User talk:Thouny

Welcome!

Hello, Thouny, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Getting Started
• Introduction to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! SamanthaPuckettIndo (talk) 09:04, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you.

I want to thank you for replying to my question on the Teahouse. I wasn't sure if that was a proper place for posting a vent/question like that since nobody had replied. I was actually going to try and figure out how to delete it. Would I be correct in assuming that you read what was written on my talk page? I tried to remain as neutral and as positive throughout, but it did seem like he was more interested in lecturing and imposing than discussing. I am sure my lack of Wikipedia knowledge and my poor editing skills were frustrating to him, but I tried to explain it wasn't intentional and that I was new. He seems to have been the primary editor working on that page, so maybe he felt I was intruding on his turf. After reading WP:OWN, I believe that even more. Anyway, I've moved on before it got any worse. I didn't come to Wikipedia for any of that. Once again, I appreciate you reply. --Marchjuly (talk) 04:26, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

PS: I never felt he was totally wrong. I just felt going back and forth between the two of us was becoming pointless and that letting others in on the discussion might have been a constructive way to help move things forward. Thanks again -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:34, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I think one the reasons you didn't get any answer was because people did not want to get involved in a conflict, which I can understand... Well, anyway, if you feel that your edits were justified, you should propose them with an explanation of why you think they're right on the article's talk page. As I indeed read your discussion, I can say you effectively stayed as polite as was humanely possible — I don't know if I would have managed to do that, to be frank! — so I think you'll be able to phrase your propositions so that it won't appear that you're trashing on Ihardlythinkso, if you chose to ask the community about your edits. Anyway, pleased to have helped you mate! Thouny (talk) 05:16, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks again. Maybe I will bring them up again at a later date after more water has passed under the bridge. Anyway, I've posted something else on the article's talk page, and have gotten a response from IHTS regarding it that was more civil. So, I am crossing my figures that it will continue as such. Thanks again -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:38, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Shasa, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Accessories (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Feeback re your comments about me

Hello Thouny. I just discovered your bad faith comments about my editorship and effort to WP:BRD w/ User:MarchJuly, at the Teahouse. This is to tell you that you are completely off-base for suggesting my disingenuousness, suggesting that the reasons I gave for having preference to discuss w/ that user at his Talk weren't an honest and accurate reflection of my preference, instead (your bad-faith reading) that I wanted to "impose" my editor opinions on that user (and apparently implying I wanted to attempt to isolate him there for that end). (Are you aware of WP:AGF at all at the Teahouse? Or is that Project an attack page meant to be a venue to gossip and make allusions and condescending chit-chat about other editors behind their backs??) Anyway, I don't appreciate the bad-faith and suggestions that the reasons I gave that editor for my preference weren't sincere and at face value. I had my own preference regarding discussion location in that situation for my own reason, and that reason had nothing whatever to do with your bad-faith supposition. If you wanna continue on projecting what you "think" or "guess" about another WP editor's motivations that are demeaning to the character of editors, then I will suggest that you need to take a step back and review that principle because it is decidedly bad-faith and tacky as well. I have no idea who you are, but the fact you get by making such comments at the Teahouse, makes me wonder who is staffing the Teahouse, and what kind of experience they have and allegence to fundamental civility re casting aspersions and comments regarding an innocent editor's character. I've never had any interface with the Teahouse that I rememember, I thought it was supposed to be a "nice" place, but what you did with your gossipy "supposing" re my disingenuineness and therefore character, wasn't "nice". I had a choice to ignore what you did, or tell you in this thread. Clearly I selected the latter. And FYI please read WP:BRD where choice of venue discussion includes both article Talk ("preferred") but also a user's Talk. I did not attempt in any way at any time to force the discussion venue location. I had a preference and I mentioned it. (Although that user misquoted me and mischaracterized what I said, for your benefit, at the Teahouse thread.) The user flip-flopped by first implicating discussion was OK at his Talk, then refused to enter discussion there to any reasonable level, then kept repeating the article Talk "might be better". I take words at face value, and didn't interpret that as a request, just a refreshed proposal. If the user felt that strongly about it, he had a common courtesy obligation to be clear about it. He didn't and wasn't. He also never opened any thread at the Talk:Shogi to move any discussion to article Talk. (Since it was already my stated preference to discuss at his user Talk, I felt under no obligation to open a thread on Talk:Shogi *for* him. Although he would have received no objection from me if he had done so -- none whatsoever. I even told him on his user Talk, after witnessing multiple dodges to discuss at his user Talk, that if he wanted discussion at article Talk, it was his obligation to move the thread there, which he repeatedly suggested to do, and not mine. (Nothing unfair, disingenuous, or "imposing" about that. Unless someone, like you, likes to ingest baseless and voluntary belief in ... whatever coersion or another bad motivations you alluded to and attached to my intentions at the Teahouse.) I really do not have any interest to dialogue with you about this or start anything with you. I'm letting you know what edits I discovered from you about me, and I've given you my feedback and why. I'm still in a little surprise this kind of thing surfaces at *The Teahouse*; and it has given me now a view of the Teahouse, where I had no reason to have one before, short of entirely positive. People make mistakes, but it seems common sense to me your kind of remarks should have been avoided. But perhaps I do not understand the mission of the Teahouse. Perhaps it is there to "placate" new users, in addition to helping them, at the expense of tacky comments made about more experienced editors, behand their backs!? Over and out. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 23:29, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello! Well, first, I can't find this discussion, even though I would like to re-read what I said. But, anyway, of course I only told my feeling, I am in no way pretending that it is what you were doing, and I am actually quite happy that you took time to explain what you meant. I know of 'Assume Good Faith', but, well, he was asking for an opinion, and just answering 'Assume Good Faith' wouldn't have been one. But maybe I shouldn't have done that.

What I wrote was only the impression that the discussion made on me, nothing more; consider that as the opinion of a person that only listened to one side of the story. Please don't think it was an attempt to badmouth anyone, especially a 'new' user (I am probably newer than you); rather, I was thinking that MarchJuly was looking for some kind of approval before confronting you on the subject, because he thought you were the 'experienced editor' and did not dare to answer you without some confidence. And I thought that you had forced MarchJuly to use his User:Talk (I assumed his good faith on this point), which would actually look like an attempt to prevent a debate with other users.

On another hand, I am sure you are aware that it is quite difficult to get the tone and atmosphere of a discussion with only the script, and it did seem to me like you were 'dominant' in this discussion -- as I said, it may have been because you were right, since I have almost no knowledge about Shogi. I apologise for not thinking of that myself, and directly assuming that you were for some points trying to impose your POV. I am especially referring to my comment I don't know if I would have managed to do that, to be frank!, for which I indeed did not assume good faith on your part. Sorry.

Cheers, Thouny (talk) 23:59, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

The thread at the Teahouse should be easy for you to find. (Do you actually need me to link it for you??) You are saying you can't find the thread, but you're responding and defending what you said in it, about me. You're wrong, first off, in your "feelings" and "impression". (Hey! If I have a "feeling" and "impression" you are an underhanded and dishonest person, do I have the right to make those statments about you on Project pages behind your back, because those are my honest "feelings"? That's bullshit, Thouny.) You don't have a right to suppose I was up to no good, and spill out your "feelings" when they attack and are disparaging to the character of another editor. Unless you want a pig-pen fight full of mud and slingings. What MarchJuly thought at that time, I'm not responsible for. (He on several occasions, including in that Teahouse thread, has misquoted and in addition mischaracterized me negatively. I wasn't at that thread, so what did you do? Added your own disparaging remarks and suppositions about my character. That is what I'm complaining about, I noticed, and I don't like it. And you shouldn't be doing such a thing, and you shouldn't be defending doing such a thing, if that is what you're doing. I'm not interested to hear the "logic" of why you did it, when it was a personal and baseless/untrue insult aimed at me.) The discussion attempt at MarchJuly's Talk did not proceed to much of a content discussion at all, and that I lay at the feet of MarchJuly, because I entered that discussion, and conducted myself, fairly and clear. The topics at MarchJuly's Talk were grammatical topics, not Shogi topics per se. It is a fact that MarchJuly has been going to Project boards to ask about my grammar edits for a host of nit-picky details. He never seems to just ask me. I wouldn't take offense if he did, I would simply (believe-it-or-not) answer him to the best of my ability. The fact he is lacking in apparent self-confidence to just ask another editor, is none of my fault, none of my care really, and I shoudln't have to "pay" for it with all of the at-[my]-back comments he is making as well as those others such as yourself who might make comments. I have a suggestion for you ... The next similar thread you have that you respond to, pretend the party you're commenting about is present. I discovered your Teahouse comments way after-the-fact. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:36, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

You were right, I just had to browse through my Contributions. Seems logical... And in my previous answer I remembered what I was saying in it, though not how I was saying it. But, I re-read my post in the Teahouse, and I honestly think you are making much ado about next-to-nothing.

Well, I'm certainly not a experienced editor, but that looks a bit like he did not want anyone else in the discussion because he wasn't planning on having a debate, but on imposing his opinions on you. That's only my feeling, of course, but I think you should have had that discussion on the talk page, where everyone could have expressed their opinion. Doesn't mean he's wrong, though, I'm just saying that it's not nice nor welcoming for a newcomer.

looks a bit, that's only my feeling, I think you should have, etc. The last sentence is a bit more affirmative, but accusing me of saying you're dishonest is a bit hard on the teeth, mate. I repeat, I didn't tell him that you were outright conning him, just expressed that it could look like it. Again, I apologise for giving off that impression to you — I should have paid more attention to my words — but be assured that it wasn't my intention to badmouth at all.

As for my answer on my talk page, I barely say anything about you. The only part I regret saying, I already talked about it — because you're right, I made the assumption that you were the bad guy trying to force your opinion on him, and that he should be angry about that. That's my mistake, and I won't pretend I was just trying to express a feeling or anything — I mean, actually, yes, I was, but that was wrong of me. But 'all of the at-my-back comments' really is an exaggeration for two comments of 7 sentences in total, only three of which talking about you personally. And only one being, although indirectly, mean. You make it sounds like Marchjuly and I were actively trying to destroy your reputation by ranting for days in dozens of Projects.

As for judging the edit, you're saying they're only grammatical, well, it's kind of true, but judging if one should use 'move' or 'turn' is something I think is above my ability: should I use 'turn' to avoid repeating 'move', or is 'move' the right term and using 'turn' would lead to misunderstanding? --> No idea.

Cheers — Sincerely, Thouny (talk) 02:27, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Thouny, the discussion attempt at MarchJuly's Talk, which was the topic of the Teahouse thread of which you were a participant, did not include any discussion about "move turn". (That topic came up later on article Talk.) So, what I said was correct -- there were no Shogi issues at MarchJuly's Talk, only grammatical ones.

I looked at your history for the first time just now, and I see you are a new user since October 2013, with 526 edits under your belt? OK, I didn't assume that. (I assumed anyone responding to a new user thread at the Teahouse, would be an experienced WP editor. So, my criticism of your bad-faith comments about my discussion behavior are therefore too harsh -- I was assuming you were experienced and s/ know better. If you are really so new, that expectation is unreasonable. (You mentioned you were less experienced, but I didn't guess would be by so much.) I don't know the Teahouse rules and operating procedures, but I think it is a mistake to have inexperienced users responding to threads like MarchJuly's. (In fact, he is more experienced than you. So the lesser-experienced advising the more-experienced makes no sense to me. Apparently it does at the Teahouse?!) If I had known you were so new ... this thread would have been very different. Take care, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:59, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

It can make sense because experience is not a linear number that you can directly compare, and is not limited to Wikipedia. You can't say 'You have 500 edits and I have 10 000, therefore I know everything you know plus 9 500 edits worth of knowledge you don't have access to' . My answer to his post in the Teahouse was not a 5-page long explanation of the situation and the wrongs and rights of every part, but only a quick overview of what I was feeling regarding it. It was not an appeal to arms, and neither was I choosing a side. I only told him that if he thought he should take the issue to the article's talk page, he should do so. And, to be frank, I was expecting 2 or 3 other people joining and telling what experienced editors would do / have done, but instead ended up being the only answer, thus acquiring a tad more 'authority' than planned.

As I've said, you deformed my sayings in your comments, accusing me of bad-mouthing for days and days as though I was a member of some group dedicated to hurt your reputation, when I had written less than 10 lines in two separate occasions. I won't say I'm perfectly innocent — I've already said I'm not — but I am a bit perplexed by your answer. For me it sounds a bit like you wouldn't have paid attention to a newcomer, a being barely worth your time and who be treated with a vague contempt and some handwaving, but on the other hand any experienced editor is an enemy you seek to destroy...

I'm not accusing you or anything, and from our discussion I'm guessing that's not what you think — or I hope so ^^ — I'm just saying that your tone might be severely misinterpreted.

Well, anyway, that's barely important, I think I know what you meant by that, so I'm glad we could sort this situation out. Cheers ! Thouny (talk) 04:39, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your edit.

Thanks for your edit, Thouny. I do appreciate the kindness. If you visit the talk page again, you can see that I have followed your instructions. Keep up the good work. Emekadavid (talk) 19:10, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Effects of stress on memory, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Salience (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Australian Associated Motor Insurers Limited, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Victoria (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:22, 21 April 2014 (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) 14:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Thouny. 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)

Hildegard Trabant

Dear Thouny,

I noticed on your User Page that you like to translate Wikis from English to French. If you have time, I would appreciate it if you could translate Hildegard Trabant's page. Thank you in adavance! Brewer Bob (talk) 17:22, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Thouny. 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)

Help request for mapping section titles

Hi. We (the Research Team at Wikimedia Foundation) are building an algorithm that will align Wikipedia article sections across languages. For improving this algorithm we need the help of multilingual Wikipedia editors to provide true statements to the algorithm. You are contacted because based on your Babel template and/or content translation tool usage you know at least two of the following languages: ar (Arabic), fr (French), ja (Japanese), en (English), es (Spanish), ru (Russian).

(Note: by clicking the links in the following paragraph, you will be taken to Google spreadsheet.) If you'd like to help us with translating a subset of the section titles on or before 2018-05-01, please read and follow the instructions. If you see instructions in another language, please scroll down to find your preferred language. If you have questions about this message, you can contact us via Diego. Thank you! :) --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:01, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Thouny. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)