Oliv0

A belated welcome!

Sorry for the belated welcome, but the cookies are still warm!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Oliv0. 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 benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article
• Editor's index to Wikipedia

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! Shirt58 (talk) 02:58, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

UPR et Asselineau

Un blog hébergé par Agoravox ou des sources émanant du site upr.fr ne sont pas de qualité encyclopédiques.--84.100.171.95 (talk) 23:47, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

VK picture

Thank you for the notice, the file's been fixed. MiewEN (talk) 00:36, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

ANI notification

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Threat of Outing / Personal Attacks. Thank you. Blackmane (talk) 02:19, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. D0kkaebi (talk) 04:36, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#General_discussion

I'll let you in on a little secret: I am not a native speaker of English, and I appreciate the compliment. Drmies (talk) 14:46, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Help me!

Hello to all, I am using the link "use this link to ask for help" suggested at the top of the COI/N page: please help me with the form and content of this request on WP:COI/N, an attempt to determine a COI after I mentioned the COI on a talk page, which the COI editor reported on WP:AN/I as "outing" (as well as on WP:AN/3RR after my single undo). Now both of these WP:AN are archived without admin action after much useless talk and digression, and I would like the COI/N not to go the same way.

Could editors experimented with COIs summarize the arguments and links given by Azurfrog on COI/N and by other reported editors on WP:AN/I? This should be done in a way compatible with not WP:OUTING (choosing which details, if any, are to delete and WP:oversight and mail to WP:FUNC), and mainly without the digressions (use {{hidden}}?) and with the kind of clear argumentation that people are waiting for on COI/N. So where the method or logics for asserting the COI are not clear, just ask and I or Azurfrog can clarify. Thanks in advance.

Oliv0 (talk) 15:18, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

As they say, discuss the edits, not the editor. If the only problem were that that editor is a party functionary and hasn't disclosed it (which he isn't required to do, unless he comes under the "paid contribution without disclosure" clause of the Terms of Use), we could ignore the CoI. I assume the problem, which you surely can substantiate by diffs, is that D0kkaebi's edits are non-neutral and promote the party in a way that couldn't be expected from an uninvolved editor. Right now I'm not sure I see that, but the COIN thread is a good place to easily put out the clearest evidence that D0kkaebi has interests other than Wikipedia's at heart - and by "evidence" I don't mean personal information, but past edits to articles, or proposals of such edits. Huon (talk) 19:18, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

@Huon: This is not what I read on WP:COI at WP:COIBIAS, so I will surely not replay the useless squabbling on both AN threads mentioned, and if nothing helps to avoid {{COI}}-contributed articles about a little-known French party and party leader, well the world will not fall apart. Oliv0 (talk) 20:10, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't see how providing specific evidence that supports claims of unhelpful, promotional behaviour on Wikipedia can lead to greater squabbling than innuendo without evidence, which is most I've seen so far. Huon (talk) 20:15, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

@Huon: I do not intend on COI/N to claim anything about POV, only about COI, per WP:COIBIAS "A person is judged to have a conflict of interest on the basis of being in a conflicted situation" and WP:COI "Conflict of interest is not about actual bias". Oliv0 (talk) 11:20, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

If you don't want to make claims about actual bias, why do you care about the COI? If there are no problems in D0kkaebi's edits, why does it matter? If there are problems, why not address those? Huon (talk) 19:07, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

@Huon: All started from what I described above and on COI/N: I cared about actual bias, I undid it and realized that the user very much in control of present and archived talk pages is not an unknown one but the same one whose COI had been shown on the French AfD. As can be seen on the French WP (I edit little on the English WP), I do not like to attack or complain and I like to analyse problems and propose consensus, still in this case I want D0kkaebi's COI to be determined on COI/N, because he will continue complaining that French WP users are politically biased against his party (totally unknown in France), want to impose the French WP on the English WP and consider the article their WP:own (which he considers), collecting sympathy from outsiders, until {{Connected contributor}} on the talk pages where he is the main contributor and {{COI}} on the articles affected will hopefully allow normal use of the talk pages again. By contrast, endlessly exchanging lists of diffs with little good WP:faith like so far on WP:COI/N, on WP:AN/I and on WP:AN/3RR is not a job for me, maybe Azurfrog might want to do it but I would not recommend it, it will lead nowhere and it is not my view of what WP should be. Oliv0 (talk) 08:38, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Taharrush gamea

re your edit

thanks for helping, but this

<ref name="harass" group="harassmap-org">{{cite journal |url = http://harassmap.org/en/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Reconceptualizing-Sexual-Harassment-in-Egypt.pdf|format = pdf|journal = Kohl: A Journal for Body and Gender Research|volume = 1|issue = 1|year = 2015|title = Reconceptualizing Sexual Harassment in Egypt: A Longitudinal Assessment of ''el-Taharrush el-Ginsy'' in Arabic Online Forums and Anti-Sexual Harassment Activism|author = Angie Abdelmonem|pages = 23-41}}</ref>

and

<ref name=":0">[http://harassmap.org/en/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Reconceptualizing-Sexual-Harassment-in-Egypt.pdf Angie Abdelmonem: Reconceptualizing Sexual Harassment in Egypt: A Longitudinal Assessment of el-Taharrush el-Ginsy in Arabic Online Forums and Anti-Sexual Harassment Activism.] In: Kohl: A Journal for Body and Gender Research 1, no. 1 (Summer 2015): 23-41.</ref>

point to the same source. Can you sort this out so we don't mess with each other's edits? Also, while names like ":0" seem to work with wiki software they're no proper XHTML and the help pages recommend using letters of the regular English alphabet--maybe you find the time? I've had enough of this mess...--tickle me 14:24, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

@Tickle me: Yes, I was getting aware of it too: it seems a group="harassmap-org" was intended to separate citations referring to the article by Angie Abdelmonem, but does this deserves such special treatment? Another thing I do not understand is how sourced paragraphs disappeared from a previous version (in section "Occurence", all of "Arab world" and one sentence about Sweden): it said "verification needed" and "improper synthesis", but seemed to be supported by the sources? Oliv0 (talk) 14:36, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I added group="harassmap-org" because some references contain extra information on top of page numbers. I couldn't get it to work without cite ref errors, though. re deleted paras, you might want to reinsert them. --tickle me 14:56, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

@Tickle me: Meanwhile I started to use harvnb to handle pages numbers and "quoted by", if you like it better it is good also for me as a "group=" at the end. Oliv0 (talk) 15:25, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

That's fine with me, thank you. --tickle me 08:06, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Oliv0. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Oliv0. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:ISO 259-2

Template:ISO 259-2 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:08, 13 September 2023 (UTC)