User talk:Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant





Thanking you with a barnstar
(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list)

Nice job !

 * Thanks!  Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant (talk) 08:58, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank You...
...For your quick approval of my new article for Erik Satie's Le Fils des étoiles. I'm just trying to do right by a composer whose music has given me much comfort throughout life. Cheers! TheBawbb (talk) 02:16, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * you are welcome. It looks to be well written and nicely detailed. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant (talk) 02:18, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

hii Wikiboykrish (talk) 06:47, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Nathan Lee
Thank you so much for your help! NathanLeeFanPage (talk) 05:22, 3 May 2016 (UTC)NathanLeeFanPage
 * No problem. I have a couple more references to add in a while. But the references are better straightened out now. Good article! Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant (talk) 05:28, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!
How nice of you! Thanks! Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant (talk) 05:28, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Declined speedy deletion of K. Johnston
I noticed you declined the CSD nomination for K. Johnston because it has "credible claim of significance" although with only 1 source and nothing of significance showing up in a simple Google search, I have opened an AfD for this article. &mdash; Music1201  talk  04:42, 8 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Oh, that is so unfortunate. I am in the middle of researching the person to add references and expand the article. I will go ahead and add to and improve the article, and I guess we will see how the AFD goes. Best regards~ Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant (talk) 04:49, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

C. Sacca changes
Hi, As per your earlier recommendations all sources were changed from primary to secondary with reliable sources (over 10) and heavy editing as per recommendations.

The only thing reverted back to was adding a new sub heading for under career which was critical to the subject.

Thanks in advance. Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by David-from-Montreal (talk • contribs) 03:21, 9 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Please discuss on the talk page of the article thanks. Thanks for the note! Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant (talk) 03:30, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Hi Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant, thanks for reviewing Zero Night.

Coolabahapple (talk) 16:53, 9 May 2016 (UTC) 

Hi thanks
Thanks for the edits and question. The original text for this post was written by one of my students for our editathon in my class. The references were sadly cited incorrectly, duplicated, and there were a number of factual errors. Also, in order to minimize pov concerns I went in and made some factual edits. Some of the information was simply incorrect. JVadera (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:06, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * no worries! It seemed odd or something. Now, I get it. Keep up your good work with students. Best regards! Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant (talk) 02:10, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Nathan H. Lee
Dear Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant, Could you please help with the references? Thanks Beesting101 (talk) 19:39, 16 May 2016 (UTC)Beesting101
 * ✅ Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant (talk) 03:18, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

thx
for Fradl Victuallers (talk) 12:08, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You are certainly welcome! Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant (talk) 07:37, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * No problem, I thought maybe you did not understand. It is needed to show a claim of significance in the lede so the article will not be nominated again. If you can find a proper citation for some of the awards, we could add one or two in the lede as well. Thanks for the barnstar! Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant (talk) 05:39, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with scientist pages
Greetings and Thanks. Appreciate your taking out time and all the help with the pages. Wish you great time.

Signed Maxkrish — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxkrish (talk • contribs) 10:45, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You are welcome ! Leave me a note here when you have some more articles for me to work on. Thanks! Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant  09:35, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant, will sure let you know. Have great weekend! Cheers. User:Maxkrish  —Preceding undated comment added 14:49, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Article on Rosette Wolczak
Many thanks for you help, I am not used to the anglophone wikipedia, and using the translation tool does not do all the job! I ma currently in Bern in a wiki workshop but will work again on the article later --Nattes à chat (talk) 09:23, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Great! I am happy to help. We might try to collaborate on some more articles as I am fluent in both French and English. It is nice to run into you here. The article is excellently written. I found her image and put it on the page. I will check back on the article later. Please ask if you need any help with some articles. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant  09:32, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you for the barnstar. I wish we could find a usable image of him to add to the article. Let me know if you need any help! Thanks again! Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant  07:57, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Nathan H. Lee
There are multiple pictures of him on his Facebook page. Also, what are your thoughts on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Umi_Garrett?

For facebook, I think you have to log on then type in his full name. Pictures should show up

Thanks so much
 * I saw this discussion earlier. I have Umi Garrett on my list of articles to expand. I will check that out again when I am done on the article.


 * Any good image would be fine, but he or whoever took the image, would need to upload an image for us to include it in the article.

Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 08:13, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

I found a picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.140.154.209 (talk) 03:57, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Invitation to an online editathon
I realize you are already on board but thought you deserved an invitation too.--Ipigott (talk) 10:49, 24 May 2016 (UTC) (To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list)
 * Thanks, that is thoughtful of you. I know you must be busy. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant  10:52, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Adminship
Hi Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant, I am new to Wikipedia and was just wondering what the criteria for becoming an admin is. How long should I wait before applying and how many edits should I make? Thanks LionPrince101 (talk) 15:31, 24 May 2016 (UTC)LionPrince101
 * I would say probably a year or so. Do as much editing as you can while you learn all the policies and procedures here. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant  05:08, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant LionPrince101 (talk) 06:15, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

User:DinosaurKiller
Help please, user:DinosaurKiller has constantly vandalized pages including Umi Garrett and Pope Alexander VI. I think it would be best to block him or her. THANKS. LionPrince101 (talk) 18:49, 24 May 2016 (UTC)LionPrince101
 * I will keep an eye on those pages. Thanks. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant  05:09, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

A cupcake for you!

 * Thanks so much! Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant  06:19, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

User Talk: DinosaurKiller
Sorry to keep bothering you, but he or she vandalized the Pope page again. I left a warning on his/her talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LionPrince101 (talk • contribs) 06:24, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Hell sir,I add the new citation on Vicky Kewat page. Please remove your tag from this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thakur Anant Singh (talk • contribs) 09:23, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank You Julia Friedman
Thank you for your contribution to Julia Friedman. It is greatly appreciated. However, might I ask you, did you know that this article is currently under debate at Articles for deletion/Julia Friedman. Could I possibly intrude upon you -- since you did make important contributions to the page -- to vote for KEEP? If you think the page has merit to continue to improve. I would greatly appreciate your vote of confidence. Thanks --Wwwwhatupprrr (talk) 20:22, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, I am looking it over. I have added Julia Friedman to my research list, to see if I might find a few more references. Well done article by the way! Best regards! Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant  20:27, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey
The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.
 * Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions
(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list)

oh dear
There seems to be a Kadya Molodovsky and a Kadia Molodovky article .... Victuallers (talk) 13:07, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * That is rather disappointing. I did check the name before I wrote it using the spelling used in most citations, as well as the Jewish Woman Archive. I never saw that other spelling anywhere, sorry. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant  09:16, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for helping us to fix the gender gap
(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list)
 * Thanks so much! This barnstar is beautifully designed. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant  09:18, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Need your help!
Good Morning Fouette'! Need your help with the page Qasim Mehdi. Have completed nearly everything there. But since he is a senior and well-known molecular biologist from South Asia, will appreciate your kindly looking into the page and fixing any possible flaws. Many thanks. Good day! Maxkrish (talk) 10:12, 7 June 2016 (UTC)User:Maxkrish10:12, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Dear Fouette' a big thank your way! Thanks a million for your contributions to the page of Prof. Mehdi. The page looks wonderful. Thank you for your kind attention and time. Appreciate it greatly. Please keep up the good work. Hope I could also assist you with some of your work. Maxkrish (talk) 19:17, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Editor Trophy

 * Thank you so much! I appreciate this. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant  01:56, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Rivka Basman Ben-Hayim
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Devlin Connection
Thanks so much, I seem to always screw up the references and punctuation thing! I really appreciate your edit. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:10, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * You are welcome!   Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant  20:35, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Ian Stylezz
Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant thank you for your help with creating the Ian Stylezz page but I am in a senseless battle with someone ever since I've been working on this page for whatever reason. They have started a discussion about deleting the page I made. Can you point me in the right direction? Thanks in advance WbPubEnt (talk) 03:52, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Hall of Fame!
--Rosiestep (talk) 09:01, 23 June 2016 (UTC) via MassMessage (To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list)

A barnstar for you!
Thank you for the star! Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 09:33, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Request for help
Hi there, I would help if I could, but I've never done anything like that before, and to be honest, I don't even know what you're talking about. It's probably easy to do, so I'll make sure to figure it out, but for the time being, you should probably ask someone who has done it before. Sorry. Cmr08 (talk) 07:16, 6 July 2016 (UTC) np, I found another editor who is try ing. Thanks tho Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant  07:20, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Question
Hi. In the context of trying to defuse tensions, is this page really necessary? Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:43, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Well I suppose I could prepare as I go offline. I was trying to make things easier for myself to put a report together. The following started already. After a scary incident about a month or so ago that @Coffee tried to assist me with regarding the same editor who then was harassing me on wiki to the point were he was sending me unwanted emails even after I asked for it stop. It was creepy then, and that the following has started again, and it is still creepy, so shortly after you specifically warned about that, I decided to be proactive and possibly get some sort of something done so he will not bother me and follow me around. I dropped everything after the last harassment incident where he was harassing me because as I told Coffee at the time, I was afraid he might get inflamed more if I pursued some remedy. That did not work. If he wasn't following me I doubt he would ever even notice that page anyways. If he would stop following me, I could just delete the page. It will only be needed if the harassment and following continues. I ask for your advice today. Should I just sweep everything under the rug again? This whole pattern of harassing and following from him needs to stop. Apparently the only way I can stop it is to not go on wikipedia anymore. I already stopped writing women in red articles. The fun is not there any longer. Please let me know what you would prefer I do? Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 17:54, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Let's back up a step. I think it would be better if you kept your "report" list offline, but I also think it will be better if there is nothing else to report, and I think HappyAttackDog does too. However, this is the first time I am hearing about "unwanted emails even after I asked it to stop" of a "creepy" nature. I'm also not sure what you mean by "women in red" articles" although I expect that's just unawareness on my part. Let me suggest that you not add anything else to that page, but contact me or another administrator directly if there are any other incidents. I trust there will not be. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:59, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Just to let you know far I have gone to avoid any issues, I have been trying to participate in the AFD program. As I go down the list, I check two things. The article page and the afd discussion page for the word happy. If I find that efitor there, I move onto the next AFD. Now I see today that he has gone to the AFD of the article for Laurie Langford and discussed and !voted the opposite of me. I started trying to improve that article on July 3rd. He followed me to the article. It just goes on. I will now cross AFD off my list of things to help with.  Hopefully things will not get worse.  Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant  18:15, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Follow, rinse, repeat another AFD discuss, !vote the opposite... on and on  Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant  18:25, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Follow, rinse, repeat - An article that I worked on (last 3 July) to improve that the attack dog never edited. Now he goes to the afd for the article (6 July).   Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant  04:01, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It's after midnight here; I'll look at this tomorrow (later today). Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:23, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks please sleep well!  Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant  04:32, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * If I may add my two cents Smile.png. Ultimately, I hope you don't stop working on the "Red Linked Women" project and AfD. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:55, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * OK. I didn't realize what was happening. I have to stay out of this one. I hope things work out for you and the other editor. -Steve Quinn (talk) 06:41, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Diffs
Hello. I am wondering if you could supply more diffs within your recent comment over at Sockpuppet investigations/195.224.183.184. I think these will be very helpful. Thanks. Steve Quinn (talk) 23:06, 6 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Sure. I am working on a report that has all the particular diffs and all about each of the named and ip account. Do you want just the ones I mentioned in my comment there, or all the editors and ips which are probably involved? Perhaps I could send you the report with all the diffs, and you could evaluate whether to put it all in your report there?  btw, that named account with only 91 edits just swooped in with a brand account, and went to the same group of articles to make AFDs, which then the other players continued their similar voting behaviors on. It is all just too odd to be a coincidence.  Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant  23:17, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, if you say there are other editors and ips involved then I think it would be OK to do them all. I agree that it might be best to send the report to me first because I don't want you to get into trouble in case there is more information than is needed for this particular case. Particularity interesting is the one account involved in a sock puppet investigation who has created a new account - if that is what you are saying. Anyway, thanks for your assistance. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 11:25, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Shapur Mozaffarian
Thank you for taking an interest in the page and for denying the speedy delete. I am in no way affiliated with Shapur Mozaffarian, simply a fan of the luxury watches he carries at his store in San Francisco. This is my first Wikipedia page and I'm really enjoying the experience. I just added a link to a New York Times article revealing Mozaffarian as the designated jeweler for Barry Bonds. When do you think it would be appropriate to return the Lauren Bacall image etc? I also look forward to more collaboration. Dmachardy (talk) 23:42, 6 July 2016 (UTC)Dmachardy


 * Sure go ahead and add the Bacall image back in wherever you like, then wait a day or two and put the other one back. Have you done much research on him? We need to expand his article and add more good references. Try typing is name in google then click on the books tab rather than all. There is more about him in several books.


 * Also you might want to search at the Persian wikipedia here. or here  or persian google maybe.  Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant  00:13, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for those links to Persian Wikipedia and Google. Great idea! I think I'll hold off adding those images back in at least for the moment. How does the approval process work, i.e. when will the deletion notice at the top be removed? Dmachardy (talk) 06:23, 7 July 2016 (UTC)Dmachardy

Thanking you with a barnstar
(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list)

let it snow, let it snow, let it snow (note to self)
by maybe on ani happy ARD disruption at AFD thread by happysadhappy diff


 * "Well platypus you are much brighter than you drawer companion unhappy. Kudos to you dude for observing WP:OUTING. But your fried may not be so lucky because outing attempt on Fouette have been report to OTRS by at least or three people. So are you brave enough to open the SPI? Just for fun add your name and happy. Put me down and the lovely Fayette too. Hell, put Carrie girl in too! Let some check user shake up the snow globe and let the snowflakes fall where they fucking may! Let's all find out who is who? I will tell you a secret though, the only two socks in the group of five or is it six are you and the sad guy. Check user away. I do have evidence and will post it at the hopefully upcoming extrava fuck in ganza. Maybeparaphrased (talk) 10:06 pm, Today (UTC−4)"   Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant  03:55, 10 July 2016 (UTC)



bottom
Thanks for your nice comments. It is always a pleasure to collaborate with Wikipedia. Kudos! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ernesto53 (talk • contribs) 14:47, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your nice comments. It is always a pleasure to collaborate with Wikipedia. Kudos!(Ernesto53 (talk) 14:49, 10 July 2016 (UTC))

Discussion
User HappyValley Editor placed this tag on my user page.



User HappyValleyEditor placed this tag on my user page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Fouett%C3%A9_rond_de_jambe_en_tournant&curid=49777749&diff=729317870&oldid=729317805

This account is a suspected sock puppet of Carriearchdale (talk · contribs · logs) and has been blocked indefinitely. Please refer to the sockpuppet investigation of the sockpuppeteer, and editing habits or contributions of the sock puppet for evidence. This policy subsection may also be helpful.

Question
 * I was noy aware that there had been w SPI done to technically determine these findings.


 * Bbb23, I was not aware that HVE had been promoted to checkuser. Is that true?


 * When I click on the link it was it goes to some person, that had a SPI two years ago?




 * Were is the SPI for now if it is a checkuser block?

Perhaps it is all a big silly mix-up? Could one or more admins, checkusers, or other editors please address

I am pending a decison, if whether it is worth it or not to even attempt to appeal this block when the grave dancing has already begun.

By the way, I am having off-wiki telephone calls from HVE who I assert is allegedly guilty of the WP:OUTING policy? Could someone perhaps forward these questions to OTRS? Thank you all. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 12:28, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Now this part is quite rich, A rush to judgement has occurred here.
 * HVE did not place the sock template on your userpage. ThePlatypusofDoom did, and it was properly reverted. As for the block, an administrator may block a user for sock puppetry without an SPI. You'd have to address any concerns on that score to the blocking admin, . HVE is not an administrator, let alone a CheckUser, but I don't see the relevance of that issue. The Wordsmith is not a CheckUser and of course did not impose a CheckUser block. I don't intend to forward anything to OTRS; that's up to you. If you want to appeal this block, the usual first step is to request an unblock here on your Talk page. It's distracting. As an aside, I removed the picture. I don't understand why you plaster it all over your Talk page. Still, if you want to restore it, that's your prerogative.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:46, 11 July 2016 (UTC)



@KoshVorlon,

If you have time may I hear your answers to the questions here that I posted above? Thank you. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 13:02, 11 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Out of curiosity, why, having received answers to your questions from an editor who is both andministrator and a checkuser, would you want a second-opinion from one who is not? Pace, of course. Muffled Pocketed  13:10, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, repeated re-insertion of that picture may not necessarilly encourage editors to comment; just for your consideration. Muffled Pocketed  13:12, 11 July 2016 (UTC)


 * All of this is just making it more convincing that you are a sock and attacking HappyValleyEditor. If you actually looked at the edit, you would have seen that I placed the suspected sock tag. Also, I don't believe the "HappyValleyEditor is harassing me over the phone" part is factual. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 13:36, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yep. How would it be possible? Muffled Pocketed  13:39, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:ROPE - Just let her keep talking and she'll dig herself into an even deeper hole. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 13:37, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Even if HappyValleyEditor somehow knew who Fouette really was (Well, he did find her twitter account, so he may) there's no guarantee that he would know her phone number, even if for some reason she posted it on her twitter account. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 13:46, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Your questions were already answered. There's literally nothing I can add to them.   However, I will point out that | The Wordsmith did say on the ANI page The evidence had been passed around to several unrelated editors, crossing the boundary into "semi-public" as per EEML .   As the evidence was, by his own admission both public and private, he has neglected to involve CU, but rather shown it to  unrelated editors. Per  who is both oversight and a check user Soliciting and evaluating private evidence runs completely afoul of our blocking policies. The community has firmly established that administrators may not base blocks off of evidence that cannot be peer reviewed. I strongly urge that you get in contact with the arbitration committee to sort out this matter. On a second note, please avoid using the ✅ templates. They are almost entirely used by the checkuser team and carry the connotation that technical evidence was considered in making an evaluation .   I find this troubling. If a regular user did this, that would be considered , possibly , outing.   Kosh Vorlon '''  15:23, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * That was all explained (some of it repeatedly) on the ANI thread. The evidence is all either on the ANI or in the edit histories of the users in question. Softlavender (talk) 15:39, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The block was the right decision, per WP:DUCK. All of the evidence was on the ANI. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 16:22, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll say it one final time: The "private evidence" everyone was talking about was much overhyped; I merely asked for it because somewhere around a dozen people had been sent parts of it and were making judgments on that, but nobody had actually seen all of it. It all consisted of collections of diffs (publicly available), rephrasing of allegations that have already been made on ANI and elsewhere onwiki (again, public) and personal opinions (not evidence). There is nothing that falls afoul of the policy on confidential information, and even if there was zero "private evidence" there is more than enough that is publicly available to sustain the block on WP:DUCK grounds. The Wordsmith Talk to me 16:29, 11 July 2016 (UTC)


 * This is all incredibly silly. I thought that this issue had been dealt with? Could we have a talk-page block? that's the second time that this person has said I am phone harassing them. That claim is a total crock of shit, to put it in precise terms. Why is this page open for a blocked account to complain? They should be going through the normal process for requesting an unblock.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 02:51, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, note that I do not go around saying shit like "Fouette is calling me at my house!"... "fouette is lying, she is making up sources"... "Fouette is after me, she's an attack dog". Seriosuly people, how long is this channel for baseless accusations by persons possibly in going to be left open?HappyValleyEditor (talk) 02:56, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * By my count, they haven't said anything in roughly 18 hours. If it resumes I would be willing to revoke talkpage access, but if not then that would just be punitive. The Wordsmith Talk to me 02:59, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * HappyValleyEditor, you need to dial down the rhetoric, and also focus on something else. Failing to do both of those things will end up in you shooting yourself in the foot. As The Wordsmith says, Fouette hasn't posted in a while. And they posts she did make here are simply more proof that she is Carriearchdale, because the posts match the spasms of nonsense that Carriearchdale posted in the latter days of her existence. Softlavender (talk) 03:06, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Softlavender, I saw you swearing in the ANI multiple times, and I saw you at ANI making statements that something is "batshit crazy" and many other outrageous statements. If I want to point out that an editor has erroneously claimed that I am harassing them on the telephone, that would be my right. Have a lovely evening, and happy editing. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 03:22, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It is not your right to use such language about an editor you have had frequent conflicts with, who is now blocked, and whose articles you are now targeting. You are also too inexperienced to know what is appropriate on Wikipedia (and when/how) and what is not. You are a very WP:INVOLVED party here and need to step back. You can either take the advice we have given you, or not. Softlavender (talk) 03:30, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERUSERS-- HappyValleyEditor (talk) 20:25, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Update: The prod was removed by another editor. At least two editors have commented at the Talk page and/or in edit summaries that the herpetologist is clearly notable, in their view.  I came here myself because I saw the PROD notice here on my Watchlist, and I was going to remove it on basis that IMO it is unfair/inappropriate to be SPEEDYing, or PRODing, or AFDing anything while the involved editor is blocked.  I don't understand why Fouette is currently blocked, either, and I commented about that at the ongoing SPI investigation.  Currently I believe that Fouette should be unblocked.  If unblocked, then it would be okay for someone to open an AFD for a full discussion I guess. -- do  ncr  am  02:07, 12 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Muffled Pocketed  20:59, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Leaving her blocked is necessary. Even if she isn't a sock (which is unlikely, the evidence is good), she still would probably get some type of block, due to her harassment of, and I see no reason to let her edit freely, as she will be disruptive (as the long, convoluted "Notes to self" below are good evidence for being disruptive). ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 20:30, 12 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Propose Revocation of talk-page access, as per the sections posted below. Muffled Pocketed  20:40, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Support proposal for the reasons stated by . -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:48, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Please revoke talk page access. Even if the editor in question had a leg to stand on, they do not need to use Wikipedia as their own personal notepad. Notepad exists for a reason. This 'note to self' business needs to stop. --Tarage (talk) 21:41, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

@Fouetté, although editors do not really get to vote on whether to revoke Talk page access of a blocked user, they do have a point. I suggest you stop recording all of these comments on your Talk page. It's fairly easy to store them on your computer so you don't lose your thoughts, and this page is getting unwieldy, cluttered as it is with long section headers for each set of quoted comments and followed by the comments.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:35, 12 July 2016 (UTC)


 * note to self

Per @MikeV who is both oversight and a check user Soliciting and evaluating private evidence runs completely afoul of our blocking policies. The community has firmly established that administrators may not base blocks off of evidence that cannot be peer reviewed. kosh vorlon

The community has firmly established that administrators may not base blocks off of evidence that cannot be peer reviewed. I strongly urge that you get in contact with the arbitration committee to sort out this matter. On a second note, please avoid using the Confirmed templates. They are almost entirely used by the checkuser team and carry the connotation that technical evidence was considered in making an evaluation. I find this troubling. If a regular user did this, that would be considered, possibly , outing. kosh vorlon  Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 04:44, 12 July 2016 (UTC)


 * note to self too three




 * nor to self three

It's hard to watch this free-for-all and not comment. Users are drawing all sorts of inferences on very little data. I'm assuming that The Wordsmith is correct when they state that Carrie said somewhere they were editing from the Pacific time zone (which, btw, is a fairly large area), but I don't know how they can know (a) that the IP geolocates to the Seattle area or (b) what part of the world Fouette is editing from. With wireless providers like T-Mobile geolocates are largely illusory. Nor will you necessarily find services that supposedly identify location agree. For example, db-IP says that the IP in question is located in Bellvue, whereas geolocate itself says that the IP is located in Norton, Massachusetts, a couple of thousand miles away. As for Fouette, not being a CU, The Wordsmith can't possibly know where that user is editing from. I think that the inference is simply an extrapolation from the behavioral evidence. If the behavioral evidence is persuasive that Fouette is a sock of Carrie, then they must be editing from the same location. Sorry folks, but it doesn't work that way. Mind you, I'm not objecting to the block of Fouette. I have not read the behavioral evidence presented at ANI. But technically people should be more careful about drawing conclusions that aren't based on facts. You folk can now go back to your lively discussion, although I'm not sure how much value it is to the socking issues.--Bbb23 (talk) 6:45 pm, Yesterday (UTC−4)

@Doncram: I tried to be clear in my findings. I made many. I also criticized certain technical inferences drawn by editors on this page. However, at no time did I find that Fouette and Carriearchdale were technically unrelated. As I stated at the outset, Carriearchdale is stale. Therefore, I couldn't make such a finding.--Bbb23 (talk) 10:19 pm, Yesterday (UTC−4)



Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 05:50, 12 July 2016 (UTC)


 * so what note to self      essentially  by doncram

Since Wordsmith blocked Fouette for appearing to be a sockpuppet of Carriearchdale, and that has been found to be incorrect, shouldn't Fouette be unblocked immediately now? Perhaps with an apology, too? I'm a latecomer here, and I previously followed only some of two ANI items that went on, but I see no valid evidence at all here of any sockpuppeting involving Fouette. I do see validity in checkuser User:Bbb23's skeptical comments below about the "free for all". The purported evidence includes no actual evidence, IMHO. The purported evidence includes:

mention that Wordsmith conducted an informal investigation, with this diff that contains no evidence. But that is just a diff where Wordsmith states their conclusion, without evidence! Editor User:Elektrik Fanne above states they were immediately convinced by seeing Maybeparaphrased's first posting somewhere that they must be the same person as Fouette, but Elekrik Fanne provides no diffs at all for anyone else to compare. And in fact Elektrik Fanne gives no explanation why they are convinced. This is not evidence. Editor user:The Wordsmith mentions "a rather ominous warning (bordering on a threat)" with a diff, but Wordsmith themself has used administrative revdel tool to eliminate the purported near-threat, so I for one cannot see that. Editor user:Winkelvi, who did see the purported near-threat, comments above that it could be interpreted differently, not as a threat, and even Wordsmith agrees. Editor User:Softlavender asserts "There is abundant circumstantial evidence that Carriearchdale (aka Fouette) created sleeper accounts" but their evidence is non-sensical. Their "evidence" is that Carriearchdale's account was created in November 2007 but Carriearchdale did not edit until 2014. I will believe without checking that Carriearchdale did not edit until 2014, but a) so what and b) where is any shred of evidence that Carriearchdale created any other accounts?

Please understand, I don't mean to criticize anyone, really, for thinking what they think, because each of us have our own personal experiences which inform us differently in how to interpret anything we see. But as for me, with my different experience, I don't see anything here. Given that Bbb23 points out there's poor reasoning about geography in the free-for-all, and so on, I don't understand why Bbb23 did perform the checkuser check or whatever you call it. But they did, and they found no association. I have participated at SPI only a few times, and maybe I misunderstand how this is supposed to work. Am I wrong that accusers are supposed to provide diffs, to provide actual evidence? (I certainly thought diffs were required when I opened an SPI, myself. In edit mode here, there is warning Do not make accusations without providing evidence.) And given that the checkuser check was done, and no connection was found, shouldn't this be closed with some consensus judgment that the allegations were false, or at least found to be completely unsupported? And shouldn't the block be reversed, by Wordsmith preferably or by some other administrator? I do apologize if I am merely piling on in some unfair way, or if I should be making a request at Wordsmith's Talk page or commenting at Fouette's instead. sincerely, --doncram 9:48 pm, Yesterday (UTC−4)


 * I see no evidence note to self

Doncram, you wrote, "Wordsmith blocked Fouette for appearing to be a sockpuppet of Carriearchdale, and that has been found to be incorrect". How did you come to that conclusion? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 10:01 pm, Yesterday (UTC−4)

That it has been found to be incorrect is my summary view, based on what I explain: I see no evidence, and purported evidence is not evidence, and if I understand correctly the checkuser check found no association (maybe just because the Carriearchdale account is stale). I should add that I used the Editor interaction utility for a while to look for similarities of their edits when they edited the same page, and I saw no similarity of the edits. Also the interactions showed nearest time of editing the same place was one year, I think. The bad kind of sockpuppeting is when an editor creates false support of their position in a discussion by having an apparently independent editor agree with them. That cannot ever have occurred because they never edited the same discussion. Your point may be that technically it is a logical leap that I am making to go from "no evidence" to "assertion is incorrect", but I happen to think that is the conclusion we should reach. Along the lines of "A person is innocent until proven guilty", which is how the criminal justice system in my country (the U.S.) is supposed to work, and then "Innocent" follows from "not proven guilty". BTW, I also meant to say I have no association with Fouette at all that I know of until a few days ago, and then it is only minimal association. (I was pinged when they quoted me at ANI about an AFD, then we had minimal interaction clarifying about that, and I noticed Fouette did me a small favor of approving an article at AFC for me. The AFC would have been approved soon anyhow. I suppose they browsed my contributions and saw that the article was obviously approvable. Likewise I browsed a bit more about Fouette's activity, and the block, and found my way to this SPI.) I am an independent observer looking at this SPI, and I just see nothing here. --doncram 10:29 pm, Yesterday (UTC−4)


 * That it has been found to be incorrect is my summary view, based on what I explain: I see no evidence, and purported evidence is not evidence, and if I understand correctly the checkuser check found no

Your mistake is that it wasn't proven wrong. Fouette is indeed a sockpuppet, the behavioral evidence, grammatical quirks, Userpages, and the way their offwiki accounts link to the same email address is conclusive. Everything of relevance is on ANI. Checkuser didn't disprove it, Checkuser says nothing because Carriearchdale was blocked over a year ago and Checkuser only contains 90 days worth of IP logs. As far as the IP, it geolocates to King County, Washington. (Redacted) It would be difficult for Fouette to quack any louder than they already are. Also, you can block sockpuppets without an SPI. This one was filed because it was suspected that more accounts were linked to it. The WordsmithTalk to me 10:49 pm, Yesterday (UTC−4)


 * Checkuser didn't disprove it note to self ("Users are drawing all sorts of inferences on very little data.")

Checkuser didn't disprove it

It's hard to watch this free-for-all and not comment. Users are drawing all sorts of inferences on very little data. I'm assuming that The Wordsmith is correct when they state that Carrie said somewhere they were editing from the Pacific time zone (which, btw, is a fairly large area), but I don't know how they can know (a) that the IP geolocates to the Seattle area or (b) what part of the world Fouette is editing from. With wireless providers like T-Mobile geolocates are largely illusory. Nor will you necessarily find services that supposedly identify location agree. For example, db-IP says that the IP in question is located in Bellevue, whereas geolocate itself says that the IP is located in Norton, Massachusetts, a couple of thousand miles away. As for Fouette, not being a CU, The Wordsmith can't possibly know where that user is editing from. I think that the inference is simply an extrapolation from the behavioral evidence. If the behavioral evidence is persuasive that Fouette is a sock of Carrie, then they must be editing from the same location. Sorry folks, but it doesn't work that way. Mind you, I'm not objecting to the block of Fouette. I have not read the behavioral evidence presented at ANI. But technically people should be more careful about drawing conclusions that aren't based on facts. You folk can now go back to your lively discussion, although I'm not sure how much value it is to the socking issues.--Bbb23 (talk) 6:45 pm, Yesterday (UTC−4) @Doncram: I tried to be clear in my findings. I made many. I also criticized certain technical inferences drawn by editors on this page. However, at no time did I find that Fouette and Carriearchdale were technically unrelated. As I stated at the outset, Carriearchdale is stale. Therefore, I couldn't make such a finding.--Bbb23 (talk) 10:19 pm, Yesterday (UTC−4) There's nothing more to do here. If a clerk wants to merge this case with the Carrie case, that's fine. If not, that's fine, too. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 8:45 am, Today (UTC−4)


 * note to self Bbb23 comments on the illusory problems of trying to match ips and actual location globaly... the Bbb23 Illusory defense

It's hard to watch this free-for-all and not comment. Users are drawing all sorts of inferences on very little data. I'm assuming that The Wordsmith is correct when they state that Carrie said somewhere they were editing from the Pacific time zone (which, btw, is a fairly large area), but I don't know how they can know (a) that the IP geolocates to the Seattle area or (b) what part of the world Fouette is editing from. With wireless providers like T-Mobile geolocates are largely illusory. Nor will you necessarily find services that supposedly identify location agree. For example, db-IP says that the IP in question is located in Bellevue, whereas geolocate itself says that the IP is located in Norton, Massachusetts, a couple of thousand miles away. As for Fouette, not being a CU, The Wordsmith can't possibly know where that user is editing from. I think that the inference is simply an extrapolation from the behavioral evidence. If the behavioral evidence is persuasive that Fouette is a sock of Carrie, then they must be editing from the same location. Sorry folks, but it doesn't work that way. Mind you, I'm not objecting to the block of Fouette. I have not read the behavioral evidence presented at ANI. But technically people should be more careful about drawing conclusions that aren't based on facts. You folk can now go back to your lively discussion, although I'm not sure how much value it is to the socking issues.--Bbb23 (talk) 6:45 pm, Yesterday (UTC−4)

Note: the editor's talkpage access was already revoked (by The Wordsmith) several hours ago. I suggest that others stop posting here also. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:34, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia and United Nations Women Project
(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list) Delivered by Rosiestep (talk) via MassMessage 04:27, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

User page
Please change the user page of the user to only show the blocked template, as done in other cases. VarunFEB2003 (talk) 07:27, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-33
 Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Problems
 * Last week Tech News announced you will get a notification when you mention yourself the same way as if someone else had mentioned you. This caused some problems and will happen later instead.
 * Creating and editing links to sections on other pages on the wiki now works again in the visual editor.
 * For some users, cross-wiki notifications haven't been working properly. The count has been wrong when only cross-wiki notifications were present. The cross-wiki bundle has been showing only the names of wikis and not the actual notifications. This will be fixed soon.

Changes this week
 * The login session when you choose "Keep me logged in" will now last a year. Previously it was 30 days. This will happen on August 16.
 * Some abuse filters will have to be updated during the week. This is because a bug will be fixed.
 * In compact language links, two new kinds of languages will be shown in the shorter language list: Languages that are used in the article's text, and languages where the article has a badge like "featured article" or "good article".
 * The visual editor will be available by default for logged-out editors on Wikipedias that use the Arabic script. It is already default for logged-in editors.
 * Octicons-sync.svg The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from August 16. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from August 17. It will be on all wikis from August 18 (calendar).

Meetings
 * Octicons-sync.svg You can join the next meeting with the VisualEditor team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs you think are the most important. The meeting will be on August 16 at 19:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Future changes
 * Starting the week of August 22 there will be three software deployment windows. They will be at 13:00, 18:00, and 23:00 UTC. This is to have more times when software of the wikis can be updated and make it easier for developers in different parts of the world.

Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.  19:37, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-34
 Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes
 * The ORES review tool is now available on Special:Contributions as a beta feature. It can make it easier to find contributions that are probably damaging the wikis. The ORES review tool is available on Wikidata and Persian, Polish, Portuguese, Dutch, Turkish and Russian Wikipedia.
 * Octicons-tools.svg The  and   functions have been updated to make it easier to write abuse filters. This also affects the TitleBlacklist extension. You don't have to transform "I" and "L" to "1", "O" to "0" and "S" to "5" anymore.
 * Octicons-tools.svg The old pageview data in the "pagecounts-raw" and "pagecounts-all-sites" files is no longer being updated. You can find the new pageview data here. This happened on August 5.

Problems
 * Some big image files could not be thumbnailed. This has now been fixed.
 * When you moved a page over a redirect it would delete the redirect without saving it in the logs. This has now been fixed.

Changes this week
 * Octicons-sync.svg The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 23 August. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 24 August. It will be on all wikis from 25 August (calendar).

Meetings
 * Octicons-sync.svg You can join the next meeting with the VisualEditor team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs you think are the most important. The meeting will be on 23 August at 19:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Future changes
 * Sometimes when you mention another user they don't get a notification. You will be able to get a notification when you successfully sent out a mention to someone or be told if they did not get a notification. This will be opt-in. You can test this on the test wiki.
 * How you add text after an edit conflict might work in a different way in the future. You can test the prototype.

Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe. <section end="technews-2016-W34"/> 21:18, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-35
<section begin="technews-2016-W35"/> Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes
 * Wikimedia mobile sites now don't load images if the user doesn't see them. This is to save mobile data and make the pages load faster.
 * When you edit a table with the visual editor, pressing  in the last cell of a row will take you to the first cell in the next row. Pressing   and   in the first cell of a row will take you to the last cell in the previous row.

Changes this week
 * The name of the " " button will change. The button will say "  " when you create a new page. It will say "  " when you change an existing page.
 * Octicons-sync.svg The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 30 August. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 31 August. It will be on all wikis from 1 September (calendar).

Meetings
 * Octicons-sync.svg You can join the next meeting with the VisualEditor team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs you think are the most important. The meeting will be on 30 August at 19:00 (UTC). See how to join.
 * Octicons-tools.svg You can join the next meeting with the Architecture committee. The topic this week is "RfC: image and oldimage tables". The meeting will be on 31 August at 21:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe. <section end="technews-2016-W35"/> 16:01, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Carol Smallwood for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Carol Smallwood is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. John from Idegon (talk) 07:26, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Carol Smallwood for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Carol Smallwood is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Carol Smallwood& until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  00:28, 3 October 2017 (UTC)