User talk:Les Etoiles de Ma Vie

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

March 2012[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Calabe1992 12:28, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia! Drop by the Teahouse anytime for a cup of tea, or some help with editing![edit]

Teahouse logo
Hello! Les Etoiles de Ma Vie, you are invited to join other new editors and friendly hosts in the Teahouse. An awesome place to meet people, ask questions and learn more about Wikipedia. Please join us! Ocaasi (talk) 16:37, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your warm welcome. Will definitely stop by for a spot of tea. Have a great day! Les Etoiles de Ma Vie (talk) 13:51, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


I hope you do not mind, but I have added some indentation and italics to the quotations from talk pages in your posting on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.--Toddy1 (talk) 11:19, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't mind at all!!! :) Merci beaucoup pour votre aide! Les Etoiles de Ma Vie (talk) 11:25, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
In the circumstances, the best thing to do would be to strike through words that you wish you had not used. The way to do it is like this: <s>bad word</s>, which produces bad word.--Toddy1 (talk) 11:56, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Oh wow, you are SO AWESOME!!!!! Thank you, thank you, thank you!!!! I really appreciate you explaining all this to me!!! :) I will absolutely remember this and will think of you and your kindness every time I use these new tools! :) Merci! Les Etoiles de Ma Vie (talk) 11:58, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
The place to strike through "thugs" was Talk:Asma_al-Assad#Rewrite of article by Etoiles, not WP:ANI.--Toddy1 (talk) 12:20, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
It would also be sensible to look through other postings on talk pages, and strike through comments you now regret.--Toddy1 (talk) 12:22, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Oh goodness! Silly me! :) I will make the changes immediately. And yes, will start striking through comments right away. Thank you SO MUCH! Merci mille fois. :) Les Etoiles de Ma Vie (talk) 12:24, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Reset Button: The Assads[edit]

Hello E,

Most importantly, thank you for your proactive efforts to help reduce the tension on the page.

I posted my thoughts on pressing the reset button on Mrs. Assad at Asma al-Assad: Reset Button. I also replied to several other topics you raised suggesting the order we could address them.

You may not agree with everything but I invite you to help me press that button and help kick start its improvements. The article has stagnated and there are a lot of lingering problems with the article. It won't be fixed overnight but your views may help stimulate useful discussions. I look forward to your participation. Regards, V -- Veriss (talk) 10:32, 2 December 2013 (UTC)


Don't beat up on people - it is not productive.

You wrote:

"I'm leaving the article alone for now, but that will not be for long. FormerIP has made a superior suggestion in comparison to yours and Toddy1 is hitting at some very valid points that obviously you nor Veriss have addressed/considered. I'm not going to sit on my thumbs and whistle myself in boredom if legitimate editing does not commence in the coming days. This is not proactive and the article as it stands has many flaws."

Suppose you have written the same points in a nicer way, you would have made it easier for other editors to agree with you. (I have given your wording in brackets.)

  • I agree that we need to discuss these issues here before we change the article. (I'm leaving the article alone for now, but that will not be for long.)
  • We need to reach some conclusions here soon, so that we can fix the problems with article. (I'm not going to sit on my thumbs and whistle myself in boredom if legitimate editing does not commence in the coming days. This is not proactive and the article as it stands has many flaws.)
  • I agree with FormerIP's suggestion. (FormerIP has made a superior suggestion in comparison to yours)
  • Bbb, Veriss, do you agree with Toddy1's points? I tend to agree with him/her. (Toddy1 is hitting at some very valid points that obviously you nor Veriss have addressed/considered.)

I advise you use strike-through with some of your comments.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:47, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh, it is against your best interests to say "when you have two buddy-pals monopolizing". Such wording draws Bbb and Veriss together. Why would you want to do that? Quite the opposite - you want Bbb to agree with you on some points, and Veriss to agree with you on other points. To do this, you need to make a series of small concessions to their individual requests. You will be surprised how small the concessions sometimes need to be to gain agreement. But when both parties make small concessions over things that are not very important to them, and very important to the other person, you gradually get a good compromise. Or alternatively, you find that one of those who formerly opposed you, has become your ally.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:55, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Toddy1! :) If you recommend that I strike-through my comments, I will, but I mean everything I say. I don't sugar coat. They are buddy-pals, so nothing I say will draw them together. They are already in a clique. They (both of them) look at my talk page and even go through my history. It's really creepy.
So as you have noticed, my words sometimes have a bite to them. I wish I had the gracefulness of you and FormerIP, but I do not. I'm not sure how much more I can concede to these two men when they work as an alliance. I mean, look how they are deliberately ignoring all the comments made? Questions addressed to them? Veriss has a legitimate excuse, as he supposedly has a lot going on in his personal life, but Bbb23? Hmmmp! They have history together. I'm positive they will both read these comments as well. Did I already mention how creepy it is? It really is.
You always have awesome advice and please be assured that I respect all your opinions. I will do as you have advised and will start striking in the next hour. Thank you so much for your love and concern. Have a splendid weekend. Les Etoiles de Ma Vie (talk) 07:22, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Why are you complaining about the Syrian Civil War sanctions notice? From your point of view, the notice is an advantage.--Toddy1 (talk) 23:38, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Because it just shows the further corruption/monopolization of the system. It's kind of laughable to me that Bbb23 actively goes out seeking the sanction, and then comes on the talk page and acts like this "uninvolved editor" randomly popped in and imposed these sanctions. It is a power trip, no? Maybe I am not understanding this correctly? This is Bbb23's further trying to maintain his power? Should I start striking again? Les Etoiles de Ma Vie (talk) 23:44, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
I removed my comment. :) I thought the sanctions were a bad thing because you seemed critical of them. I really appreciate both you and FormerIP, so I'm basically going to hop on the bandwagon if you two are in support of anything and vice versa. I have said it before, but I just want to repeat my immense admiration, respect, and appreciation for your help. I'm a person who gravitates towards positive people and positive energy. Though we have never met, I feel that you are a positive person and for that, I am most sincerely appreciative. Have a beautiful weekend and again, many many many thanks. Les Etoiles de Ma Vie (talk) 23:54, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
what I disliked was that it was hard to see that the sanctions were in place. i have no objection to the sanctions.--Toddy1 (talk) 00:01, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
If you have no objections, I have no objections. :) I have TONS of respect for you and you know, I cannot adequately express in words how much I really appreciate everything you have done for me. Honestly, you are the epitome of awesome. Thank you so so so so so much for existing in this world, amongst all the chaos and negativity. I hope you are blessed for your kindness and grace tenfold. Take care and be blessed. :) Les Etoiles de Ma Vie (talk) 00:09, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

December 2013[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm Veriss1. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Asma al-Assad that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Veriss (talk) 20:27, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Hey, do not touch my comments. Do not edit comments that are not your own. I'm sorry you felt that the comment was not civil, but in those cases, you act as an adult and politely request such a comment is removed. You do not remove such comments yourself, as they are not your own. I won't be leaving a message on your talk page because I have no intention to visit/stalk your talk page like a creep.Les Etoiles de Ma Vie (talk) 00:26, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Les Etoiles, the comment removed was this one. I recommend that you take Veriss's advice about this. Since Talk:Asma al-Assad is now under the Syrian Civil war sanctions, admins are allowed to be vigorous in pursuing violations of the collaborative editing process. Would you like having to explain at ANI that your comment was actually quite friendly and intended to facilitate the dialog? I think you are on the very edge of a personal-attack block, either from me or from some other admin who is new to the situation. WP:No personal attacks provides that "Derogatory comments about other contributors may be removed by any editor. Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to blocks." Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 02:43, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
EdJohnston, so nice to see you again. Perhaps if you were not so bias, you would see that indeed, my comment was intended to facilitate dialog. Veriss has repeatedly (I can count with my two hands) brought up past "volatile" and his other favorite word, "vitriol" exchanges in the past. It was Veriss, himself, who said we should move past what is in the past and yet, he brings up the "vitriol" and "volatile" every single day. How can one facilitate dialog when another cannot get beyond the past? It's hysterical to me how bias some of you admins are. You see simply what you want to see and you have created a kind of pecking order. I am well aware that the Syrian Civil War sanctions were placed on the article after Bbb23 reached out to you on your talk page. Nevertheless, Ed, I have struck out my comments. Is that not good enough for you? Les Etoiles de Ma Vie (talk) 03:36, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Ed, I have to say, it is really refreshing to know that as an admin, you believe so firmly in diplomacy. So according to what I'm trying to gather from your comment, you recommend that editors remove other editors' comments, instead of reaching out to them and asking them to remove the comments themselves? Is that not adult behavior? To be effective communicators? And since you are watching the page so closely, Ed, what are your opinions of Bbb23 and Veriss' refusal to address the editor FormerIP on the talk page? Is it considered "collaborative editing process" when you do not collaborate with the other editors? If Veriss wants to continue to blame the lack of editors on the article on the "vitriol" conversations in the past, it not only distracts from further collaborative editing, but also hinders diplomacy between editors. But I digress, Ed. I already know too well whose side you are on and I don't blame you. By all means, do you. Les Etoiles de Ma Vie (talk) 03:55, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
I am quite confident that the message you left for Veriss was a personal attack, and as you can see from WP:NPA, any editor may remove such comments. It seems you would prefer that Wikipedia policy be different than it is. Admins have been elected to enforce the policies we actually have, so I hope you will be understanding while I continue to apply them. For whatever reason, you do not find yourself able to collaborate successfully with others at Talk:Asma al-Assad, and you often make sharp and nasty comments (like the one about 'thugs'). I'm leaving you the official notice of the Syrian Civil war sanctions. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 04:08, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Ed, the "thug" comment was retracted and an apology was publicly given. But alas, it appears you, like select other editors, are unable to move forward from the past. Interestingly enough, you failed to address my questions. You read simply what you want to read. Must be nice to be you. Les Etoiles de Ma Vie (talk) 04:19, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
This is for record-keeping, since EdJohnston has made an allegation that cannot be backed up with actual facts. Ed has alleged, "For whatever reason, you do not find yourself able to collaborate successfully with others at Talk:Asma al-Assad"
Ironically, Ed--the current headcount of active editors on the Talk:Asma al-Assad is five editors, including myself: Bbb23, Veriss1, Toddy1, and FormerIP. You have publicly stated, Ed, that I am unable "to collaborate successfully with others". I can foresee continue conspiring behind the scenes, so I publicly denounce this allegation by EdJohnston, who claims he is "uninvolved". If there are FIVE editors, including myself--the removal of myself from that equation would mean that there are FOUR editors that I can potentially "collaborate" with. As records should prove to dispel the allegations made by Ed, I am 100% collaborating with FormerIP and Toddy1 and partially, with disagreements, collaborating with Veriss1 and Bbb23, whom I have a long history with. I want to PUBLICLY state this on my page as some folks simply read what they want to read and see only what they want to see. It is what it is. I do not have a issue with collaborating. Quite the contrary. I collaborate quite well with certain editors. So the allegations on my character are false and I denounce them in the strongest terms. Please stop your bias, Ed. Les Etoiles de Ma Vie (talk) 05:02, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Les Etoiles de Ma Vie, I know you find some people annoying, but you have got to tone it down. When you struck through some of your comments earlier, you earned quite a lot of good will. With a lit bit of facilitation from me, Veriss and you are starting to collaborate productively.
A few years ago I heard a presentation by a man called Jewell who wrote about the history of lifts (US: elevators). He said that it is very easy to reply to annoying emails instantly, and it makes the situation worse. He said that what he learned to do was to write the reply, but not send it. Then the next day, when he has had a chance to think it over, he often either deletes the reply or edits it very severely. You should do the same. Create a sand box on your talk page, and write your response there, and only post it on the talk page after you have had time to reflect.--Toddy1 (talk) 08:51, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Bonne journée Toddy1 :), "annoying" is a big understatement. I know what I like and I'm a very passionate person. I'm also a very expressive person. This is not simply a façade. This is how I am in my real life. I am defiant against corruption and I am especially outspoken on people who feel they can push me around like a soccer ball. No one intimidates me.
As you know, Toddy1, I am most grateful to you and I always will be. I mean this most sincerely. I'm not sure what the purpose of striking through the comments, as it appears Mr. EdJohnston here wants to bring up the past, including comments that have since been retracted.
I tried to search for Jewell, in relations to lifts, but was unable to find anything. I would have been interested to have heard what he said. However, I am not Jewell. I cannot be Jewell. I am uniquely me and I cannot be molded to be something I am not. Unfortunately, my life is very fast paced and I do things when I remember, when I have time. The writing+waiting would not work for my lifestyle.
I know you have my best interests. I am a very intuitive creature and I find no malice or ulterior motives in your advice to me, which is why I trust you unequivocally. But this who I am. This is the path I have taken in life. And I will not be treated like a second-class citizen by no one. Again, I want you to know that I appreciate you with all my heart and you have my utmost respect. Les Etoiles de Ma Vie (talk) 09:31, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Jewell's advice is still good advice, and may help you avoid getting blocked.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:58, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Dearest Toddy1 - some people are simply malicious and corrupt. It is in their fabric and nature. I suspect someone *cough, cough* is itching to try to get me blocked and well, I'm not intimidated. That's their way of trying to deal with their insecurities (through bullying), their shortcomings, and their feeling of threats from the subaltern. I know you have only goodness in your heart and truly, I hope you are blessed for your sincere kindness. We need more people like you in this world. Les Etoiles de Ma Vie (talk) 22:53, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


>I tried to search for Jewell, in relations to lifts: Jewell on lifts and other new technologies and their effects.

I will look into this shortly! Merci beaucoup. Les Etoiles de Ma Vie (talk) 22:53, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Syrian Civil War sanctions[edit]

As a result of a community discussion, long-term and persistent problems in the editing of articles related to the Syrian civil war, broadly construed, have been acknowledged. The community has therefore enacted broad editing restrictions, described at WP:SCWGS and below.

  • Any uninvolved administrator may, at his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.
  • The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length, bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict, bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics, restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
  • Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor shall be given a warning with a link to this decision and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.
  • Sanctions imposed may be appealed to the imposing administrator or at the appropriate administrators' noticeboard.

These editing restrictions may be applied to any editor for cause, provided the editor has been previously informed of the decision. This message is to so inform you. This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions.

Generally, the next step, if an administrator feels your conduct on pages in this topic area is disruptive, would be a warning, to be followed by the imposition of sanctions (although in cases of serious disruption, the warning may be omitted). Hopefully no such action will be necessary.

This notice is effective only if given by an uninvolved administrator and logged at WP:SCWGS. EdJohnston (talk) 04:13, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, though I would argue against the notion that you, EdJohnston, are uninvolved. Quite the contrary. But again, the world does not stop moving for anyone. Life continues to go on. Les Etoiles de Ma Vie (talk) 04:23, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
It's scary to me that you can claim yourself as "uninvolved" with your close history with Bbb23, the fact that you placed the sanctions on the page yourself per Bbb23's advice on your talk page, and of course your history in handling my block case, again, per Bbb23's recommendations. How is that "uninvolved"? You are absolutely "involved". But no worries, I'm not stressing. You do you. Les Etoiles de Ma Vie (talk) 04:27, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
An admin does not become WP:INVOLVED while taking only admin actions towards you. My block was an admin action. If you think the SCW template does not belong on the article, feel free to ask for review. EdJohnston (talk) 04:38, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Ah, the loop-holes in the system. There are loop-holes in every system, Ed. You are "involved", just not officially. In regards to the review: Non, Ed. Why even ask for a review, of any kind, when the system itself is corrupt. It's just a waste of productive energy. You have a lovely day now. Enjoy. Les Etoiles de Ma Vie (talk) 04:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)