Jump to content

User talk:LouisPhilippeCharles

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

December 2010

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for for moving articles despite previous restrictions on doing so, after discussion at WP:ANI.. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Jclemens (talk) 19:48, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LouisPhilippeCharles, do not delete this section. When your block is over, if you want to, you may archive it as you did with the section containing you last block).

Take note of what Favonian wrote in the ANI section "LouisPhilippeCharles indefinite block?":[1]

Support re-instatement of block, with a clear message that further transgressions will likely result in an indefinite block, bearing in mind LPC's talents for interpreting messages his own way. Favonian (talk) 17:10, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

When you start editing again, if you do not keep to your pledge:[2]

"[I] agree not to make any more article moves without using Requested move under the provisions of "controversial and potentially controversial moves", Truly. LPC (talk) 22:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

the likely result will be an indefinite block. -- PBS (talk) 05:59, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How to edit during a block

People, is there a way to allow me to edit my personal pages? Such as User:LouisPhilippeCharles/Random Sandbox or User:LouisPhilippeCharles/Anne Marie d'Orléans? I still want to work on them :) LPC (talk) 02:36, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think such a mechanism exists, but I don't see why you couldn't do that work right here on this page and/or on your own PC using Notepad or whatever. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:20, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've been told off for doing it on this page =| I like to preview work while editing, thats why I asked. Oh the pain LPC (talk) 14:13, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to see a diff or two of that. And you can easily preview from this page along with a notepad document. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:16, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LPC you can develop an article on your talk page without saving the developments on this talk page, but instead saving the changes to your own personal computer. Click on the new [section button] at the top of this page then:

  • Step 1. Edit the new section in the usual way, using the [Show preview] button but do NOT use the [Save page] button, instead copy and past you text into a text editor on your own personal computer (PC) and save it to disk on your own PC. Then press [cancel] to the right of [show changes] at the bottom of the Wikipedia page.
  • Step 2. When you want to come back to the text to develop it further open the saved file with you text editor on your PC, copy the text into the cut and past buffer of you PC. Click on the new [section button] at the top of this page and past the text into it. Repeat Step one.

-- PBS (talk) 07:51, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry

ANI now archived Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive658#LouisPhilippeCharles avoiding block -- PBS (talk) 09:21, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LPC do not save article development on this page during a block. You have already been warned not to do this by another administrator. If you do this again I will revert the edit and block you access to this page.

I suggest very strongly that you address the issue of Sockpuppetry or your account will be blocked indefinitely. -- PBS (talk) 23:42, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it was Sockpuppetry, no one would have known, that is the point of it surely. However, I do agree, but its not like I can while in my exile LPC (talk) 00:11, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You can address it right here, and someone can post it on ANI or wherever it's currently being discussed. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:33, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. This is the 3rd time you have violated your one-month block by using a sockpuppet to edit article content as reported here: LouisPhilippeCharles avoiding block 3rd time. Please do not remove this notice until action has been taken, so that admins following up may see that you were notified of the ANI notice on your talk page as required. FactStraight (talk) 08:05, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You have been blocked from editing for a period of one month for evading your block - note that the period of one month has been reset due to this, and you will be blocked for one month from today. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:34, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You were given specific instructions on how to build edits while you're blocked; admins have told you repeatedly what not to do; yet you keep defying the rules and getting re-blocked. How badly do you want to edit on wikipedia? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:38, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ANI section now archived: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive660#LouisPhilippeCharles avoiding block 3rd time -- PBS (talk) 08:34, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

January 2011

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistent block evasion. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Favonian (talk) 23:12, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

And just for the record: WP:ANI#LouisPhilippeCharles blocked indefinitely. Favonian (talk) 23:15, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The thread has now been archived as WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive663#LouisPhilippeCharles blocked indefinitely. Favonian (talk) 23:11, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LouisPhilippeCharles propagating socks

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. The creation of new socks to continue editing Wikipedia despite being under an indefinite block continues as most recently reported here. FactStraight (talk) 04:36, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The ANI section name is User:LouisPhilippeCharles propagating socks -- PBS (talk) 06:59, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page locked

On the talk page User talk:I'm From England you asked why this page was locked. I asked for you at ANI. See the section "Locked talk page" for an answer.

All access by this account was locked across all Wikipedias at 23:29, 23 December 2010 (see lock log). This was done because not not only did you abuse your account on the English Wikipedia you were also blocked on the German Wikipedia for block avoidance and Italian Wikipeida vandalism. It appears to me that in both cases, as happened on the English Wikipedia, you were initially blocked for inappropriate page moves.[3] [4]

As advised on User talk:I'm From England you will have to email the Arbitration Committee if you want the block lifted. -- PBS (talk) 11:33, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Dauphines of France (House of Bourbon)

Template:Dauphines of France (House of Bourbon) has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:47, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Give some sympathy people

I don't know if I'm allow to say this, but I just want to say you are guys are being a little bit hard on him. I've gotten into many arguements with him and disagree on a lot of issues, but I think he should be given another chance. I think his main problem was fighting with people over names of articles and moving pages. But he's did improve on discussing some of his moves. Just wanted to give my opinion.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 07:17, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you joking?
  • de Wikipedia 16 July: de:User:Sümpf indeffed for persistent page move problems
  • en Wikipedia 8 August: 1-day block for edit warring
  • en Wikipedia 21 October: Indefinite block for refusal to stop disruptive moving.
  • en Wikipedia 23 October: Conditional unblock
  • en Wikipedia 31 October: 2-day block for technical breach of unblock conditions plus edit warring
  • en Wikipedia 3 November: Odd vandalism by User:Sümpf on circumcised
  • en Wikipedia 8 November: 2-day block for breach of unblock conditions
  • en Wikipedia 13 November: 1-week block for breach of unblock conditions
  • en Wikipedia 21 November: 1-month block for breach of unblock conditions
  • en Wikipedia 23 November: Conditional unblock
  • de Wikipedia 23 November: indeffed as a sock of de:Benutzer:Sümpf [5]
  • GLOBALLY indeffed [6]
  • en Wikipedia 8 December: 1-month block for breach of unblock conditions, indef considered (ANI consensus [7])
  • en Wikipedia 17-18 December: socking (User:80.229.25.1)
  • en Wikipedia 19 December: User's previous account indeffed for sock evasion [8]
  • it Wikipedia 24 December: 1-year block for persistent page moves against conventions [9]
  • en Wikipedia 28 December: Block reset for socking [10] "If it happens again, what's the standard penalty?" -- "At that point I'd indeff him." (Arbitrator Elen of the Roads)
  • en Wikipedia 4-7 January: socking (User:86.140.6.242)
  • en Wikipedia 7 January: block made indef for socking [11]
  • en Wikipedia 17 January: socking (User:I'm From England)
  • en Wikipedia 18-22 January: socking (User:85.226.44.57)
  • en Wikipedia 24 January: socking [12]
  • en Wikipedia 26 January: socking (User:Mlle Fuji)
  • en Wikipedia 26 January: Blocked sock trying to get talk page access for main account to request unblock, while editing as IP [13]
  • en Wikipedia 2 February: socking (User:90.193.109.129)
  • en Wikipedia 7-8 February: socking (User:90.193.109.82)
  • en Wikipedia 10 February: socking (User:Nit Wit Woo)
  • simple Wikipedia 13 February: sock indeffed (simple:User:LPC)
  • simple Wikipedia 14 February: indeffed for socking
  • en Wikipedia 15-16 February: socking (User:Picture Perfect Prince, User:90.193.109.148)
  • simple Wikipedia 17-18 February: socking (simple:User:Picture Perfect Prince)
  • en Wikipedia 17-18 February: socking (User:Peaceingalaxy)
  • en Wikipedia 19 February: socking (User:80.229.25.1)
  • en Wikipedia 20 February: socking (User:86.154.7.124)
  • en Wikipedia 21 February: socking (User:81.148.220.158)
  • en Wikipedia 7 March: socking (User:LittleFrog)
  • en Wikipedia 2-21 March: socking (User:Peaceingalaxy)
  • en Wikipedia 22 March: continues socking (User:98.204.152.203)
The account is currently blocked globally. Local wikis can opt out of a global block, but I am not sure if we have ever done that, and it would be extremely unrealistic under the circumstances. Hans Adler 09:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Hans, thanks for providing the summary. Looking at your list, I seem to remember that Peaceingalaxy (talk · contribs) was unblocked as a false positive. PhilKnight (talk) 19:27, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Affirmative. Regarding LPC, he has been told numerous times that his only way to redemption goes through ArbCom. As a fresh start would probably require some six months of abstaining from sockpuppetry, he's not doing so well. I Really Love Cheese (talk · contribs) is the most recent named sock, and there are almost daily occurrences of IP socks. Favonian (talk) 19:35, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Forum-shopping any other mailing list from User:173.26.239.108 vs. ArbCom would be barking up the wrong tree.   — Jeff G.  ツ 21:35, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Abbesses

Category:Abbesses, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. KarlB (talk) 02:27, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE

Please, reverted my editions of Carlo Emanuele Ruspoli. He contacted me for changes.--Enredados (talk) 13:52, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moves made by two known sockpuppets

Reverting the moves has not been completed the ticks represent reversals of moves (PBS (talk) 20:01, 15 June 2012 (UTC)):[reply]

HammyDoo moves (108)
Templatier moves (126)

checkYAll moves reverted PBS (talk) 18:38, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

checkYAll these moves have been reverted. -- PBS (talk) 18:38, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Socks on more than one Wikipedia

See the section "Locked talk page" All access by this account was locked across all Wikipedias at 23:29, 23 December 2010 (see lock log).

I am going through the 200+ page moves instigated by the sockpuppets of LouisPhilippeCharles that have been active this year. I have recently reverted the move that was made by user:HammyDoo a known sock puppet of LouisPhilippeCharles.

HammyDoo moved Claire-Clémence de Maillé-Brézé to Claire Clémence de Maillé at 15:12 on 18 March 2012‎. At hour later at 16:19 (18 March 2012‎), EmausBot modified the same page (Robot: Modifying ca:Clara Clementina de Maillé, it:Claire-Clémence de Maillé, sv:Claire-Clémence de Maillé) this is a clear indication that LouisPhilippeCharles is also operating sockpuppets on other Wikipedia:

I am putting in an ANI on this so that administrators on other language Wikipedias can be informed of your socking on other language Wikiepdias -- PBS (talk) 20:01, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request for a ban

I am putting in an ANI suggesting that User:LouisPhilippeCharles is banned. -- PBS (talk) 20:01, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have put in a herculean effort cleaning up the mess that LouisPhilippeCharles continues to add to daily on this and other Wikipedias -- while pleading to be unblocked using anons. Thank you! Please update this page regarding the ANI ban suggestion. FactStraight (talk) 23:58, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Archived: [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive756#LouisPhilippeCharles ban -- PBS (talk) 18:50, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
see also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LouisPhilippeCharles/Archive -- PBS (talk)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Duchess of Nemours

Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Duchess of Nemours, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Arrinera Automotive and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Duchess of Nemours during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Illia Connell (talk) 04:01, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Philip Emmanuel, Prince of Piedmont

Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Philip Emmanuel, Prince of Piedmont, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Mortal Kombat (2013 Film) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Philip Emmanuel, Prince of Piedmont during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Illia Connell (talk) 20:51, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Louis Charles de La Tour d'Auvergne

Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Louis Charles de La Tour d'Auvergne, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Group of stale articles from Article Incubator and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Louis Charles de La Tour d'Auvergne during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Illia Connell (talk) 01:47, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Louis Charles de La Tour d'Auvergne

Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Louis Charles de La Tour d'Auvergne, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Louis Charles de La Tour d'Auvergne and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Louis Charles de La Tour d'Auvergne during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Illia Connell (talk) 19:08, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Amalia d'Este

Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Amalia d'Este, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Amalia d'Este and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Amalia d'Este during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Illia Connell (talk) 19:45, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Countess of Soissons

Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Countess of Soissons, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Countess of Soissons and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Countess of Soissons during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Illia Connell (talk) 19:48, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Marie Charlotte de la Trémoille

Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Marie Charlotte de la Trémoille, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Marie Charlotte de la Trémoille and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Marie Charlotte de la Trémoille during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Illia Connell (talk) 20:02, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

LPC originally appealed to in June 2015 to me by e-mail after an UTRS decline, at which point he inquired about the Standard Offer. At that moment, I told him that 6 months with no Wikipedia interaction at all would mean that any unblock request wouldn't be evaluated at all before December. He then wrote back to me in December after 6 months of staying away. While I am fully aware of the history of this user, the six months of staying away does demonstrate some willingness to work within the rules of Wikipedia, and although the relentlessness with which he petioned me to unblock gives me pause, I am reluctantly ready to approve an unblock with strict conditions, to WP:AGF some WP:ROPE in the spirit of the holidays. However, this request is on hold pending his on-wiki committment with the conditions we discussed, which are as follow:

  • Only ever use a single account, this one (User:LouisPhilippeCharlesNew, because the password to the original LPC account is lost without e-mail)
  • No pagemove whatsoever, under any circumstance, for an indefinite period (appealable after a year). This does not prevent LPC to propose or comment on move discussions, and if he wishes to have a page moved, he must start a requested move discussion.

Failure to adhere by either of these unblock restrictions is ground for an immediate indefinite reblock. LPC, please post underneath to confirm your acceptance of these unblock conditions.

Accept reason:

Per below acceptance of unlock conditions. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:45, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am and will be happy to do so in order to return, thank you! LouisPhilippeCharlesNew (talk) 17:36, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edit to Maria Fortunata d'Este

Hello, and thank you for your recent contribution. I appreciate the effort you made for our project, but unfortunately I had to undo your edit because I believe the article was better before you made that change. Feel free to contact me directly if you have any questions. Thank you! CatcherStorm talk 20:49, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edit to Margravine Auguste of Baden-Baden

Hello, and thank you for your recent contribution. I appreciate the effort you made for our project, but unfortunately I had to undo your edit because I believe the article was better before you made that change. Feel free to contact me directly if you have any questions. Thank you! CatcherStorm talk 20:49, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edit to Louise Françoise de Bourbon, Duchess of Bourbon

Information icon Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Louise Françoise de Bourbon, Duchess of Bourbon, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! Caballero//Historiador ☊ 20:49, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edit to Louise Diane d'Orléans

Hello, and thank you for your recent contribution. I appreciate the effort you made for our project, but unfortunately I had to undo your edit because I believe the article was better before you made that change. Feel free to contact me directly if you have any questions. Thank you! CatcherStorm talk 20:51, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edit to Louise Françoise de Bourbon, Duchess of Bourbon

Information icon Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Louise Françoise de Bourbon, Duchess of Bourbon, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! Caballero//Historiador ☊ 20:56, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reblocked

As you have returned from a long term indefinite block to carry on the same behaviour as you were blocked for, I'm going to stop your editing and bring it to the community for review - There will be an AN thread presently. WormTT(talk) 21:14, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]


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

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

Request reason:

Goodness. That was hardly an edit war. I reverted his edits after I contacted HIM to explain WHY (on his page AND in the edit description.) Good lord. Innocent. This is a bit dramatic to be honest. I have an overwhelming sense that you're jumping on anything. Look. In future I won't do anything. I've waited this long to come back. And I don't want it taken away from me again. It's not fair. LouisPhilippeCharlesNew (talk) 21:48, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You were blocked for continuing the same behavior that got you blocked to begin with; that is what you need to address, not some "edit war" which isn't in the block rationale. This is also a pro forma decline since there's an AN thread. Drmies (talk) 13:44, 30 December 2015 (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.

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive277#LouisPhilippeCharlesNew -- PBS (talk) 15:01, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please, give me strength.

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).

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

Request reason:

Ok. Not only is this unfair this is borderline immature. Regarding the page on the Duchess of Bourbon. The guy was simply confused about my edits and even said if he was wrong I could revert them. I did. I then explained and justified WHY. Then all seemed fine. I have a sneaking suspicion that this is all working in favour of the ironically named "User:FactStraight". The Duchess in question was a duchess by marriage, a princess of the blood to. By French law at the time. It is that simple. No more. No less. Regardless. We're not children here. Treat me like a human being maybe?


ALSO. In my heyday. I created over 200 articles on here including entire family lines. Nobody takes that into account. I also fail to understand this seeming obsession with adding words of vague relevance to peoples names and pages. If anything Wikipedia is the first place a person would come to for information on hundreds of subjects. The least we could do is try to make sure it is logical information that is not misleading or contradictory For example Louise Marie Adélaïde de Bourbon-Penthièvre, Duchess of Orléans with should just be Louise Marie Adélaïde de Bourbon. We can see that on the signature by her own hand. NOR did I actually violate ANY of the conditions stated by User:Salvidrim!. Lastly, looking around User:PBS seems to be a troublemaker. LouisPhilippeCharlesNew (talk) 19:16, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your unblock conditions said very clearly: no pagemoves whatsoever. With your first content edit after being unblocked, you blatantly gamed this restriction, "renaming" people in a navbox instead. Considering that you were originally blocked for refusal to follow consensus, this is extremely inappropriate and just an evidence that you weren't intending to play by rules. In any case, the ANI discussion is strongly favoring a community ban, so this unblock request coundn't be accepted. Max Semenik (talk) 05:18, 31 December 2015 (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.


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).

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

Request reason:

I think renaming a PAGE and (incorrect) links/names in a TEMPLATE are pretty different things. If one cannot change a link in a template then what is the point in being a registered member of a project that has a tagline implying one can edit anything anytime? You are nitpicking. Maybe if that had actually been clarified at the time I would not have done that considering it is such a crime. Anyway my above comment is correct. Lastly. I waited for 6 months in order to be able to return and I did that perfectly well so I'm hardly the psychotic madman I'm being portrayed as. This is silly and juvenile. I honestly am serious about wanting to help/contribute, as I said earlier I made dozens of articles and categories etc and was good at doing so. Nobody takes the time to acknowledge that do they? LouisPhilippeCharlesNew (talk) 17:33, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

As MaxSem said above, whether you will be unblocked will be decided at the ANI discussion. You are welcome to comment here and have the comments moved to the ANI discussion; requesting an unblock here is pointless. Huon (talk) 19:15, 2 January 2016 (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.


This is genuinely ridiculous.

Oh ok. Sorry I didn't see that that MaxSem had said that (I'm 75% blind) alas, yes. like I said above I waited for six months taking me to December without editing anything and I maintained that. Surely that is at least a tiny indication of my commitment to Wikipedia. I sense there are some users on her that desperate to keep me blocked and unable to edit but that says more about them than it does me. I'm hardly a vandal. I edited furiously the other day due to raw excitement. That simple. I'm not a bad person and I think we need to remember that I am in fact a person. There are also clearly users on here that will do anything in their power to try to keep me away. This is all so wrong. LouisPhilippeCharlesNew (talk) 19:23, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Community ban

I've closed the aforementioned discussion as ban and enacted it on this account. Please refer to WP:BAN about what that means. Permanent link to discussion. Max Semenik (talk) 20:07, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page access revoked

As a banned user, you're not supposed to be editing here, thus I've reverted your rant and revoked your access to editing this page. I also revoked your email access as you emailed me a similar rant. Max Semenik (talk) 22:03, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stop hand
Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

Greetings

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).

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

Request reason:

Hello, thought I'd have another go at begging regardless of not really done anything wrong. Obviously I have an anonymous IP now as User:MaxSem revoked my right to edit my talk page which isn't spiteful in the slightest is it. Anyway yes. I will quite literally beg till my dying day as like I said I've not really done anything wrong. I don't really get it. I edited a few pages in the thirty seconds I was able to do so. Then I have the account that was SET UP FORE ME BY AN ADMINISTRATOR BLOCK. I genuinely do not get this it almost seems like Wikipedia is not actually a collective resource but a hobby for a small collection of people who have the right to say, do, treat others as they wish. I think what infuriates me the most is that in the time I was able to edit freely (I mean years ago for the record) I made at least 250 articles, at the very least but nobody sees that do they? They just see the name LouisPhilippeCharles and think "God not him". Which is unfair. I am actually a living person believe it or not. Another thing that annoys me is the fact that I'd ensure that the page I was editing at that point had references etc i.e. proving that the person or thing had that name and other relevant information This refers mainly to people I must admit. A PERFECT example of this is the stupidly titled page called Louise Marie Adélaïde de Bourbon-Penthièvre, Duchess of Orléans. Yes in fact she was the/a Duchess of Orléans, however her name was SIMPLY Louise Marie Adélaïde de Bourbon. I actually uploaded said woman's signature years ago to prove this valid point. I do not see the point in trivialising things particularly when 90% of the time a person would find themselves on Wikipedia when looking for information on a majority of subjects. The least users could do is ensure they put the correct information on that particular page. Again. This is unfair and I was a darn good editor and will categorically not be made to feel like I' am/wasn't. Lastly Remove the "Sockpuppet" rubbish from my user-page please, again this account was set up for me by an administrator. I had no choice in the name. I even asked for a name as LPC unrelated as possible but there wasn't time and by the time I could edit I didn't care out of sheer jubilation. Nor did I actually have time to request a name change due to whoever it was that blocked me with minutes. Whoever reads this, please realise I am a fellow person with feelings and I'm very disappointed with Wikipedia due to this. (Well more some of the people on there/here I should say) I pray you'll listen and at least try to understand. Also I had a brain injury due to 5 strokes which is partly responsible for my total inability to give up on anything/let something go. As a result I have a fair bit of time on my hands and would be more than happy to invest that time in Wikipedia sharing knowledge with others. Signed LouisPhilippeCharlesNew AKA Thomas Benjamin Harding (I'm a person, look me up on Facebook if you think I'm lying.)

Decline reason:

Unblock requests cannot be accepted when you are not logged in. As you do not have the ability to edit this talk page when you are logged in, you will need to appeal via WP:UTRS. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:58, 17 March 2016 (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.

Nomination for deletion of Template:Children of Louis XIV

Template:Children of Louis XIV has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. ~ RobTalk 09:20, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Princes of Lorraine

Template:Princes of Lorraine has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:30, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS 48164

User has requested unblocking under a different account via UTRS appeal #48164. The stewards have assured me via irc that there is a very good chance they would unlock if there is a successful unblock request --Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:07, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that the individual is community banned - under LouisPhilippeCharlesNew - See AN WormTT(talk) 09:39, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Worm That Turned: Indeed. Which means that should user construct an unblock request likely to succeed, someone, likely me, will need to schlepp it to WP:AN. We'll also need a check user. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:00, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • (copied from my talk) For what it's worth, the ceaseless flow of insults interwoven with pleading from this guy has been neverending since 2015 in my e-mail inbox and other social media platforms. (Non-administrator comment) Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 20:19, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Electresses of Württemberg

A tag has been placed on Category:Electresses of Württemberg indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz Read! Talk! 17:15, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hereditary Grand Dukes of Oldenburg has been nominated for merging

Category:Hereditary Grand Dukes of Oldenburg has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:08, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Electoral Princesses of Hanover has been nominated for merging

Category:Electoral Princesses of Hanover has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:27, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Princess Maria Pia of Bourbon-Two Sicilies (disambiguation)

Notice

The article Princess Maria Pia of Bourbon-Two Sicilies (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unnecessary dab page resolved by hatnote on both pages.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LouisPhilippeCharles&oldid=1175334378"