. You obviously have a wealth of knowledge and information you wish to share and that is supposed to be the point of this project.

You state that you are feeling harassed by The Banner. I'm not going to pretend to tell you you shouldn't feel harassed. Your feelings are yours and nobody can tell you what they should be. It is policy by both the site and the site's owners to take harassment very seriously. In practical terms, however, this means that there is a very high bar to substantiate behavior that will be treated as harassment. Content disputes and disputes over sourcing can lead to such behavior but are not treated as such in and of themselves, generally. That another editor doesn't accept your edits, doesn't make "positive" contributions to an article, or doesn't accept offered compromises, none of these are usually going to be treated as harassment, either.

I notice that you basically repurposed my subheading of "request for a boomerang site ban" in the current ANI thread. I feel that you may have taken what I said about Eissink as a template and therefore feel somewhat responsible for possibly misleading you as to the best way to resolve the current conflict. If so, I'm sorry because this is not that way. First of all, The Banner did not start that thread, JzG (a/k/a "Guy") did. Secondly, you asked for a topic ban, although I now note you've fixed at least that part of the subheading. Thirdly, and most importantly, you are asking for a sanction of another editor and offering to document is post hoc. It doesn't work that way. Documentation of harassment, in the form of diffs, comes first, and then sanction requests. Putting it backwards like this undermines your case severely even if you go back and add the diffs later.

All that said, there are steps you could take yourself to improve your editing situation. First of all, I urge you to drop the attempt to get The Banner sanctioned. If looked again at what you claim they've done and the interactions between you and I find only that there is a serious disagreement on whether the sitter of one piece of art is identified correctly. This is really, really, not worth the level of drama and agita that has resulted. Let me put it this way: what's the absolute worst that could happen if you completely abandoned the discussion? Only that the Portrait of a Noble Young Lady (Pourbus) and Anna van Egmont articles would indicate that the identification of van Egmont as the subject of the Pourbus painting would be left ambiguous for the time being. That is not a matter that anyone's happiness should rest on. This should be about the information, not about WP:WINNING the argument. If better sources become available in the future, both can be updated. There's WP:NODEADLINE we need to meet and getting it right now has little value in a topic such as this.

If you back away from those two articles, to which your contributions are otherwise exemplary have unquestionably greatly improved, I am certain there are other similar topics that could use your expert attention. When we create articles, there is a tendency among all of us to think of them as "ours" and to try to make sure they are what we think they should be. Once created, though, we don't WP:OWN them and anyone else can edit them. The edits that are introduced by others may not always be what we want them to be but that's the basic premise. If we wanted to publish an article on a topic that only said what we wanted it to say, we wouldn't publish it here.

I don't wish this to in any way sound condescending or dismissive of your feelings. You are rather an editor I see having gotten themselves enmeshed in the implicit and explicit rules that govern this place without being first given an understanding of those rules. The process of setting out to become an article creator is difficult for anyone but it is made even more difficult when one trips over some of the more-obscure rules or over the even fuzzier unwritten rules. After that, new(ish) users can find their struggles to understand or protest against these only entangle them further, as a fly in a spider web. I honestly want to help cut some of those threads so you can continue to contribute. Please feel free to ask me any questions you like her or at my own talk page. I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:00, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eggishorn, thank you first for having taken the time to express at length your thoughts about this very unfortunate and sad turn of events. I appreciate it. Your long developments deserve a thoroughly thought answer, which I will prepare later today or this evening.
After having completed the diffs asked by Dreamy Jazz, I need now to rest, as unfortunately my heart does not suffer too much stress, and handicaps me a lot.
However, in the meantime, if you wish to help, you can support me in my request for a topic ban regarding The Banner. This will certainly cool down an overheated subject by him. And stop his harassment to me, which I documented and which goes unfortunately well beyond a mere editing disagreement on or about who is the sitter on this painting and the merits of the right source for this.--Emigré55 (talk) 05:00, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That was, well, almost the exact opposite of the take-away I'd hoped to communicate. I read through the diffs, and they do not demonstrate harassment by any reasonable measure. Your continued pursuit of sanctions for non-sanctionable behavior is now somewhere between quixotic (at best) and self-destructive (at worst). I hope it is the former but fear it is the latter. To put it bluntly: Please stop. Find something, anything, else to do. I really, really doubt that The Banner will pursue to a completely unrelated topic, which is what you should be directing your efforts towards. There are over 6million articles and tens of thousands of requested articles on this project, surely at least one of them could use your expertise? Here's a link to requested visual arts articles to get you started. If that advise is somehow unacceptable for you, I don't know how else I can help you. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 08:35, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked[edit]

You have been blocked for a week for persistent slow edit warring at Portrait of a Noble Young Lady (Pourbus) and vexatious litigation foolish accusations [changed 12:38, 30 October 2020 (UTC) by Bishonen] at ANI. Also for unreasonable deflection and evasion at Talk:Portrait of a Noble Young Lady (Pourbus), such as taking elaborate offense as the use of words like "yep" and "dude".[1] That kind of thing is a waste of the valuable time and patience of other editors. I considered a much longer partial block from Portrait of a Noble Young Lady (Pourbus) and its talkpage, but considering your creation of the article and considerable input in it, that seemed cruel. It remains a possibility, if your disruption at the article should continue after this short (all things considered) sitewide block. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bishonen | tålk 09:37, 30 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Questions to Bishonen about the reasons for the block:
@Bishonen: Please explain :
1/ why you blocked for “vexatious litigation”, and what you consider “vexatious” in my "litigation".
2/ why you blocked for “unreasonable deflection and evasion” : in adding “such as...”, do you imply that there is another reason, different from your explanation on “yep” and “dude”? if yes, what is this other reason?
--Emigré55 (talk) 10:36, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
1. By vexatious litigation, I'm referring to your foolish accusations here, here and here. However, since you did not start the ANI thread, perhaps "litigation" was too strong a word. I've changed it to "foolish accusations".
2. Besides the yep and dude debacles, I'm referring to posts such as this. But the yep and dude were the main examples of deflection. Bishonen | tålk 12:38, 30 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Please note, per my block notice above, that you can appeal the block to an uninvolved admin. Bishonen | tålk 12:38, 30 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]
@Bishonen: Thank you for your answer. Please further explain possibly ambiguous words :
1/ what you generally consider to be a "foolish accusation". why do you deem in particular these 3 diffs as "foolish" in your opinion?
2/ "such as...": is it an example? or the base for your block? if a base, are there other posts you consider as "deflection"? or is that all?--Emigré55 (talk) 13:09, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I believe I answered your questions clearly and in good faith. Please read the diffs I have provided and reflect on them. Bishonen | tålk 13:22, 30 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]
@Bishonen: rest assured I am not questioning your good faith.
However, the term "foolish" you used is somewhat general/generic, and is/can be ambiguous. Hence my question to you in order to let you precise it; and why you consider it applicable to the 3 cases you have selected.
Also rest assured I have read the diffs.
"such as..." is equally ambiguous, as it can mean an example, or that you did not limit yourself to other possible ground(s). hence my questions only to know if there are other ground(s), if yes which one(s). or if that was all.
So, please, precise this 2 terms. TY in advance. --Emigré55 (talk) 13:34, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Bishonen: As I have not had an answer to my 2 last questions, I will assume that a/ you do not wish to explain why the 3 diffs you mentioned are "foolish", and b/ there is no other ground or case for "deflection" different than the one you cited.
If my assumptions are wrong, please, let me know tomorrow morning. TY. --Emigré55 (talk) 21:49, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal to block[edit]

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).

Emigré55 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

WP:INVOLVED In general, editors should not act as administrators in disputes in which they have been involved. WP:INVOLVED states:
“In general, editors should not act as administrators in disputes in which they have been involved. This is because involved administrators may have, or may be seen as having, a conflict of interest in disputes they have been a party to or have strong feelings about. Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute.»

Bishonen was involved in a conflict where Eggishorn and I took side.
In this conflict, after request of Eggishorn here, he performed an indef block here, block that I opposed here.

It is worth noting that Eggishorn is the same editor who asked for a block against me here, which was followed by the present block by Bishonen, exactly as in the previously mentioned dispute where Eggishorn and I took side.

For that reason alone, the block should be dismissed, without further examining his grounds and/or supposed merits.
If this reason is not accepted by an uninvolved admin, I will then detail why in addition, the block was not necessary to prevent damage or disruption (i.e., that the block violates our blocking policy).
For the sake of avoiding everyone to lose precious time, it does not appear to be necessary to detail, at this stage, why the reasons given also violate our blocking policy, as Bishonen involvement alone is a sufficient reason for reverting a non legitimately performed block. Emigré55 (talk) 11:28, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Nope. Not WP:INVOLVED. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 23:01, 31 October 2020 (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.

@Jpgordon: As of courtesy, please explain/elaborate. --Emigré55 (talk) 06:52, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

unnecessary and biased comments (grave-dancing?):
So you want to appeal the indef block of Eissink or your own one week block? The Banner talk 11:56, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Emigré55, I am not an administrator. I did not block you. Appealing on the basis of my being involved is useless. It is, in fact, worse than useless; it demonstrates that you have not actually understood either the blocking policy nor the Guide to Appealing Blocks and will result in the rejection of your appeal. It is to your own advantage to close this appeal (I suggest bracketing this entire section with the templates {{atop|result=Please see below|status=Withdrawn}} .... {{abot}}) and then thoroughly read, understand, and follow those links to formulate another appeal. I (honestly) hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:37, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal to block[edit]

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).

Emigré55 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Blocking is meant to be preventive, not punitive.Emigré55 (talk) 11:17, 4 November 2020 (UTC) Bishonen blocked me for this alleged reason: “persistent slow edit warring at Portrait of a Noble Young Lady (Pourbus)”.[reply]
Whereas blocking is meant to be preventive, not punitive.
But I had made only one change on oct 27th, here, at 14:10, amended by a minor one at 14:11.
As it was justified in the header and in the talk page by a new source having appeared: “RKD, the most reliable source for art history in the Netherlands, mentions not only Couwenbergh, but also Couwenbergh's hypothesis about the sitter and his article on the subject. See new section on talk page on this issue », this only one edit cannot be regarded as edit warring.
For the record, my previous edit on this page was more than a month old, dating back to Sept. 16th, here.

Whereas The Banner reverted my edit immediately, at 14:13, 2 minutes only after my edit, and without any prior discussion on the talk page, starting, alone, an edit war, here.
And the page was, surprisingly, immediately blocked by Deepfriedokra at 15:09 here.

If one must consider an edit war, it was started by The Banner, with his revert of my change.
So, there was no edit war from me.
Only a change in the page by me, based on a new source, and the first change.
Moreover, there was no possibility for me to start an edit war, as the page was blocked just after The Banner revert.
Blocking me could could not have the purpose to prevent any further “damage”, because damage was impossible, as the page was already blocked.
My block appears in consequence to be punitive, and not preventive, all the more since it was the result of a call to block me, by Eggishorn, here.


In addition, she mentioned 2 other reasons:

1/ “vexatious litigation“ :
She then changed, after the block, when I asked for explanations, to: “ foolish accusations [changed 12:38, 30 October 2020 (UTC) by Bishonen] “
Blocking is meant to be preventive, not punitive.

The initial charge having been changed, this alone shows that the accusation was weak, and in fact non-existent, as admitted when I asked the question.
Indeed, I had not started this litigation, so accusing me of vexatious litigation was not grounded. It should be enough to dismiss the sanction.

The second charge, “foolish accusations”, is also not grounded. It is hard if impossible to understand. I asked for an explanation, which I was denied.
I rely thefore on the general definition of the adjective foolish, as given here, to quickly analyze if my accusations were/are “foolish”: “unwise, stupid, or not showing good judgment ».

But my call for a topic ban only of the Banner was all but « foolish ».
It was explained and reasonable as very limited, and reasonable, as :

  • I limited my call to a topic ban. And this, in order to prevent further damage from the Banner , i.e., that HE further conducts « edit war », what I demonstrated here above he did, and is the only one to do.
  • I left it tot the admins to decide sanctions if they considered that I was harassed, what I documented at large.

It demonstrates on the contrary that my call for a limited sanction was wise, certainly not stupid, and showing good judgment, since it was aimed at preventing further edit wars, and not punish The Banner.

2/ “unreasonable deflection and evasion at Talk:Portrait of a Noble Young Lady (Pourbus)” :
 "..such as taking elaborate offense as the use of words like "yep" and "dude"."[2]

Calling someone "Dude" is very often considered as inappropriate, and even disrespectful, as explained here.

Therefore, it was not an unreasonable deflection evasion, especially since it repeated and as I asked that it stopped.
As such, calling me "Dude" was even against WP:ETIQ, which reminds editors: “be polite”, “Treating others with respect is key to collaborating effectively in building an international online encyclopedia » “.

Finally, it was not considered that I mentioned that these offensive (to me) words were used by That Banner “on purpose”, as he admitted himself, at the very end of this post, with an added mention. I.e., to goad me.

Therefore, blocking me on this ground lacks also mere merit, and appears as a sanction against me, after the harsh and blunt call to sanction made by Eggishorn.

Decline reason:

Your block has expired -- Amanda (aka DQ) 09:02, 7 November 2020 (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.

Breach of interaction ban[edit]

In order to put an end to a dispute introduced here at ANI, I accepted on November 11th, 2020, a 2-way interaction ban proposed at the end of this complaint.

The other party involved also accepted the 2-way interaction ban, here.

On my part, I strictly respected the interaction ban.

However, the other party modified here one of my entries, on June 13th, 2021, on the article I had contributed to, and on which he had literally harassed me in the summer and autumn 2020.

The interaction ban rules here specify that:
« Editors subject to an interaction ban are not permitted to:
(...)
 • undo each other's edits to any page, whether by use of the revert function or by other means. »

This means that the other party to the interaction ban did not respect it. This modification, albeit small, is also a clear provocation, as this modification is obviously not needed.

I would like to stress out that I have been deeply affected by the events at the time in 2020, which lead me to merely not contribute anymore, as I felt harassed and suffered depression after this severe episode.

I feel now also under surveillance, if not victim of stalking by this behavior, and harassed again, months after the interaction ban. This is an unbearable feeling.

Can any admin help me and tell me what to do? so that it stops?
And that the other party be sanctioned for this violation?

Thank you in advance
--Emigré55 (talk) 07:30, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • In order to assess your request I have studied the history of the events that led to the interaction ban. Rarely have I wasted so much of my time on such nonsense, wading through ridiculous amounts of verbiage where you whine and complain about the gross and monstrous things you have had to endure, such as being subjected to the horrific experience of reading a sentence containing the word "yep". After all that I checked the editing history of the edit you have complained about here. I found it to be a trivial change, which restored wording which you had originally posted. I'm not going to waste yet more of my time on discussing whether it was technically a breach of the interaction ban. This report of yours is vexatious litigation, and if you continue to do things which achieve little if any useful purpose but which waste other editors' time you are likely to be blocked indefinitely, as you have been warned before. If you are really as upset and traumatised as you claim by things that happen on Wikipedia then clearly editing Wikipedia is something you shouldn't be doing. JBW (talk) 21:04, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The complaint does appear vexatious on its face, but that's easy to say when you're not the victim. Although the caption did originally contain the word "lady," it was later changed by Emigré55 to "noblewoman" which means The Banner's edit indeed was technically a revert made in violation of the IBAN because it undid a change introduced by Emigré55. And lest we forget, in the same edit, the image size that was set by Emigre55 in this edit was also reverted. It's also hard to ignore that both of these changes were introduced for no apparent reason. Even though I do agree that it's too early for enforcement through blocks, advising The Banner that further such poking will not be tolerated would've been perfectly justified. 78.28.44.31 (talk) 21:36, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@JBW: Would you object to me undoing the contested edit on the basis that it was made in violation of the editor's voluntarily accepted editing restriction? 78.28.44.31 (talk) 21:45, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's totally up to you. JBW (talk) 21:52, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@78.28.44.31:Thank you for your comments and action. --Emigré55 (talk) 22:21, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@JBW: I find it very sad that you have come to this conclusion.
I find it also hard to hear that you bluntly judge and call “vexatious litigations” what were initially questions on my part, asking for help, whereas I have not made a complaint/litigation at ANI, as probably others would have done directly.
Your last sentence in particular is a shock to me, because you attack my feelings and seem to doubt them and my good faith (also against WP:AGF). Whereas, if you have read thoroughly as you claimed, you could easily see that I have indeed stopped contributing, as stated on my front page, since these events of 2020. And the reason why: because of what I felt during the past circumstances, and the fact that I did not find the protection and support I needed, and expected, to contribute in a peaceful environment, without suffering from power games from one or another.
I feel a bit better to see that 78.28.44.31 jumped in, with another opinion, and took action, as I asked to and expected from an admin. And I appreciate that you have at last let him act. --Emigré55 (talk) 22:40, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, here are some more comments.
I have re-read the last sentence of my message above. It doesn't contain anything which is intended to suggest that I "doubt [your] good faith ". On the contrary, it is precisely because I do believe that in good faith you really do get upset and worried by things that people say on Wikipedia that I advised you that editing Wikipedia is not a good thing for you to do.
I have warned "The Banner" that if I see any more of the kind of editing that you drew attention to then I'll block them from editing.
I admit that my original message above could have been written in a more sympathetic way. Unfortunately, the frustration I experienced in wading through pages and pages of your writing, endlessly repeating the same complaints, and endlessly exhibiting the same inability to understand what others say to you, left me in a somewhat irritated state of mind. JBW (talk) 09:03, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@JBW: Thank you for your additional comments and your time to clarify some points.
As to your last sentence in your first message above: I bitterly felt at the time that you were doubting my feelings and good faith when you wrote "If you are really as upset and traumatised as you claim (...)" . Thank you for having waived this misunderstanding.
Thank you as well for your warning action the other day. I appreciate it.
I also saw that you are “inclined to agree. At least 90% of the fault is from that editor", speaking of me and my request which would look like a breach in itself plus a personal attack and harassment. I am not sure to understand why. If I have read WP:BANEX correctly, "interaction bans do not apply to the following: (...) - asking an administrator to take action against a violation of an interaction ban by another user ». So, my request, to which you responded (and I thank you again for that), cannot be a breach of IBAN, neither is it then a personal attack or harassment as it solely focuses on the breach of IBAN.
I hope you will agree with me, solely for the sake of clarity, and avoiding further misunderstanding. Thank you. --Emigré55 (talk) 13:03, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Important information[edit]

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

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

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.  Bishonen | tålk 09:13, 10 October 2021 (UTC).[reply]

@Bishonen: hello,
I do not understand the reason for this message. I have not made any disruption in this topic area in the past, nor in BLPs. Please explain.
On the contrary, in this article, I have created discussions topics in the talk page. And always invited to discussions on reverts.
I also fully abide to the rules of BLPs.
On a fake news (from some media sources on a particular point, which I explained in details here in the talk page)) which I reverted with all sources, I see that my amendment (together with sources and evidence) has just been reverted again here. I wrote to the editor in question here on the talk page, as he maintains part of his edit on this, against all evidence . How should I then proceed?
Thanks in advance, --Emigré55 (talk) 10:09, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note the italicized text above: "It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date". I have given you this alert because I noticed there was conflict at Éric Zemmour. Your opponent User: Munci has also been alerted to these special rules. (Not Hemiauchenia, however, as they have already received the alert within the last 12 months, and it's not supposed to be posted more often than that.) I'm not here to take part in the discussion, but as an uninvolved admin; therefore, I won't address the questions you ask, or advise you, sorry. Bishonen | tålk 11:32, 10 October 2021 (UTC).[reply]
@Bishonen:, Thank you for your answer.
I don't mean to bother you, but I also read above "If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor". That is why I am coming back to you.
Therefore, and as I do not wish to make something against the rules, but on the contrary to do what is possible in order to improve neutrality of this article, as I did until now, I am asking what to do when ones face a fake news. And all the more when a fake news is reintroduced in the article. Which is indeed an inappropriate edit. Thank you in advance for your advice.--Emigré55 (talk) 12:47, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be calling Le Monde and New York Times "fake news". I definitely wouldn't base any removals on such a flimsy excuse if I were you. Your argument on the talkpage is unimpressive, especially as the text you're removing states that Zemmour was fired after the scandal — not because of it. There, I have advised you, since you insist. I will not stick around to argue with you. BTW, I have here removed your nasty attacks (under colour of "congratulations") against an unfortunate editor who did try at some length to discuss with you. Those attacks are not to remain on a public page on Wikipedia. Bishonen | tålk 15:02, 10 October 2021 (UTC).[reply]

@Bishonen: Hello,
No, I did not and do not call Le Monde and New York Times "fake news". Only this info, as it was proved, after they published it, by another reliable media, that it is a fake news, i.e. that Zemmour was not fired (which they could have known if they had done fact checking like the others media did afterwards.)
Having said that, Le Monde and New York Times did publish sometimes fake news (but it is still no reason to call these media "fake news").
As evidenced here as far as « Le Monde » is concerned, relaying infos from « Washington Post », which proved to be faked, as admitted later by WP, and told by Forbes here in a dedicated article on this fake news, which they called "Fake News' And How The Washington Post Rewrote Its Story On Russian Hacking Of The Power Grid".
In 2005, "Le Monde" reported about another scandal of fake news, where it apologised here for its mistakes, which they admitted."Le Monde a commis dans le traitement de ce dossier des erreurs qu'il a déjà eu l'occasion de reconnaître" (translation: "Le Monde made errors in handling this file that it has already had the opportunity to recognize.")
As far as New York Times is concerned, In this other link, "The Guardian" reports that NYT even apologised in 2004 for the false news they published about the mass destruction weapons in Irak at the beginning of 2004. In the Guardian article, it is also written about another fake news scandal at NYT : « The New York Times' admission that it was misled by sources follows the revelation a year ago that another of its reporters, Jayson Blair, had fabricated and plagiarised large sections of stories carried by the paper".
There are probably other examples, but it is not our subject.
And after all, it is conceivable that even the best known media make such mistakes...
--Emigré55 (talk) 08:35, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As to the edits, it is true that the sentences says "after" and not "because". Written as is, I had understood it as "because", and I guess other people can/could understand it also the way I did, as this part sentence "after" is directly tied to the dismissal/firing and definitely seems as an explanation for it. Written as is, it is misleading, and I hope you will admit it. However, I admit this ambiguity.
It remains also though, that Zemmour was not "dismissed", but moved or shifted, and that it did not happen in 2009, but in 2010.
--Emigré55 (talk) 08:55, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Writing proper citations and avoiding BAREURLs[edit]

I was disappointed to see that you added a lot of WP:BAREURLs in some of your recent edits at Éric Zemmour. If you were a brand new user in your first month, I'd understand, but you've been around for a couple of years almost, and you know better. Please don't add bare urls anymore—make an attempt to learn and use the proper citation templates. You say you "have a hard time" using these, if you can explain what the problem is, maybe I can help you.

For starters, here are three empty citation templates you can copy & paste right into an article:

  • <ref>{{cite web |lang=fr |author= |title= |trans-title= |url= |date= |website= |archive-url= |archive-date= |quote= |trans-quote= |access-date=29 April 2024}}</ref>
  • <ref>{{cite news |lang=fr |author= |title= |trans-title= |url= |date= |newspaper= |quote= |trans-quote= }}</ref>
  • <ref>{{cite book |lang=fr |author1= |author2= |title= |trans-title= |url= |date= |page= |location= |publisher= |isbn= |quote= |trans-quote= }}</ref>

Please use these next time; no more bare urls, all right? Just pick one of these, and paste it into the article. You already have the url, so paste that in, after |url=; and you have the title of the page, because you're looking at it; paste that into the |title= field. If you see the name of an author and a date on the page, paste those, too. You can leave the other fields blank for now, but this is a minimum; you're not a newbie anymore, and I know you can handle this, so there's no excuse not to, okay?

Let's take your latest contribution at Eric Zemmour as an example. In this edit, you added this reference as a WP:BAREURL:

  • <ref>https://atlantico.fr/article/decryptage/eric-zemmour-et-la-russie-vladimir-poutine-la-france-n-a-pas-dit-son-dernier-mot-moscou-guillaume-lagane</ref>

Let's turn that into a full citation. You can start with the {{cite web}} copy-paste model above. After filling in the minimum number of fields, it would look like this:

  • <ref>{{cite web |lang=fr |author=Guillaume Lagane |title=Zemmour et la Russie |trans-title= |url=https://atlantico.fr/article/decryptage/eric-zemmour-et-la-russie-vladimir-poutine-la-france-n-a-pas-dit-son-dernier-mot-moscou-guillaume-lagane |date= |website= |quote= |trans-quote= |access-date=29 April 2024}}</ref>

The date of the Atlantico article is "22 octobre 2021", so if we add that (in English), supply the website name "Atlantico", and add the title translated into English, it would look like this:

  • <ref>{{cite web |lang=fr |author=Guillaume Lagane |title=Zemmour et la Russie |trans-title=Zemmour and Russia |url=https://atlantico.fr/article/decryptage/eric-zemmour-et-la-russie-vladimir-poutine-la-france-n-a-pas-dit-son-dernier-mot-moscou-guillaume-lagane |date=22 October 2021 |website=Atlantico.fr |quote= |trans-quote= |access-date=29 April 2024}}</ref>

You can leave the fields blank that you don't know, or don't have. Just paste that into the article just like that, instead of your bare url, and you're done with this one.

If there's anything you don't understand above please ask below. Can I count on you to do this, going forward? Mathglot (talk) 02:01, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Emigré55, nice job adding a citation in this edit at Eric Zemmour, where you added this one for an article from Le Figaro:
<ref>{{cite web |lang=fr |author=Arthur Berdah|title=Éric Zemmour se déclare candidat à l'élection présidentielle de 2022|trans-title= |url= https://www.lefigaro.fr/elections/presidentielles/eric-zemmour-se-declare-candidat-a-l-election-presidentielle-de-2022-20211130|date= |website= |quote= |trans-quote= |access-date=30 November 2021}}</ref>
Well done; I knew you could do it! If you feel comfortable translating the title of the French news article, please add it to |trans-title= as well. For the purpose of just translating the title of a foreign-language source for a citation, it's perfectly okay to use machine translation. For example, if you put the French title through DeepL.com (try it: here!) and plug the result into the param, it looks like this:
|trans-title=Éric Zemmour declares himself a candidate for the 2022 presidential election
This would be a big improvement, because most people reading the Wikipedia article won't understand the French titles, and this would help WP:Verifiability. So, if you can add |trans-title= to your citations, that would help, too. Thanks for using {{cite web}} at the article to source your modifications, and keep up the good work! Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 19:15, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Emigré55&oldid=1124497017"