Hello LeChatiliers Pupper! The thread you created at the Teahouse, Copyright question, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please . See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:21, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LeChatiliers Pupper. As I mentioned on the article talk page, regarding my comments, please don't feel that I was criticising you. You have done a great job, over some time now, on that biography. As you know, I've been popping now and again to tweak things over there and I hope you have taken that in the spirit in which it was meant.

I know, from my own experience, that it ain't easy to write flawless or error-free text, and it nearly always requires a third party to detect/correct the inevitable glitches that crop up (fresh eyes can much more easily pick up those pesky typos or bits of weird syntax). That's just how the brain works, especially when you're familiar with the text you have written and gone over time and time again. It just doesn't see those little things that stick out like a sore thumb to a fresh reader. How often have you come across that dreadful "the" at the end of one line which often crops up again, repeated at the beginning of the next line, or that "if" instead of "it" (not to mention the all-time classic "its/it's" gaffe), etc.? The list is endless. And, of course, the longer a text gets, the harder it gets to ensure that it flows nicely.

Regarding specific aspects that you ask me to comment on, precisely one of the great beauties of Wikipedia's tags is that they invite/alert other editors so they can add their skills to a work-in-progress. I haven't had time yet to go over the comments made by User:Noleander, but I see that at the beginning s/he flagged a sentence as "WAY TOO LONG", which is one of the issues that I most often come across in this biography and which can lead to a lack of clarity or, worse, ambiguousness ("Who", exactly, did "what"?). Unfortunately, my French isn't up to scratch, but I do get the feeling that, although your English is obviously excellent, there is a tendency for you to think in French (and while it's not an absolute truth, Romance languages, like French, Spanish and Italian, often use longer and more complex sentences). Again, it's not a criticism, but it does help to explain some of the things that need reviewing.

I'm going to be travelling over the next couple of weeks, so won't be able to sit down and go over the article with a fine-toothed comb, but I will try to pop in occasionally to do the odd tweak, as per usual. Notwithstanding all of the above, rather than spend time pointing out what needs mofifying modifying/correcting, I prefer to fix stuff myself, when I can. Obviously if I can't make head or tail of something, I'll ask for clarification. Again, please don't feel that I am/was criticising you. The work you've done here is commendable and I hope to read more of your knowledgeable input on other Napoleonic-era related pages, many of which are, unfortunately, pretty substandard... when not directly incorrect. Sigh! Regards, Technopat (talk) 23:18, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to explain yourself so clearly and thank you for the kind words and you attention to the page

> regarding my comments, please don't feel that I was criticising you.

And please don't think that I would very much like feedback so that both I and the article might improve. If you do require clarification or even a discussion of the sources I would be happy to assist. LeChatiliers Pupper (talk) 16:19, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently edited a page related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

asilvering (talk) 15:35, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

oh cheers I wasnt aware these applied LeChatiliers Pupper (talk) 15:23, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello LeChatiliers Pupper! The thread you created at the Teahouse, Image rights BBC, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please . See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:21, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@LeChatiliers Pupper: Could I get your opinion on a few issues with my draft of a replacement for Battle of Marion? The draft is in User:TwoScars/sandbox6. Right now it is too long. I would like to reduce it by 25 to 33 percent. Any thoughts on what might be good to remove or shorten? I currently have some questionable sources in play, and plan to remove them where possible or at least use them only for simple "facts" such as "it was rainy" or "most of the fighting was near a bridge". My worry is that if the questionable sources are not discussed, someone may use them to dispute what is in the Wikipedia article. Any thoughts about sources? Once I get the article smaller, my next step is to check each citation. Note also that Stoneman's 1864 raid, Second Battle of Saltville, and Skirmish at Abingdon are all connected to the Battle of Marion—and they have very little information. This article has been way more work than I had hoped it would be. I appreciate any input. TwoScars (talk) 21:04, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers it certainly is a great improvement I shall put comment on your sandboxes talk page LeChatiliers Pupper (talk) 01:05, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@LeChatiliers Pupper:@Hog Farm: - The giant redo has now replaced the old version. I still think it is too big, and I don't like the "map" in the First day section (but it needs some type of diagram). TwoScars (talk) 21:15, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for the upcoming Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history coordinator election have opened. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting will commence on 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:03, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Voting for the Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history coordinators is now open! A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. Voting closes at 23:59 UTC on 29 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:25, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Bourmont as a guardsman.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 22:30, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your help and patience with the Mynydd Hyddgen article. Much appreciated. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:40, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your very welcome :) I'm keeping a watch on the page waiting for some drone shots :P LeChatiliers Pupper (talk) 20:35, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Starting on 1 November, the month-long 2025 Article Improvement Drive will target a number of content improvement areas and backlogs. Participating editors will be in line for barnstars and other awards; articles from all aspects of the project will be eligible so there will be something for everybody. Interested editors are encouraged to sign up now! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:18, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say "have a good trip", although it sounds like it will be work. So have a productive time then, and I hope it is very rewarding. See you. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 23:10, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers keep well yourself LeChatiliers Pupper (talk) 15:02, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. All eligible users are allowed 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 2025 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:59, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations now open for the WikiProject Military History newcomer of the year and military historian of the year awards for 2025! The top editors will be awarded the coveted Gold Wiki. Nominations are open here and here respectively. The nomination period closes at 23:59 on 30 November 2025 when voting begins. On behalf of the coordinators, wishing you the very best for the festive season and the new year. MediaWiki message delivery via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: nominations are open until 23:59 (UTC) on 14 December 2025. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:21, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry to bother you but how do I know if a GA nomination has gone through? I nominated talk:Maurice Gamelin but that was however many hours ago and the bot hasn't added it to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. Is there something I'm missing? Thanks. Joko2468 (talk) 17:47, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not a bother but I am not the person to ask, I would recommend asking a project coordinator I have never submitted an article for GA review. LeChatiliers Pupper (talk) 19:19, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No worries and thank you Joko2468 (talk) 19:25, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:LeChatiliers_Pupper reported by User:M.Bitton (Result: ). Thank you. M.Bitton (talk) 02:29, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note this user is a serial harasser and I have asked them to leave my talk page alone twice now, I am asking a third time. LeChatiliers Pupper (talk) 03:56, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

s LeChatiliers Pupper (talk) 04:14, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

LeChatiliers Pupper (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Admin never heard from me, I read 3R my edits were well outside of 24hours, I dont feel the admin extended good faith to me, they blocked punativly while i was engaging and not being disruptive, the admin was also pinged by the person who raised the issue in the admin notice thread how am i supposed to feel i had fair treatment if the accuser gets to pick my judge? LeChatiliers Pupper (talk) 23:07, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

See WP:NOTTHEM. As stated in policy, "Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside of the 24-hour slot will usually be considered edit warring" and "The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly; it is not a definition of "edit warring", and it is absolutely possible to engage in edit warring without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so." 331dot (talk) 00:05, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

331dot explains what I was going to. However, it was unnecessary to deny the unblock on substantive grounds as it had already expired by that time. Daniel Case (talk) 03:35, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniel Case You were canvassed to the admin thread very clearly NOT WP:APPNOTE the correct means was to allow the admin noticeboard to continue to function as the WP:APPNOTE

All I am seeking is an acknowledgement that you were too hasty in blocking against WP:BLOCKPOL and for you to consider WP:APPNOTE

PEr

• WP:NOPUNISH

A full a proper reading gives;

At the time of my block I had not been on the page for hours and I was not returning.

"Edit warring, especially breaches of the three-revert rule, often results in a block, either from the pages the user is disrupting or from the entire site."

I understood my actions to allowed by the 3R rule, instead of discussing and clarifying what substantive time means as per WP:BEFOREBLOCK

"In general, administrators should ensure that users who are acting in good faith are aware of policies and are given reasonable opportunity to adjust their behavior before blocking, and it may be particularly desirable to communicate first with such users before blocking."

You knew this at the time I specifically requested dispute resolution in my reply.

__

I am hopeful you will consider your position and accept that the block was hasty. LeChatiliers Pupper (talk) 04:07, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am perhaps even more hopeful that you will properly understand policy:

• APPNOTE is generally applied only to actual discussions where there may be valid reasons for different outcomes. It does not, in my experience, ever apply to misconduct noticeboard reports. It is indisputable evidence of continuing bad faith on your part that you are taking it as some ironclad law of the universe that M.Bitton specifically asked for me in order to block you. They have filed enough ANEW and RFPP reports that I have responded to to know that I do not treat that as a rubber stamp. He also knows that, like him, I have tired enough of editorial disputes related to the Maghreb to treat it as a de facto contentious topic until such time as we can get it together to convince ArbCom to formalize that.

• You say you "understood [your] actions to be allowed by the 3R[R] rule." But as noted by 331dot in their superfluous denial of your unblock, with direct quotes from the relevant policy, 3RR is never to be taken as permission to revert three times within 24 hours. That you are admitting to have seen it that way is yet more evidence confirming the correctness of the block.

  As WP:AVOIDEDITWAR, which I have linked you to before, makes clear, the sooner you stop reverting, the better. This block is the 1,083,474th example of why.

• In trying to make it look like the block was intended to be punitive, you say that "at that time I had not been on the page for hours". Hmm. Your last edit to it before the report is timestamped at 02:06 UTC; my closure indicating the block (made after the block) is timestamped 04:14. That's barely more than two hours later ... a lot shorter than your unspecified "hours" would imply. It is well within the timeframe within which one can reasonably assume you might return and make further edits if no action was taken.

• You claim you were willing to go to dispute resolution and that you had said you would not be continuing to edit the page (well, of course you weren't going to; at that time you had reverted it to your preferred version). Perhaps that was what you felt, but to me upon rereading this interpretation of what you wrote this seems (a pattern is developing here) rather disingenuous. You had not said you would take the initiative and go to DR yourself, instead saying "I suggest M.Bitton moves this to a dispute resolution notice board and in the interim allow the page to stay in its stable state" Ah ... I get it. Make him look like the one being difficult. And the last part is really rich. By "stable state", you of course (as noted previously) mean the way it was following the last edit, knowing that they would be actionably edit warring if they reverted it at that point. We have a name for this.

  Since you have been complaining that no one is helping you any with all of this, editors who have gotten reported over things like this in the past but have not gotten blocked have always demonstrated their good faith and willingness to abide by policy by reverting their own most recent edit back to the way it was before the edit-warring started, which in this case would have been this version. If you had done that, none of this would have ensued.

  And I should not let this go without observing that there was no explicit indication on your part that you would not return to editing ... again, as you seem to understand, had you said that outright I would probably not have blocked you, just reverted your last edit.

• I suggest you drop the stick and back away from the bloody remnants of what now seems vaguely to have once been a horse. Look forward, not back. I have been harshly critical of you here, I admit, but I have also tried to give you some concrete advice as to how you can you keep this from happening in the future. Daniel Case (talk) 04:56, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I dont understand some of this. The edits outside of 24h seem deeply open to interpretation and my actions are nothing like the constant back and forth that I have seen removed on milhistoryproject discussion board or indeed on the edit wars page where there is an example of a long running dispute.

I understood my edit to be allowable and given the only previous "edit wars" I have been involved in the page has always been reverted to the last stable state - in one case it was with my revert standing. In another case it was with M.Bittons revert (of me) standing. I was not trying to game anything, I wanted to move to dispute resolution. And my revert outside of the 24h was to allow for that.

Again I in good faith thought this was the best way forwards.

As M.bitton has told me in the past WP:Onus requires additions to wiki to require justification - the onus must be on the addition.

Why am I not equally entitled?

> And I should not let this go without observing that there was no explicit indication on your part that you would not return to editing ... again, as you seem to understand (I DO NOT), had you said that outright I would probably not have blocked you, just reverted your last edit.

This is absurd I was engaging on the admin noticeboard... you could very simply have asked me on the admin notice board...

Again WP:beforeblock was clearly not followed from my perspective, I feel I have been treated worse than vandals...

All I am asking for is this to be removed from my record, I am a good faith editor and resent

I thank you for clarifying your prior relationship with M.Bitton, but is this not exactly why Appnote exists to remove any possible conflict of interest. I would feel substantially better if you had;

1) not blocked without explaining the finer points of 3R, and what a stable state is (of this I am still confused).

2) I am clearly a good faith editor with (no prior blocks) and 1.5k edits - if I lack understanding of edit war it is simply because I am hardly in them... WP:beforeblock should have protected me from heavy handed actions - it did not.

3) recused yourself after being pinged by a user whom you have previously decided cases with and allowed another admin decide and help defuse the issue. LeChatiliers Pupper (talk) 05:55, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You make it sound like Daniel Case and M.Bitton colluded in a smoke filled room to wrong you. That's simply not the case. They didn't work together to conspire against you. Blocking someone does not require absolutely zero connection between the reporter and the blocking admin. You are also misinterpreting APPNOTE which is not a prerequisite for a block. It just isn't.

There is no way to go back and edit the block log. You seem to be treating the block log as a record of punishment, like a criminal record- it's not. Blocks are not a punishment, but a way to prevent disruption to Wikipedia. If you want this matter to go away- stop talking about it, and change going forward. A 24 hour block is not harsh or heavy handed at all, it's standard for a first block. Many people get brief blocks and then have long and successful editing careers, some even become admins. If you had been blocked without an end date, yes, that would have been heavy handed.

For that matter, you're treating this whole process like a criminal investigation, demanding that every little policy be explicitly followed to your satisfaction and that anything not done to your satisfaction is a personal sleight against you. That's called Wikilawyering. We're much less concerned with following the letter of policies than in following their spirit. BEFOREBLOCK says(which you've left out) "However, warnings are not a prerequisite for blocking." Admins have been given the authority to end disruption such as edit warring. We are not mind readers, we don't know what it is people will do, and we don't have to take the time to make inquries to ask "are you going to stop?" before we do something.

"Stable state" is- the last version of the article before the dispute. 331dot (talk) 09:09, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

then the stable state is the state before the addition was made and Daniel Case is wrong frankly

> we don't have to take the time to make inquires to ask

How much code does it take to block someone?

I would guess it less characters than simply asking - "do you intent to edit X while in resolution?" LeChatiliers Pupper (talk) 12:51, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All im asking for is fair treatment I didnt get it. And it looks like im not ever going to get it. LeChatiliers Pupper (talk) 12:53, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Voting is now open for the WikiProject Military History newcomer of the year and military historian of the year awards for 2025! The top editors will be awarded the coveted Gold Wiki. Cast your votes here and here respectively. Voting closes at 23:59 on 30 December 2025. On behalf of the coordinators, wishing you the very best for the festive season and the new year. MediaWiki message delivery via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:54, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]