User talk:De la Marck

3,000+This user has made more than 3,000 contributions to Wikipedia.

ø
ø
ø
ø
ø
ø
ø

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, De la Marck. 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)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, De la Marck. 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)

Your RfA transclusion

I reverted your RfA transclusion. You have been inactive for the past 2 years (77 edits in 2017; 34 edits in 2018). That will probably doom your RfA. So I'd wait until you have much more recent activity.

I do not recommend it, but if you still want to try now, just reinsert your nomination. But you might ask others, such as Ritchie333, for their opinion.

Glrx (talk) 00:33, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

That's one year inactive, not two years. Le Sanglier des Ardennes (talk) 00:36, 4 January 2019 (UTC) And how am I supposed to reinsert if it has been deleted?

(Non-administrator comment) I feel you're certainly permitted to run an RFA, though I agree it will likely be WP:SNOW closed fairly quickly once you get to 10 or 20 opposes. The previous RFA was somehow templated incorrectly; if you're persistent you can probably get an admin to undelete it for you (though I expect several will try to talk you out of this first). power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:41, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Another admin has already deleted the RfA page. I agree with Glrx - it's doomed to failure. It will bring out a wave of oppose votes. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 00:42, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

I still want to go ahead with it. And I'd appreciate it if the request page could be restored. Le Sanglier des Ardennes (talk) 00:43, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi De la Marck, and a happy new year to you. I have deleted the RFA page because there is zero point in you attempting an RFA at this point. It will not succeed because you simply don't have the experience yet. But don't let that dishearten you, every admin here has been at that phase too. There are plenty of ways to help Wikipedia without being an admin, and over time you will pick up the necessary experience to have a genuine go at getting the mop. If you still want me to I can restore the page, but I guarantee that it will not be successful so I would urge you to think again. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 00:46, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

I do not think you will succeed in next 7 days RfA and support rate will be very low so I endorsed deleting RfA Hhkohh (talk) 00:48, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks all - I still want to restore this Amakuru - but did someone say there was a problem with my templating? I don't remember noticing. Le Sanglier des Ardennes (talk) 00:50, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

(ec/ec/ec)

No, you've not been very active for 2 years. See https://xtools.wmflabs.org/ec/en.wikipedia.org/De%20la%20Marck for the stats. Ignoring this month, November 2016 is the last time you had a month with more than 30 edits. Being careless about such facts suggest you may not be ready for adminship.

Yes, an admin looked at your RfA page and deleted it. The admin obviously thought the nomination would be a very quick WP:SNOW close.

Before the page was deleted, another editor opposed you. You would probably get 10 opposes in the first two hours. Editors will look at your contributions, see it is not enough, and oppose without looking further.

The page also had a procedural error, and that would be heavily criticized.

Please do not run right now. RfA can be very unfriendly.

Glrx (talk) 00:52, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't get why you're trying to stop me - just because you think it will be refused?Le Sanglier des Ardennes (talk) 00:53, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

What was the proceedural error, Glrx? Le Sanglier des Ardennes (talk) 00:54, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

I mentioned the template error; the timer template was broken, so it displayed that the RFA was closed on the main page. It should be straightforward to fix. At this point, I don't see any further harm in running the RFA. Occasionally the rule must be proved by testing. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:55, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

I've restored the page, so continue with it if you want, but I've given my advice to you above. Thanks.  — Amakuru (talk)

Right align

Is there a reason you have your talkpage set to right align? It makes reading your talkpage very difficult. SQL^{Query me!} 01:22, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Because I'm left handed. Le Sanglier des Ardennes (talk) 01:36, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow why you would need your talkpage to be right-aligned due to being left handed. SQL^{Query me!} 01:39, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Close as I can get to Da Vinci style inversion. I do that in my handwriting. Le Sanglier des Ardennes (talk) 01:41, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

So, it has nothing to do with your handedness, and it's a stylistic choice? It makes your talkpage very difficult to read. Unless there is a real necessity for that layout, please remove it. SQL^{Query me!} 01:46, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Oh you all want me to flip the alignment of the page? Sure. Didn't realise. It's a bit hard to read the page. Le Sanglier des Ardennes (De la Marck) (talk) 02:13, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. SQL^{Query me!} 02:16, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Your RfA

Hello, unfortunately I've had to close your RfA early as it was clear that it was not going to succeed. I hope this doesn't discourage you from contributing further to Wikipedia and if you need any help going forward, feel free to reach out to me on my talk page. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:35, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

I wish you'd left it open Tony. I was enjoying reading that. Le Sanglier des Ardennes (talk) 01:36, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's probably only because people have been mostly friendly. Yet. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:46, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Friendly? Why should people be friendly? I was wishing they'd get more personal. But there was that 'civility' tag getting in the way rather. I felt tempted to remove it. Le Sanglier des Ardennes (talk) 01:50, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

De la Marck, I think you can request for rollback permission first in WP:PERM before running RfA if you want to fight vandals Hhkohh (talk) 01:54, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Okay, you're clearly trolling us with this response so I'll repeat the requests of @SQL and Nick: because I'm not one to beat around the bush once that's been established: if you wish to continue editing here, you are going to have to abide by our behavioral norms. There are two really basic ones that you are in breach of right now: first, you are having the page right aligned, which is not how English is usually written, which make people annoyed. Second, your signature does not make your username identifiable. These things really hinder communication and are disruptive. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:03, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Tony is very friendly to you. But why you still want RfA open? It will waste our editors time Hhkohh (talk) 02:15, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

There's a difference between trolling and humour. Le Sanglier des Ardennes (De la Marck) (talk) 02:24, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing your signature and talk page. I’m not anti-humour, but when everyone who is trying to have a regular discussion with you about communicating on this platform is met with humour or non-answers, it’s a bit hard to tell the difference. Now that you’ve updated everything, we should be good :) TonyBallioni (talk) 02:37, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Signature

Hiya, could you fix your signature so that the displayed text includes your username. The signature guideline/policy page says A customised signature should make it easy to identify the username, to visit the user's talk-page, and preferably user page. which unfortunately yours doesn't quite manage as the name displayed doesn't match with your username. Thanks Nick (talk) 01:44, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

The link leads to my page. Many users don't have the actual text displayed.

Thank you Nick. Drmies (talk) 02:14, 4 January 2019 (UTC)