User talk:Seb az86556

GS

Why are you lying to people?  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 15:18, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not "lying". I am making the point that small projects will not have the option to opt out -- we have been informed that the opt-out will be along the same lines as electing local sysops. These decisions are frequently overruled by stewards on procedural grounds. Therefore, very small wikis will have this option in theory, but never in practice. If the proposal was for those small wikis that have no active admins, it would be reasonable. The threshold for inclusion by default is less than 10 local admins; in practice, it means most of these 10 will have been absent for years, the remaining ones will not be able to fulfill procedural requirements. As for my "lying" -- I am trying to a) counter the fact that no-votes are frequently "questioned", whereas "yes"-votes are given blank cheque, and b) get a response to valid concerns that have thus far been ignored. I hope that helps. (And thank you for your asking. If you would like to continue this discussion in the comments-section, I'd be very interested in that. I have hardly been given any feedback with regards to my questions; I have only been told "wrong, wrong, wrong" like everybody else who voted "no". I'm assuming that in those cases where silence/no response followed, my concerns are valid.) Seb az86556 23:14, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Supporters of the proposal implicitly accept the reasoning the proposal presents.

If your fear is that stewards will override local consensus to opt-out then say so. Currently, those statements are rather repugnant lies. I find it offensive that you would believe stewards have so little concern for the voice of the community which elected them. Nonetheless, if you have evidence to support that, then present it.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 00:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

This was overruled on procedural grounds. Opt-out will be no different. Seb az86556 00:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I have revised the wording to make clearer what I mean. As for offensive, I find it offensive that I (and others) are being accused of "lying" and valid concerns are still not being addressed. (Keep up the conversation.) Seb az86556 01:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I see that you have taken out some of your comments. I have done so with mine as well. Again -- I hope that helps. Seb az86556 01:48, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Global Sysops vote validation

Seb, if you want to start adding checkmarks to the ones you've done in the No section - I'd say go for it unless someone objects. Is there a suitable small checkmark template?

Also, for your information I've checked from bottom to top in both lists:

• Yes votes - from PierreAbbat (currently #1402) to Angela (currently #92), excepting previously struck out votes in certain sections which I intend to go back to.
• No votes - from SignorX to Martin Morard (after #118)

I won't be checking for a few hours now, but I'm happy to adopt the checkmark system too. --(RT) 03:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Update: I note that new eligible and ineligible templates have been designed and applied to a few records. But I'm not happy with these at present - I don't want to see existing explanations and links regarding eligibility removed as they are an important record. I shall look into what can be done either to improve them or find an alternative. --(RT) 12:59, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The new templates do contain room for one link - but I have been using a second link as a double check as I don't believe the main checker is 100% reliable; plus the existing explanations are useful, particularly in one or two more complex cases. Also, I want something to indicate that I've rechecked a previously checked record without tampering with original checker's comments or signature.

Actually I was going to suggest that you went through all the records that I've struck out or reinstated to double check those - but you need some way of indicating that you've done that without removing my original comments and signature (striking it out if it's wrong). Does that make sense? --(RT) 14:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

It does. Seb az86556 14:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Good. I'll be out of action for a few hours now - if you can come up with something suitable before I do, please feel free to make a start. --(RT) 14:41, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

What about a very simple template to be placed after the vote just indicating the check something like this? Explanations and links can placed after it where they're needed. Will put something similar on Meta if You think it's OK. Any suggestions welcome. --(RT) 01:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Could change Yes/No to Eligible/Ineligible if that's clearer. --(RT) 01:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Further update: Now modified my suggested template to say Eligible=Yes, Eligible=No or Eligible=any other status and includes the voter's name for clarity. Will this do once moved to Meta? --(RT) 13:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Looks great to me. Seb az86556 14:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, it's now on Meta and ready to use. I've tried it out on a few votes at the bottom of the Yes list. See what you think. If you would like to use it to recheck those I've struck out first that would be good. No need to use the comment field in most cases I think. Perhaps next I should check those at the top of Yes column that I've not done at all; then those that other people have struck out. --(RT) 16:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I see you've tried the new template. Any comments welcome - I'll tweak the design or documentation if necessary. I find having to mark every vote is quite slow - but I think it's probably worth it. --(RT) 01:52, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I've replied re unified accounts on my user page. Also, you may notice that I am no longer going through adding a checked tag to each vote - only where it seems worth annotating. Every vote has nevertheless been checked at least once, so I think we are done once we've agreed on the SUL issue. --(RT) 00:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Just noticed in your last edits a comment next to the vote by Axl - there's a link to their home wiki on their Meta user page [1] - which is supposed to be OK as an alternative.

I think all the votes without an SUL account or a link should have been identified (I've certainly gone through all the Yes lot; I'm fairly certain Nemo Bis did all the No's) - though there's no harm in checking for more. Out of the original 71 identified (and notified) either by me or by Nemo 40 have now responded; I am thinking that we've nearly reached a point where the most of remainder can be struck out as they have had nearly a week. What do you think?

Also, I should complete the last few annotations I planned very soon. Would you be happy if I announced the totals on the Vote talk in the next 24 hours? Or would you prefer an opportunity to do some more checks? --(RT) 01:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I can now see you found a few more in the No column too - so clearly there is more work to be done there. Have you (or will you) notify the ones you found? We will need of course to allow response time too. --(RT) 01:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Here's an example of the notification I used [2]. Nemo used something similar too. I decided not to strike out these votes pending a response. --(RT) 01:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually I think your checks have helped uncover a problem - I was thinking that Nemo had identified all the non-SUL accounts amongst the No's - but obviously not. I'll do a quick check of the No's tomorrow to see if any more were missed - then those will need to told. Slows things down but can't be helped... --(RT) 02:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Most have had a week to respond - I figured that either they would see it quite quickly or maybe over a weekend. I think we'll have to allow about the same to be fair. --(RT) 02:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

OK... so Solicitr was notified already, but it just wasn't noted in the Vote list... If that's the only one, no new notifications are needed and we can wrap things up soon. However I will double-check the No's first just to be absolutely sure. I'll keep you informed here before doing anything. --(RT) 02:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Latest news: I've now rechecked all the No votes to see if any non-SUL votes had been missed. There are 22 more voters without SUL accounts, but who do have links from their Meta page to their home wiki - so no problems there. Then there's Solicitr who had been notified but has not responded. Unfortunately I've had to notify 2 others - so I think we should wait a bit longer before finishing the process. Whilst I'm waiting, I will complete my last planned checks (documenting the invalid votes properly) and note the non-SUL voters I found today. I don't think it's necessary to put a comment next to all the regular eligible voters - I only started doing that so we didn't duplicate our efforts. If you want to do any more of course that's fine. Thanks for your help so far - I will let you know as soon as anything changes. --(RT) 17:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest wrap up end of Sunday - 21st at 23:59 (UTC) - that will give any weekend users a last chance. What do you think? --(RT) 22:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

If you're in agreement I will do a final check on those notified just before that and strike out any non-respondees (a maxiumum 34 now by my last reckoning), and then get someone to protect the Vote list from editing. I'm in the process of drafting something to accompany an announcement of the figures so it can be posted soon afterwards. --(RT) 22:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Yepp, let's do that. They've had enough time. Seb az86556 23:42, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Nearly there. With about 6 hours to the deadline I've struck out those who have not responded - 18 Yes and 14 No votes - but will do a final check nearer the time. You may also notice I decided to put comments next to all the valid votes in the end (just to prove to everyone they're thoroughly checked). If you get a chance you could always look over the votes I struck out in the Yes column (before the template was in use), but really I think we're done. Thanks again. Now we just have to see what happens when the announcement is made... --(RT) 18:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I don't know about an awesome job - it was certainly an awesome task and I'm pleased it's over. But now that I've posted the results, I expect the attempts to move the goalposts will start all over again... --(RT) 01:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

...for your words of support. I'm glad that even though we've disagreed on some things, I still have your trust in this role.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 01:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Disagreeing is part of the game. I was campaigning for my view, you for yours. Seb az86556 01:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Global Sysops "decision"

You may have notice that a decision on the Global Sysops vote has appeared. Do you think this looks like a 'non-partisan review'? Is it reasonable to say a modified version just passes without a new vote? No mention of the 80% issue. I really don't like the look of this. --(RT) 18:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

What did you expect? This was clear from the beginning anyways. Seb az86556 19:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what I expected. I know some people have wanted to do it this way all along. But I did think after everything that's been said, they might at least try to play according to the stated rules. I don't mind losing an argument or a vote, but it's how it is done that matters. --(RT) 23:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Regarding your own global sysop request, is the div a commentary on exclusivity, or is that meaning that you're withdrawing? I'd personally be happy to support you if you're still interested in the position: Just because you limit your activity to a subset of projects that SWMT assists doesn't imply that you're inactive. Last I checked, we're all volunteers anyway, right? :) Kylu 23:05, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

thank you for your words of support Kylu... I decided to let it stand as it is. It is simply strange to see that the well-known regulars are congratulating each other already, while an outsider who doesn't belong here is being ignored and my clear honesty about my intentions is being held against me. Seb az86556 04:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I think (usually) the reason people are slow to vote or do not vote for a couple reasons:

• 1. they honest'y don't know
• 2. The answer the know is probably right isn't what they want to say,
• 3. They are conflicted in what they want to do
• 4. The answer they want to give isn't what they THINK is what "people" want to hear (who "people is can vary wildy, perhaps those they want to impress, perhaps they are afraid to tell the candidate what they really think.)

I'll admit I'm conflicted, but in the end I think you need to do what you think is best, I am very happy that you decided to continue your bid and that you decided to run at all. I will be totally honest and say seeing you put up your bid was a bit of a shock ;) for that doesn't mean it was a bad shock. James (T C) 11:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Though late I want to clarify that I actually supported you. I don't understand whether you or Plineditor got it wrong, but I think overall support is obvious (even if I still think that local sysop would be a better idea, because local is a more responsible position than global for the specific wiki as you are part of the community, were global sysop is more responsible position globaly but an outsider as for each wiki). But overall I trust you as I would trust a pacifist with a gun. Regards! --Egmontaℨ♤ 12:03, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

wikimania-bot

The bot has been writing the notice into several redirects. I fixed it on all Native American wikis, but you need to go back and check all the rest of'em. Seb az86556 08:37, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! If you update the page that the bot is taking the information from Distribution list it would be greatly apprecaited! bastique ^demandez! 16:09, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia logo in each language

Re:your edit, "missing" means that I couldn't pull the text from the globe and put it on the page. As you can see, the text is missing, since it says "ވިކިޕީޑިޔާ/The free encyclopedia". If you could add the "The free encyclopedia" line there, please do so. Cbrown1023 talk 23:39, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I will. Seb az86556 23:53, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Fulfulde Wikipedia Logo

Yáʼátʼééh Seb_az86556, I noticed you made the 2.0 version of the Fulfulde Wikipedia logo (ff.wp). However, it's a bit incorrect - as you can see at ff:Saggitorde huuɓnude, the phrase "saggitorde huubnude" should not have a regular letter b, rather it uses a special letter, ɓ, which has a curled top to indicate a different sound. It looks almost like a rotation of lower-case "g". Is there any chance that, if you have time, you might change it? Ahéheeʼ. --Node ue 05:49, 8 Yaʼiishjááshchilí 2010 (UTC)

Sure. First stop is here. I made the correction. check it. User:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:31, 8 Yaʼiishjááshchilí 2010 (UTC)

Looks good to me...

Weird  Support behavior

Apparently they've modified the action of the  Support template so it no longer seems to serve any purpose outside of certain pages. Can't say I'm fond of the new behavior, but if you want to add distinctiveness to your support on fr33kman's grollbacker vote thingy, you could try {{yes|support}} instead. Have a great day! :) Kylu 01:34, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed. Seems weird to me as well, but the yes-template is reserved for stewards only. Therefore subserviant minions like me are barred from using anything that looks nice :P Seb az86556 02:20, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

(Just to comment that the reason that the template doesn't work on certain pages is because those pages aren't supposed to have people vote on them, so it's to discourage people from treating them like a "vote". Cbrown1023 talk 02:33, 26 July 2010 (UTC))

I see that. I am one of those who rarely take the simple route of slapping that template "commentless" on some page, but I see where that change is coming from. Seb az86556 02:43, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposals for closing projects/Closure of Acehnese Wikipedia

Aha, sorry, apparently I was in the middle of my rant while you closed it. :) Forgive? Kylu 23:49, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I was about to add an even harsher rant, until it dawned on me that I could simply kill this shit :) Seb az86556 23:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

... I don't suppose you want to handle the RFC, do you? :D Kylu 23:54, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

LMFAO. I haven't quite decided on the color of my tombstone yet. Seb az86556 23:55, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Having gotten quite enough guff from them while trying to help, I decided to quit the ace.wikipedia RfC's. Also, I've always been partial to the idea of a black marble tombstone, if that helps. :) Kylu 03:44, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Requests for comment/Minimum voting requirements#Removal of inactive administrators on small projects?

While we assume that "Adminship is no big deal" and "Assume good faith" and other lovely concepts, we do have some concrete examples that people can get positions of technical power and be quite corrupt. Frankly, I've been accused of such before, though I disagree with the assessment. (If I didn't, I'd quit. Fortunately, my confirmation shows that I'm not too bad, apparently.)

A goal for me with this section is to enable projects to rid themselves of corrupt, abusive, or ineffectual admins by themselves without having to create RfC's on Meta which, frankly, seem to be ignored by the vast majority of people from various projects. Happily, you're giving useful ideas that we can use on the proposal.

If you know anyone who would be interested in policy-making and giving their opinion on this, please feel free to invite them. This is, I think, a major issue where stewards are often forced to decide things. The problem is that while we're not allowed to decide things as stewards (certainly we may in any local capacities we have, where that's allowed and appropriate), we're forced to do so because there are no other people with both the technical capacities and willingness to use them on occasion. Staff and sysadmins, for instance, can do anything a steward can, but anything short of a catastrophic emergency with some shortage of stewards will fail to gain their action.

Have a great day! Kylu 02:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I wrote this "removal when inactive"-thing in there because I believe that is has become terribly difficult to get permanent adminship, partially because it seems almost impossible to remove someone from the post. The result is that quite a few of those "smaller" projects officially do have admins, but said people obviously don't give a rat's ass anymore, while the people who now care are forced to run to meta time-and-again to have their temp. adminship renewed. Seb az86556 05:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm really leaning towards "all permissions requested on meta are temporary for a period of a year" or something, which would encourage both use and responsible attitudes towards the permissions. Abuse adminship? Doesn't get renewed. We've asked for a duration on permissions before, like how protection and blocks can have expiry. We'll see. Kylu 11:53, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Removed Vapmachado's section per request diff. I wonder why he didn't want that view on the main page? Kylu 20:30, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Seems like he just wants to ramble. You're being so nice (too nice IMO) to post stuff on his behalf, and now he wants it reverted... wtf? Seb az86556 20:32, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, but recall that I'm the one that is the antagonistic and demanding steward/admin/bureaucrat/whatever! I'm also slowly getting used to being too young/too old, uneducated, rich/poor, or a {{RandomSexualOrientationSlur}} {{RandomEthnicSlur}}, but I'm sure that'll be completely unrel...oh, he already brought up "educating" me, huh. Kylu 21:08, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Nynorsk

Thanks! =) — Jeblad 15:08, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

yeah... the next moron might propose lumping all Germanic wikis together... or better yet, Indo-European.... Seb az86556 15:14, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposals_for_closing_projects/Deletion_of_Moldovan_Wikipedia

Hello. I removed your deletion tag in this discussion. Note that this is not a proposal for closing/blocking the Moldovan Wikipedia (this Wikipedia is already blocked), this is discussion for finally deleting the http://mo.wikipedia.org/ domain and all its content. Please feel free to ad your opinion. Thank you! --Danutz 20:00, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Good news

I think that you would like this... :) Language committee agreed that so called "Incubator extension" could be deployed on Wikipedias in languages with small population of speakers (decisions will be made on case-by-case basis; that will be useful in, I guess, around a year). That would mean that if you make namespace nv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikitonary: -- you would get "virtual project" nv.wiktionary.org which redirects to that namsepace. For more details see: [3]. During the next days I will write longer mail with the explanation of the process. --Millosh 14:55, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

interesting; as long as "nv.wikipedia.org" won't be nuked, it's all good; as I said before, I am not interested in a wiktionary or any of those other "sub-projects". Seb az86556 03:51, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Closing open discussions

Hello, I noticed that you are closing all open discussions based on a new policy. Could you please link to this new policy on the pages as you close them? So that people involved (and any future visitors) can understand what's going on. I'm sure there is a new policy, I just don't know where or what it is, or how it relates to closing open discussions. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja (talk / en) 01:13, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

sure. Seb az86556 01:14, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

That was quick, thanks. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja (talk / en) 01:24, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for closing these discussions. I was about to do that, but you were faster :) SPQRobin (talk) 22:34, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

• On a certain point here, I understand that only current running proposals that were created before the new closing projects policy went live were to be closed. Proposals that were made after the proposal was finalized, i.e. after 17 May 2011, are assumed to have knowledge of and to follow the guidelines there already in place, and should not be closed, such as the Asturianu Wikibooks one which was made in June. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 14:55, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, June 28, but OK, this one's borderline, and now open again. Seb az86556 15:09, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

re:"Mobile View"

see bugzilla:30212.--Shizhao 08:07, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism warning

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The policy makes it clear that proposal discussions last "several weeks". Removing a comment like you did here constitutes as vandalism. Please refresh yourself on our policies and standards here and desist in such inappropriate behavior. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:28, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposal has been rejected; no need to pile on more comments. Seb az86556 16:49, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

No. The proposal cannot be rejected out of process. A drive by labelling of such on the second day is not appropriate and Millosh was notified of that along with other Stewards. Your vandalism is not acceptable and you need to stop now. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:25, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore, "closures" of projects are not a vote nor are people allowed to vote. They are multi week discussions before the WMF Language Committee then takes a vote after their discussion. Only the Language Committee can close the page. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:28, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Whatever. Take it up with Millosh (who, as I understand, is a steward, and I think a member of LangCom as well). There is no need to pile on when a proposal has been rejected. Now stop the vandalism accusations and stay away from my talkpage. Seb az86556 17:38, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

[redacted]

Ottava, people might respond to you better if you didn't accuse them of vandalism, especially when your own comments could be considered mild trolling. Ajraddatz (Talk) 18:48, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

[redacted]

It's Ottava. He's trolling, as he always does. He's being incredibly rude, as always. He will never try to compromise. He will never try to see anyone's point. He will insist, until the bitter end that everyone on the project is a moron, except for him. This is why he's banned on multiple wiki projects. My username says it all... Don'tEvenBother 20:23, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Muitas gracias / Thanks

Muitas gracias por l'aviso. Thank you very much for the warning. Machine translation. --Manuel Trujillo Berges 09:01, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

My Request

Hi Seb az86556. Since I haven't replied yet, I would like that you read this. And please, change you expressions since I'm not a sockpuppet creater. Thank you.--Frigotoni ...i'm here; 19:30, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Changes in article counts

You have new messages

Hello, Seb az86556. You have new messages at Dcljr's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Wikipedia Yucatec Maya

I think that wikipedias should be approval from incubator into wikipedias because majority of people support to open the Yucatec Maya Wikipedias.--Ghoyak 06:53, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure why I'm getting this message. Context? Seb az86556 14:30, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I think you maybe can approval that's language to be a wikipedian.--Aplikasi 10:11, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

That decision is for the language committee to make; I am not a member. Seb az86556 17:14, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Meta-wiki RfC/Us

Hi,

It's not entirely clear to me why you are opposing that point. Perhaps you could explain your reasoning? Because you are an admin on a small wiki, you probably have relevant experience into dispute resolutions in such contexts. Currently the meta-wiki RfC (vague) scope does not prohibit such RfC/Us. And it seems to me that most meta-wiki user RfC/Us have been about conduct in wikis with few users. What is the typical final step in user conduct dispute resolution on small wikis, particularly those involving complaints about admin conduct? I had added that point after seeing Requests_for_comment/Alsandro_on_ka_wikipedia, but perhaps that one was misguided as well, particularly because it wasn't solved in any way on meta. However, other similar RfC/Us on meta like Requests_for_comment/ПешСай@mhr.wikipedia did seem to have come to a successful conclusion. ASCIIn2Bme 06:41, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Ptbotgourou and me blocked on WP:NV

Hello Seb az86556, I undertsood meta:Interwiki sorting order but when you block my bot you also blocked my IP, so I couldn't do anything on WP:NV. Mainwhile I understood that on NV you would have some specific rules; I didn't understood that you block me before any attempt to of discussion, I think it a bit unfair. Also I have no clue to fix it for my pywikipediabot. So please be more helpfull to users... --Gdgourou (talk) 07:29, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, hi. Well, blocking the bot is needed when it edit-wars with other bots; the IP-block was unintentional, strange, I must've messed up somehow; thanks for pointing that out, I changed it.
As to how to update your bot-settings, you will have to ask about that on the relevant pages; I have no idea about bots, I don't run any bot, you do. Other people were able to properly update their scripts, and so should you. Seb az86556 (talk) 09:37, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

My IP is still block on NV. But I improve my bot to include the "Interwiki Sorting order". For you own knowledge, contributor using pywikipedia sould update their bot with at lest the revision 9938 --Gdgourou (talk) 19:25, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

My personnal IP is still blocked on NV, please unlocked it quickly, as your requirement have been taken into account. --Gdgourou (talk) 22:59, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

You didn't say you were done with whatever you needed to do. Unblocked now. Seb az86556 (talk) 03:44, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Communication

Dear Seb az86556, this is not an appropriate way to communicate with other people. Please be civil and refrain from any personal attacks. Thanks, Mathonius (talk) 20:53, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I hope you left him the same message. There's hardly any difference between "silly" and "moronic". Seb az86556 (talk) 22:17, 7 April 2012 (UTC)