User talk:Leveque

Welcome!

Hello, Leveque, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!  Davewild 17:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Mr Leveque but you can't do it again.
Your sayings are respectable but on a political position. Each contribution on Wikipedia must be exposed neutrally and with historical published references. You can't say we in an encyclopedic article ! There are other places and websites for politics and peoples' defence. That's why your contribution has to be reverted, though the interest of it.Channer 08:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I agree with you. But, what has replaced my piece is a tall tale. Referencing to an article in Mauritian news (an online gazette printed in the UK by Mauritian expats) is not exactly historical fact, nor does it turn fiction into fact. Leveque 01:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent contribution removed content from an article. Please be more careful when editing articles and do not remove content from Wikipedia without a good reason, which should be specified in the edit summary. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you.

I've changed half a sentence! Because it alluded to Rodrigues island being a district of Mauritius. This is simply not true. The island of Rodrigues is no more a district of Mauritius, than Botswana is a district of India.

You are right only to some extent Mr Leveque. I agree that the island of Rodrigues is no more a district of Mauritius. But you just removed the information concerning the status of Rodrigues before it achieved its autonomy. It is just part of the history of Rodrigues and Mauritius, just as British colonial rule on India is part of the history of India. You must have noticed that your edits were neither removed nor reverted, but just added to. Also, please strive to write from a neutral point of view, which is one of Wikipedia's fundamental principles Aeons | Talk 15:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once, Mauritius may have dubbed Rodrigues a district, but that didn't make it so. Similarly, (Sources 10 and 11) citing two Mauritian versions of Rodrigues by Mauritians, to prove that Rodrigues was a district, is like citing Donald Duck's version of Donald Duck, to prove that what Donald Duck says - is true. Leveque 00:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, please do not add promotional material to articles. Advertising, and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox", is strongly discouraged. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. (Also applies for the Rodrigues article) Aeons | Talk 07:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! 'we' 'our', well, thank you - for inviting me - Aeons. You pontificate and condescend on matters, to which you know little about. Now, let me welcome you to our encyclopedia, however, kindly be constructive - not petty. I opened this account because I forgot the password to Loulou50. See, something else, you think you know, but do not. Enjoy your stay with us Aeons. Leveque 05:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When you edit an article, please give a reason for the change by putting descriptive text in the Edit summary. If the reason is long, add "see discussion" in the Edit summary and add text to the article's discussion page. That way, others know what you have changed and why you changed it. This avoids edit wars caused, in part, by others not understanding why an edit is made. This might have avoided some of the recent edits and re-edits in the Mauritius article. You might want to take a look at Wikipedia:Edit war. Truthanado 11:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Leveque, please don't add external links to the main body of articles, per WP:EL, specifically:

2. External links should not be used in the body of an article. Instead, include them in an "External links" section at the end.

Also, if you want to add further information, along with the usual reference you add, please add other 3rd party sources. Because it seems you are using Wikipedia specifically to promote your article.

As for the warning messages, they are standard. They have welcome in them because they are level 1, which is: Level 1 - Assumes good faith.

Aeons | Talk 07:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to blank out (or delete portions of) page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. Carl.bunderson 20:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, please do not add promotional material to articles. Advertising, and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox", is strongly discouraged. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. Carl.bunderson 15:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is adding a link (about MR, and 2006 election) to a published article (about MR, and 2006 election) in Mauritius' largest broadsheet newspaper, promotional? How? We invite you to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia, but please do not discourage or dissuade those of us, wanting to contribute, from doing so. Remember, we give up our time, willingly, and add to wikipedia, for free. The day may come, (because of people like you) when we wonder, why we bother? Leveque 03:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have written the articles to which you link. They are journalistic columns in what is, as far as I can tell (my French is very poor), an online newspaper. They are not suitable external links. "Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories." Linking to pieces of journalism reduces WP to this. Your pieces, while interesting and well written, are like glorified blogs. They're essentially opinion pieces. And furthermore, even if these were papers written for scholarly journals, I frown on anyone (ie even Stephen Hawking, were it to happen) linking to things they have themselves written. I prefer to stay as far away from conflict of interest as possible. And sorry about using the 'promotional' template; they're certainly not linkspam, and I don't mean to make it seem like I think that way. It was simply the closest template I could find. And I, and I'm sure the rest of the Wikipedians, appreciate you giving up your time to contribute. Only by airing our mutual concerns can we come to a concensus and really really improve WP. Please don't let my sometimes over-vigilance discourage you from trying to improve the encyclopedia. Carl.bunderson 04:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article I linked to (MR 2006 election) was published in Mauritius' leading broadsheet newspaper, Lexpress - an institution, hardly an online newspaper. The column took 3 weeks to research, and 1 week to write - again for free. A gift to the people of Rodrigues, and now, free to the readers of wikipedia too. Admittedly, I may have posted other pieces to promote Rodrigues' Independence, which may not have conformed with WP standards, but not this one. Warm regards Leveque 11:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that works for me. Thanks for your bringing this up in your talk page, and enjoy your day. Carl.bunderson 15:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Leveque,

I have recently created a page on Rodriguan Creole. I was wondering- since there are very little sources of information available on this language, would you be interested in contributing to it?

Regards,

--Maurice45 (talk) 11:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Maurice,

I'm not a linguist, n do not have much info on its history, n perhaps, would not do it justice by guessing willy nilly. But, it is a great initiative of yours to put it up for discussion. And, in the future, if i have something concrete to contribute, i'll certainly do so. Port twa bien, salam. Leveque (talk) 00:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Mauritius. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Since Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by some search engines, including Google. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. --Ronz (talk) 02:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is an article on MAURITIUS. Right! Ok, so i've neither removed nor changed a single word, instead, i've added a link which complements it for the benefit of all readers. Why should YOU deprive other readers of this link simply because you don't agree with its contents? Last time i visited, Wikipedia was still a public encyclopedia not Ronz's private plaything. The link is not to a personal website; it is not spam; it is not advertising; It does not promote a product. What's the problem? In fact, it links to an integral part of Mauritius's history to which the article is all about: Mauritius. Moreover, what's the urgency to prevent readers reading it? Leveque (talk) 03:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm not speaking for the other editors that have removed the link as well, I think it fails WP:ELNO and WP:NOTLINK. Basically, I don't think it is relevant enough to the topic to keep. --Ronz (talk) 16:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

I suggest you follow WP:DR rather than calling me a vandal. --Ronz (talk) 02:15, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You should probably start at WP:COIN, since it appears most if not all of your editing is in violation of WP:COI. --Ronz (talk) 16:03, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I take it you've also been editing as Loulou 50 (talk · contribs) as well? --Ronz (talk) 16:07, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What harm is this link doing? Who are you to prevent readers reading an integral part of Mauritius's history? Why are you so obssessed with removing this supplementary information? Leveque (talk) 23:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. The next time you insert a spam link, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted preventing anyone from linking to them from all Wikimedia sites as well as potentially being penalized by search engines.

I'll be starting a WP:COIN report to help support you being blocked if you add the link again. I'll let you know when I do. --Ronz (talk) 02:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot pick and choose what you want readers to read Ronz. Wikipedia is not your personal plaything. Block me! Why? Because you disagree with my version of history. Leveque (talk) 08:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've outlined why you should be blocked here: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#User_Leveque, all problems you have been warned about over two years ago. --Ronz (talk) 16:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ronz, how is a link to a published article spam? Stop your vandalism. Wikipedia is not your private property to do as you please. So far, i have not added or changed a single solitary word to the entry on Mauritius. I've simply added a link to give readers a choice. Do you honestly think that you can get rid of this part of Mauritius's history by blocking me? You're dreaming. Leveque (talk) 04:52, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there Alain (I hope you don't mind me calling you that); I saw this dispute and just figured I'd come to help you guys resolve matters.

The issue is twofold here:

Firstly, the published sources you are putting forth do not fit into reliable sourcing guidelines; specifically, see this section. The first bullet point (the one about opinion pieces) stands true here. Also, the section on opinion statements covers this well. Opinion pieces are generally only used when the author is well-known or from an established news source; I mean no personal offence when I say this, but I do not believe these op-pieces fit the criteria.

Secondly, such opinion pieces are not meant to be included in external links. External links are meant to be completely factual and neutral; there should be no bias or spin in them. I appreciate your quest to provide knowledge, but we have to keep a level of neutrality.

If you feel that you're being attacked, I apologize. Again, it is nothing personal, but we must follow guidelines. So, I'm afraid I'll have to ask you to remove the disputed links. If you aren't keen on doing so, we can remove them for you; just please, please do not edit war and revert, or else you will be blocked.

If you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. Thank you, Master of Puppets - _{Call me MoP! :D} 08:43, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. [1] [2] [3] --Ronz (talk) 23:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Block all you like. But no spiteful zealot will EVER stop me from adding a link about Rodrigues history to an entry about Rodrigues. To let you do that is to acknowledge that Wikipedia belongs to zealots like you. Leveque (talk) 00:19, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been temporarily blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Cirt (talk) 00:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You were warned and blocked, yet you refuse to change your behaviour. As such, you have been reblocked. Enigma^msg 04:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, zealots vandalise my contributions and u want me to change my behaviour! Yeah, right. To be blocked by vandals with nothing better to do is like a badge of honour. We'll see how many people and how many computers you can block in the years ahead. Regards to Atama and Ronz. Leveque (talk) 04:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The block has been extended by another month, thanks to the activities of your IP sock, 124.148.141.148. EdJohnston (talk) 06:01, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More often than not zealot editors are the very reason why wiki is vandalised. I mean, some are actively engaged in the act itself. Why would anyone contribute to wiki only to have their work slaughtered by gung-ho little ferals? Leveque (talk) 04:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RONZ, see what I mean by gung ho! u are now even editing my USER page. How does that help wikipedia? Leveque (talk) 22:42, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For anyone interested in the history of this situation, see Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_36#User_Leveque and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive564#Sockpuppet_of_blocked_editors_Leveque_and_Loulou_50.

Leveque, you want to be blocked again, for continuing your self-promotion? --Ronz (talk) 22:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RONZ, i've not edited any article except restored that which was on my USER page for years. The links are to articles published in newspapers all over the world about issues that interest many people. It's a USER page. Stop being VINDICTIVE and get a life. You are more of a hindrance than an asset to Wikipedia. You are alienating potential contributors. Wiki is not your private plaything. Use a little disvretion and commonsense. Leveque (talk) 22:56, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ronz, are the links Spam? Are they commercial ads? Say if a user called FGRDTE put them on his USER page, would that be self promotion? Leveque (talk) 23:01, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a forum for you to promote yourself. If you haven't yet learned this from your previous blocks, you'll find yourself blocked once again. If you continue long enough, you're likely to find yourself facing an indefinite ban. --Ronz (talk) 23:02, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leveque, you've recently come off a one-month block. If you can't settle down to calm and sensible editing, and avoid self-promotion, your block may be made indefinite. EdJohnston (talk) 00:53, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a USER page, right!. RONZ vandalises my USER page, and u want me to settle down. As i said u ferals are more of a hindrance than an asset to Wiki, you are alienating potential contributors with your pettiness. Get a life. Leveque (talk) 23:45, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to the page User talk:Ronz has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Jusdafax 01:45, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leveque, if you aren't interested in contributing to Wikipedia in any way other than to promote yourself and complaining about any attempts to intervene in your self-promotion, then I think this account should be indefinitely blocked.

If you have a genuine interest to contribute to Wikipedia in another manner, I once again suggest you start a discussion at WP:COIN. --Ronz (talk) 01:48, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RONZ, I've contributed for years but unfortunately u've maliciously reverted and slaughtered many of my contributions. The latest example being your persistent vandalising of my USER page. U keep repeating the word selfpromotion which of course is just a pretext for u to hack away at my contributions. WHAT am i trying to sell? Do i link to a website? The links on my USER PAGE relate to articles about Rodrigues island published all over the world( Google A. Leveque Rodrigues island). The new world encyclopedia uses my articles as references yet u say they are unreliable sources. Get a life stop your petty vindictiveness. Leveque (talk) 01:59, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It appears you have no genuine interest to contribute to Wikipedia in any other manner then. --Ronz (talk) 02:05, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RONZ, NO it does not appear that way at all! Your opinion is not unassaillable fact; U vandalise my USER page then spin it to mean that i don't want to contribute. The Rodrigues article which i ameliorated and added to for years is now property of Wikipedia, thanks to my many contributions. Contributions, petty little fellows like you want to impede at every turn. Potential editors may well ask, why do we bother giving up our time for FREE to have them hacked by little fellows like u with nothing better to do than BLOCK and DISCOURAGE. Leveque (talk) 02:27, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussions about your behavior conclude that it is not vandalism to remove your self-promotion. --Ronz (talk) 17:21, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your editing is being discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Leveque --Ronz (talk) 17:35, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:LINKSPAM for the relevant policy here. While you are right in saying that your content can be accessed freely on the Internet, please remember that Wikipedia policy is set on this issue. Please do not keep reverting Ronz. Thank you, Master of Puppets 23:05, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HELLO, it's my USER PAGE! Ronz is vandalising my USER PAGE to be vindictive. That's the long and short of it. If u condone that, then block all u like. Leveque (talk) 01:33, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spam linking is not allowed anywhere on Wikipedia. Netalarmtalk 02:32, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked for persistent spamming through external linking, as well as incivility toward other users. Because this is not your first block for spam, the duration of the block is now three months. If you feel you are able to contribute within our guidelines, you may request that this block be lifted by placing {{unblock|your reason here}} on this page. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 17:49, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because of this edit I have now disabled comments from you during the duration of the block. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 00:21, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Old sockpuppets

• 124.148.141.148 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 210.84.20.172 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Mootoo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 58.175.169.142 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

New sockpuppets

• 124.148.183.234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

--Ronz (talk) 15:39, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leveque, because you've continued spamming and using socks while blocked, I've extended the block on this account to indefinite. Your ability to edit this talk page is also disabled due to the fact that you have continued spamming your talk pages while blocked. I'm not sure why you're doing this, but if it's for google juice, you might care to read WP:PROMO and take note of the fact that Wikipedia uses No follow on all external links, so spamming here is pretty much useless. If you ever have a change of heart and decide you want to contribute in a constructive manner to this project, you can send an email to the unblock mailing list. You will find directions for doing this in the "What do I do now?" section of the message you see telling you that you've been blocked. Sarah 06:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]