User talk:Xiaomichel

A belated welcome!


Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Xiaomichel! I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may still benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:


 * Introductory tutorial
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * Writing an article
 * Five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Community portal
 * Help pages
 * The Teahouse (newcomer help)
 * Main help desk

Need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 17:41, 23 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks a lot! :) Xiaomichel (talk) 09:50, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Talk page conventions
New Talk comments should go at the bottom of the Talk page, so that they are roughly chronological. See Talk page guidelines --Macrakis (talk) 18:12, 27 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Ok sorry for that, thanks Xiaomichel (talk) 09:58, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

CS1 error on Choux pastry
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Choux pastry, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:Qwerfjkl/Botpreload&editintro=User:Qwerfjkl/boteditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:Qwerfjkl&preloadtitle=Qwerfjkl%20(bot)%20–%20Qwerfjkl_(bot)&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 13:13, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * A "missing periodical" error. References show this error when the name of the magazine or journal is not given. Please edit the article to add the name of the magazine/journal to the reference, or use a different citation template. ([//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Choux_pastry&action=edit&minor=minor&summary=Fixing+reference+error+raised+by+%5B%5BUser%3AQwerfjkl%20(bot)%7CQwerfjkl%20(bot)%5D%5D Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:Qwerfjkl%20(bot)/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F1152809186%7CChoux%20pastry%5D%5D Ask for help])

CS1 error on Ice cream
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Ice cream, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:Qwerfjkl/Botpreload&editintro=User:Qwerfjkl/boteditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:Qwerfjkl&preloadtitle=Qwerfjkl%20(bot)%20–%20Qwerfjkl_(bot)&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 13:47, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * A "missing periodical" error. References show this error when the name of the magazine or journal is not given. Please edit the article to add the name of the magazine/journal to the reference, or use a different citation template. ([//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ice_cream&action=edit&minor=minor&summary=Fixing+reference+error+raised+by+%5B%5BUser%3AQwerfjkl%20(bot)%7CQwerfjkl%20(bot)%5D%5D Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:Qwerfjkl%20(bot)/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F1152813828%7CIce%20cream%5D%5D Ask for help])

Single-purpose account
Hello,

I've reviewed all the edits you've ever made, and it's clear that you are a single-purpose account engaged in tendentious editing. Specifically, you're engaged in a concerted effort to remove mentions of Italian and Austrian origins of French dishes.

While reviewing your edits, I've noticed that you've rewritten articles about pastries to state that they were created by French chefs rather than Italian or Austrian ones, but then often cited articles that contradict your edits and explicitly state that the pastries originated in Italy or Austria.

A brief overview of articles you've edited:


 * Ravioli and Talk:Ravioli - You engaged in an edit war while attempting to remove mentions of the Italian etymology of the word "ravioli", citing a 13th-century document. After another editor dug up the document and pointed out that it didn't actually say anything about ravioli at all, you admitted that you hadn't actually read it.


 * Profiterole - You deleted all mentions of the pastry's Italian origins and removed a reference-supported statement about those origins, and instead wrote the pastry was invented by a French chef. The book you cited, Classic Patisserie: An A-Z Handbook, actually explicitly states that pastry is an evolution of one created by an Italian on page 45.


 * Choux pastry - You rewrote the article to state that the pastry was invented by a French chef, citing the same book mentioned above that states that the pastry was actually invented by an Italian chef.


 * Draft:The Italian Myth in French Cuisine - You wrote a draft article stating as fact that Catherine de' Medici had no influence on French cuisine; the draft article does not acknowledge that this is a disputed theory, and that many reputable sources state that Medici had a major influence on French cuisine.


 * Croissant - You had a short edit war during which you tried to remove any acknowledgement of the pastry's Austrian origins. You also added two statements that Sylvain Goy invented the croissant, but more on this below...


 * Sylvain Claudius Goy - You created an article stating that Goy invented the croissant, but the reference you provided to support this statement is just a for-sale listing for a cookbook written by Goy. You also linked to a blog article which explicitly states that "croissant" was originally the French name for the kipferl, an Austrian predecessor pastry that was introduced to France in 1839. The blog article does support the contention that Goy published the first croissant recipe that used laminated yeast dough, but WP:USERGENERATED explicitly states that blogs aren't considered reliable sources anyway.

I won't summarize the rest of your edits here, but suffice it to say that they all involve you removing mentions of Italian or Austrian influence on French cuisine, often engaging in edit wars in the process.

Please stop.

Stephen Hui (talk) 06:36, 7 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Hello Stephen Hui,
 * I am sorry if I did something wrong, I am still not familiar with everything in Wikipedia but I am reading all the information I found to try to improve.
 * Regarding my edits, I am focusing on articles where I think I have something to add. My background is in History, and I have worked on different topics related with culinary History. I have access to a good collection of literature on this subject.
 * I have noticed that some articles describe an Italian origin of some French dishes that is not supported by anything but popular legends. That is why I have written a draft about the so called “Italian myth in French cuisine”, which is not a disputed theory as you said.
 * Ravioli- I did not said that I hadn’t read the document. I have provided a source mentioning that the word raviole is found in a document from 1228, the other user provided the source of my source.
 * Profiterole and Choux pastry – The sources you mention were not added by me. I did not provide a source after my modification, I will provide one now. Xiaomichel (talk) 09:23, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't have time to comb through all of your references, but I did look at the two you added to profiterole. One of them gave a 404 error (i.e. the page you cited doesn't exist); for the sake of argument, let's take you at your word that the other supports your point.
 * Even if it does, that doesn't make it appropriate to delete all the other citation-supported statements in the article and replace them with your own contradictory ones. You say that the "Italian myth in French cuisine [...] is not a disputed theory", but by definition it is given that there are many, many reputable sources cited in the various articles you've edited that contradict the your assertions of various foods being of French origin.
 * You can't unilaterally delete information that you disagree with from Wikipedia articles if it's supported by references to reputable sources. If your disagreement is also supported by reputable sources, both perspectives should be discussed in the article until such time that there's consensus in the literature.
 * From what I can tell, you're advocating for a fringe theory (that many foods believed to be of Italian, Austrian, or other origin in fact originated in France), and deleting statements to the contrary instead of supplementing them. I also want to note that, since I posted my comment above, you've engaged in further edit wars in cornetto, hummus, and agnolotti, and resumed your previous edit war in ravioli.
 * As mentioned above, your editing behaviour meets both the definitions of both a single-purpose account and a tendentious editor.
 * Stephen Hui (talk) 04:37, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Further to the above -- I went through the article on tendentious editing and noted that you're exhibiting all of the following characteristics of problem editors noted in that article:
 * Adding citations that are inadequate, ambiguous or not sufficiently explicit
 * Repeating the same argument without convincing people
 * Deleting the pertinent cited additions of others
 * Righting great wrongs
 * Because of that:
 * Information icon4.svg There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
 * Stephen Hui (talk) 05:04, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi Stephen,
 * Once again, I don't see what is tendencious in bringing a reliable reference to make a modification in an article.
 * I am of course open to discussion in each article you want to discuss.
 * P.D: I don't see which reference gives error in the article profiterole. Xiaomichel (talk) 08:26, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Add Cornetto to the list too, claims them to be an Italian variation of French Croissants rather then Austrian Kipferls. Silverleaf81 (talk) 11:02, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Agnolotti
Agnolotti are known all over the world for being an Italian pasta, and in particular from Piedmont. The fact that in France there is a dish called agnous/agnolos/whataver does not mean that agnolotti are typical of France, but it is more probable that Italian cuisine has influenced French cuisine. Furthermore the source you have provided doesn't shed light on it. Please try to be objective. Frukko (talk) 09:35, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

May 2023
Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. 94.34.179.231 (talk) 14:10, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Agnolotti
Please do not make another revert on this page or I'll block you as well. Please discuss on the talk page. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 14:20, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

May 2023
 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for Disruptive editing, and likely sockpuppetry.. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page:. Courcelles (talk) 12:23, 23 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Xiaomichel (talk) 12:37, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I have read about sockpuppetry and I am not the same user as Juan.Alvarez6, don't you have a way to check it? Xiaomichel (talk) 13:17, 23 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Michel, thanks for your email. I'm very busy right now, but I'll try to look into this next week. --Macrakis (talk) 18:02, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Indeed we do. And the technical data says otherwise. Courcelles (talk) 18:18, 30 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I don't have time to look into your edits in detail. It does seem that you need to learn more about the Wikipedia culture of collaborative editing and other Wikipedia policies. Good luck, --Macrakis (talk) 13:35, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: The Italian Myth in French Cuisine (August 30)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by DoubleGrazing was:

The comment the reviewer left was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:The Italian Myth in French Cuisine and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
 * If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/New_question&withJS=MediaWiki:AFCHD-wizard.js&page=Draft:The_Italian_Myth_in_French_Cuisine Articles for creation help desk], on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DoubleGrazing&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:The_Italian_Myth_in_French_Cuisine reviewer's talk page] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:31, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Your email
Xiaomichel, I just looked over the SPI and the accounts I blocked. You mentioned two that I blocked, but there are four others. If you did not understand that you were not allowed to create new accounts, well that's puzzling: in May, you responded to saying you had "looked into" what sockpuppetry was. The first sentence in Sockpuppetry says it clearly: "the misuse of multiple Wikipedia accounts", and that is what you did. You may disagree with the "abuse" part, but from where we're standing (and I think I can speak for Courcelles and others here) it is abuse: you used multiple accounts to edit war over what you think the articles should say. With that behavior you have exacerbated what may have already been a problem and it certainly is one now--with multiple IPs fighting over content and sources, sometimes from a nationalist point of view; it's a true mess.Your question, can I get a second chance, that's easily answered: of course. Here is the thing: given the multitude of blocks and and the work done by so many administrators (including, , and , there is no way that I would ever unilaterally make any decision, even if I wanted to. That is also part of the collaborative aspect of our beautiful project, whose importance was pointed out to you by User:Stephen Hui, earlier. For now, what is available to you is WP:Standard offer, and I encourage you to read that carefully and stick to it. The last account I see that you created is User:Laketic (other CUs may have seen other more recent things), on 8 August, so that's when the six-month clock would start ticking--except, of course, if there's credible evidence that you have edited as an IP since then. But when you read OFFER, you'll see that there are three conditions that need to be met. I trust you understand what to do, and what not to do--really, just stay away from Wikipedia from that period, at least from editing. If you are back, and your unblock request is granted, you should be aware that your edits (sourcing, etc.) and your editing behavior (edit warring etc.) will be scrutinized. Good luck. Drmies (talk) 16:19, 22 September 2023 (UTC)


 * @Drmies, thanks for your response. The other accounts are mine except for Melissa.Tolu, which is not mine, and Juan.Alvarez6 and Aila.Rot, which are also not mine. When I said that I did not know that it was not allowed to create a new account I was talking after my block but now I know that it is also not allowed. I never used another account before being blocked.
 * I understand that I was blocked due to suspicion of being Juan.Alvarez6, which is not my account. I find this a bit unfair, but I now understand that creating a new account after being blocked is also not allowed. I had asked in May if the case could be reconsidered, but unfortunately, it was not. Anyway, I am grateful to know that a second chance is possible, and I would like to take this opportunity to apologize for any inconvenience caused. I will make sure to adhere to the guidelines and rules in the future. Looking forward to the possibility of being unblocked in six months! Xiaomichel (talk) 15:10, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Correction: you were blocked by primarily for disruptive editing (and he likely was thinking of the edit warring). It may well be that an admin, in a couple of months, might consider imposing a WP:1RR restriction. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 15:57, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I have nothing against WP:1RR, I didn't really edit-war if you consider I am not Juan.Alvarez6. Xiaomichel (talk) 16:21, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Italian Myth
Hello, Xiaomichel. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Italian Myth, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again&#32;or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 14:02, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Sylvain Claudius Goy for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sylvain Claudius Goy 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/Sylvain Claudius Goy until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. Belbury (talk) 15:10, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:The Italian Myth in French Cuisine
Hello, Xiaomichel. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:The Italian Myth in French Cuisine, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again&#32;or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 21:07, 2 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much. Xiaomichel (talk) 08:30, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Unblock discussion
You've not addressed the WP:socking &#45;- Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:48, 11 March 2024 (UTC)


 * So, you will at least need to agree to a single account restriction. Others will also have opinions. &#45;- Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:50, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Of course. I am asking to be unblocked on this account and not on the sock accounts I created. I will use only one account. I am fully aware that the creation of multiple accounts is against the rules. Xiaomichel (talk) 09:55, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * User:Deepfriedokra, I see no evidence of misbehavior, and I'm fine with an unblock. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:48, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * One account/1RR would be my conditions. Courcelles (talk) 15:49, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I accept these conditions. Xiaomichel (talk) 10:19, 13 March 2024 (UTC)