Planet Wikimedia: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Browse history interactively
← Older editNewer edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m →‎Appeal of removal Ainsi va Wikipédia: there is no consensus for the removal
Line 261: Line 261:
:{{keep}}, no more and no less "defamatory" than some other blogs on the planet (that should also not be removed)... Although I agree that he should be more moderate in some posts. [[User:Elfix|Elfix]] 21:18, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
:{{keep}}, no more and no less "defamatory" than some other blogs on the planet (that should also not be removed)... Although I agree that he should be more moderate in some posts. [[User:Elfix|Elfix]] 21:18, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
:{{Keep}} The articles written on this blog respect "Purpose", "Items desired" and "Things to avoid" requirements of Planet Wiki (and are sometimes interesting but this consideration is off topic). I think the so-called defamation is to be considered with leniency in the light of writing tradition in some French satitic newspapers.--[[User:Nicolas Eynaud|Nicolas Eynaud]] ([[User talk:Nicolas Eynaud|talk]]) 09:24, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
:{{Keep}} The articles written on this blog respect "Purpose", "Items desired" and "Things to avoid" requirements of Planet Wiki (and are sometimes interesting but this consideration is off topic). I think the so-called defamation is to be considered with leniency in the light of writing tradition in some French satitic newspapers.--[[User:Nicolas Eynaud|Nicolas Eynaud]] ([[User talk:Nicolas Eynaud|talk]]) 09:24, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

*This request doesn't show any consensus for the removal of ainsi-va-wikipedia.blogspot.fr in fr.planet.wikimedia.org aggregator.
** Keep (against the removal) : Hamelin de Guettelet (request's author), Laurent Jerry, Lebob, Pluto2012, Guil2027, Skorba, Hégésippe Cormier, Superjuju10, Pucesurvitaminee, Drongou, Musicaline, Mike Coppolano, Erdrokan, Remy34, (:Julien:), Pleclown, Elfix, Nicolas Eynaud, = 18 users at 12:31, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
** Remove : Quentinv57 (first requester), Supremangaka, Rome2, Coyote du 86, schlum, Meodudlye, Jean-Jacques Georges, Hatonjan, Kelam, Langladure, Floflo62, Kirtap, Azurfrog, Mattho69, = 14 users at 12:31, 23 July 2013 (UTC)


=== Requests ===
=== Requests ===

Revision as of 12:31, 23 July 2013

العربية - Česky - Dansk, føroyskt, íslenska, norsk & svenska - Deutsch - English - Español – Français - Italiano - Polski - Português - Română - Русский - Српски / Srpski - 中文

DISCLAIMER: The Wikimedia Foundation assumes no responsibility or liability for any posts aggregated on Planet Wikimedia. Blog aggregation is a computer-controlled process.

Request a new language

Planet Wikimedia is a weblog aggregator operated by the Wikimedia Foundation, to bring together on-topic posts about wikis from Wikimedia community members. If you run a blog, and you want to be included, you need to explicitly opt-in (see below).

What does it do?

Planet Wikimedia fetches RSS feeds every hour from selected Wikimedians who blog and aggregates the content of on-topic posts at <http://en.planet.wikimedia.org/> (and other language subdomains).

See also wikitech:Planet.wikimedia.org for more technical details.

Who and what can be included?

Please post on the discussion page if you feel that a particular blogger's posts are causing the signal-to-noise ratio to decrease.

Planet Wikimedia is a blog aggregation feed that updates hourly.

Scope

The Planet Wikimedia is a weblog aggregator operated by the Wikimedia Foundation, to bring together on-topic posts about Wikimedia projects, other wiki sites, the free culture movement, the "wisdom of crowds", etc. -- all from Wikimedia community members. Bloggers may "opt-in" to the blog aggregator, upon review and continued approval from the Wikimedia Meta community.

Purpose

RSS blog feeds present a convenient, efficient way for Internet denizens to keep informed about a thematic category, in a "one-stop-shopping" sort of way. The Planet Wikimedia seeks to keep users apprised of what Wikimedia-related bloggers are communicating currently. Just as a "news clipping" service might keep an enterprise informed about what the outside media world is saying about them, this service will keep those interested in Wikimedia informed about what the outside blogger world is saying about Wikimedia and related endeavors.

Items desired

  • Technical items - New ideas related to the MediaWiki software, opinions and suggestions relating to current technical implementations on local projects, the software itself, and Wikimedia.
  • Constructive criticism - Thoughtful analysis of things that are "wrong" about Wikimedia, and suggestions for improvement.
  • Praise - Feel-good or human interest stories about "success" around Wikimedia.

Things to avoid

  • Violating the copyrights of others, for example, reproducing something on your blog without permission.
  • Frequent offtopic posts.

How do I get in?

In order to be included, your RSS feed must either be filtered to on-topic posts (e.g. by tagging all relevant posts with "wikimedia" and providing a feed to this tag), or your blog must be almost exclusively focused on this topic. The very occasional off-topic post is permitted, but given that Planet Wikimedia is intended to scale to hundreds of blogs, please exercise appropriate self-restraint.

Common blogging engines like Wordpress and Blogger support label-specific feeds. In both cases, these are not obvious. For Wordpress, the feed URL is something like <http://example.com/blog/?cat=9&feed=rss2> or <http://example.com/blog/category/wiki/feed>. For Blogger, see this help entry. If you specify the URL of your blog, and make sure to add the category/tag/label "wiki" to your posts, we will help you to try to figure out whether a category-specific feed exists for your blog.

Blogs can be listed under your real name, your user name (which will be prefixed with "User:" in the list of authors), or both, e.g. Alan Smithee (Dogmaster3000). Please indicate your preference; if you indicate none, only the real name (if available) will be used. For group blogs the blog title will be used.

In the spirit of Wikimedia's commitment to free content, we encourage you to consider putting your blog content under a free license. In the spirit of Wikimedia's commitment to an unnecessary inflation of userboxes, you can also add a Planet Userbox to your userpage. ;-)

Requests for inclusion

To be included in the planet, simply list your blog below, together with a feed URL (preferably to a filtered feed), and your signature. If you want to display a different name for your blog than the default (e.g. your Wikipedia username), please indicate that here as well. Any developer with access to the Git server (path: operations/puppet/templates/planet/en_config.erb) can suggest the addition of your feed, and one of the roots can approve that change.

Not yet added

  1. http://www.bleededge.blogspot.com/ User:Rachel99 - Updates on my OPW internship, as well as other related ramblings on women in technology and QA
  2. http://wittylama.com/blog/ my blog at wittylama.com has been part of this Planet for years but, after I made a new post yesterday, I noticed that it is no longer included. I don't know why or when this was done, but I'd like to be included again. I wrote the post specifically to be timed a day before my feature article became the feature article of the day (on Saturday) so it's frustrating that I'll miss that marking that milestone where other Wikimedians will notice it. Wittylama (talk) 22:56, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure what happened here :-/ your feed link as listed clearly works ... do you want to post a test one? Jalexander (talk) 10:10, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Recently added

  1. Moriel Schottlender (User:Mooeypoo) - (Feed URL) - Updates and ramblings about my GSoC2013 adventures, working on RTL support in VisualEditor. Mooeypoo (talk) 18:47, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Added with title as Moriel Schottlender (User:Mooeypoo) in r73564. You may want to add your other VE post to the tag :) Sorry for the delay, it will go up as soon as I can find someone to merge and it does it's update. Jalexander (talk) 10:10, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Molly White (User:GorillaWarfare) - (Feed URL) Updates on my GSoC project, as well as various other Wikimedia-related projects and opinions. It's English-language, and a tag with my name and username would be great. Thanks! – GorillaWarfare talk 16:20, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Added with title as Molly White (User:GorillaWarfare) in r73564 Sorry for the delay, it will go up as soon as I can find someone to merge and it does it's update. Jalexander (talk) 10:10, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Wikiversity:News relays the main news site on German Wikiversity – Feed-URL – Please include this feed in the German planet. – Thx.--Aschmidt (talk) 23:16, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5. [1] French blog on the subject of Wikipédia. Cordially, --Orikrin1998 (talk) 16:39, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Submitted gerrit:60902. odder (talk) 19:54, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6. My new blog in french: [2]. Please add it to Planet in french, with "Je suis un wikipédien" instead of my username. It is solely about Wikipedia, so therefore it doesn't need to have a separate feed. You can tell me if I'm not doing this right, and I'll correct. Thanks. --Consulnico (talk) 14:54, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Done in r115645 updated on the server and should be live within the hour Jalexander (talk) 00:48, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. My personal blog tag/wikimedia/feed. Sometimes write about wikipedia, creative commons and openstreetmap --Planemad (talk) 18:53, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Done in r115645 updated on the server and should be live within the hour Jalexander (talk) 00:48, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. My blog tagged/planet/rss in which I write about localisation, i18n, localisation tools, wikipedia, Tamil wikipedia. Logicwiki (talk) 04:07, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Done in r115645 updated on the server and should be live within the hour Jalexander (talk) 00:48, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Please add http://wikironie.wordpress.com/feed/ to the FR planet, titled « Wikironie ». Thanks --Irønie (talk) 15:32, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Done in r115645 updated on the server and should be live within the hour Jalexander (talk) 00:48, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Please add my personal blog to the English planet: [3]. It is dedicated to Wikisource so there should be no need for a filtered feed. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 11:34, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    partially done , committed into puppet. Should be out soon we're rolling out a new version of planet at the moment and it will be up when that's done (probably later today) Jalexander (talk) 19:30, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Please add my personal blog to the English planet. I created a feed for the "wikimedia" tagged posts [4]. Pginer (talk) 07:06, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    partially done , committed into puppet. Should be out soon we're rolling out a new version of planet at the moment and it will be up when that's done (probably later today) Jalexander (talk) 19:30, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Please add the wikilovesmonuments' blog [5] to the FR planet. GuillaumeG (talk) 20:35, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    partially done with r21541 This will show up once we merge to the new system (already live here ) which should happen in the next day or two. Jamesofur (talk) 23:39, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I moved the requests back because there's no clear schedule for the new planet and for instance Wiki Loves Monuments is ending soon (we've already wasted half month). Someone with SVN access please commit the changes to the current planet. --Nemo 08:46, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Sadly I couldn't (despite trying multiple times) ever get SVN un locked because it was always supposed to be done soon :-/ the good side of that is that it is now done and switched to the new version (and git) the bad news is that it massively delayed the addition of everything here. Jalexander (talk) 22:42, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  13. "Voices Telecom Italia". Please add it to the Italian Planet. --Nemo 11:52, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Done Added with r45676, should be pushed relatively quickly. Jalexander (talk) 22:42, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Please can you add this blog to the English Planet when the new version is rolled out. This is not intended as a personal blog so please can you use "English Wikisource" as the displayed name. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 19:22, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Done Added with r45676, should be pushed relatively quickly. Jalexander (talk) 22:42, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Please, can you add this blog to the French Planet ? Thanks ! --M0tty (talk) 22:13, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Done Added with r45676, should be pushed relatively quickly. Jalexander (talk) 22:42, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Could you please add the Wikimedia tagged feed from my blog: http://samwilson.id.au/tag/wikimedia/feed/ entitled User:Samwilson? Thanks! — Sam Wilson ( Talk • Contribs ) … 07:57, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Done Added with r45676, should be pushed relatively quickly. Jalexander (talk) 22:42, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Please add the English Wikidata posts on Wikimedia Deutschland's blog. The feed is http://blog.wikimedia.de/tag/Wikidata+English/feed Thanks! --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 13:55, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Done Added with r45676, should be pushed relatively quickly. Jalexander (talk) 22:42, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Please add this blog on the RAW newsletter to the French Planet. The feed is [6]. Thanks, Letartean (talk) 17:30, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Done Added with r45676, should be pushed relatively quickly. Jalexander (talk) 22:42, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Please add http://blogs.leschampslibres.fr/wikisourcien/feed/ (blog about Wikisource) to french planet ; title : « L’Œuvre ouverte  ». Thanks Marc (talk) 19:29, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Done Added with r45676, should be pushed relatively quickly. Jalexander (talk) 22:42, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Please add http://okinokynko.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default/-/Wikipedie , which is feed of my personal blog's Wikipedia taged posts, title: Okinovo Okýnko. To the Czech Planet. Thanks. Okino (talk) 09:45, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Done Added with r45676, should be pushed relatively quickly. Jalexander (talk) 22:42, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Please add http://blogs.gnome.org/aklapper/category/computer/wikimedia/feed/ to the English Planet - I'm going to cover Wikimedia bug management there. --Malyacko (talk) 15:46, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Done Added with r45676, should be pushed relatively quickly. Jalexander (talk) 22:42, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  22. I created a new blog about free Internet (in french). I have a category about the Wikimedia Foundation and her projects : can you add this category in the french planet please ? Thank you. Juraastro (talk) 20:28, 7 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]
    Is there a RSS feed that will allow to get only post the category "wikimedia"? Tpt (talk) 20:40, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Done Added category feed with r45676, should be pushed relatively quickly. Jalexander (talk) 22:42, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Blog about my Paid Editing Community Project in German. Please give name as "Grenzen der Bezahlung." Feed: Grenzen der Bezahlung
    Done Added with r45676, should be pushed relatively quickly. Jalexander (talk) 22:42, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Please add http://festivalsommer.blogspot.com with the label "Planet" to the German planet - this will be the documentation for the Project de:Wikipedia:Festivalsommer_2013. Please display this blog as "Festivalsommer". Thanks, -- Achim Raschka (talk) 10:23, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the talk page poke, Done in r49220. If it doesn't get merged while I'm asleep I'll make Daniel do it tomorrow :). Jalexander (talk) 11:15, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Please add http://okinokynko.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default/-/en-wiki into the English Planet. It is a channel for my English wiki-blogs. Thanks. Okino (talk) 20:04, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Done in r49220. If it doesn't get merged while I'm asleep I'll make Daniel do it tomorrow :). Jalexander (talk) 11:15, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Please add http://mitevam.tumblr.com/ to the English planet. It's a blog about my WMF internship. Thank you. Mitevam 15:43, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    feed: http://mitevam.tumblr.com/rss
    submitted in gerrit:52911 Jeremyb (talk) 20:20, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  27. I am an OPW intern under Wikimeida and recently am blogging a lot about my work and internship related stuff. Thought of sharing those blogs here in the English planet. Please add this blog with the lable 'OPW' in the English planet.Thanks. Priyanka Nag
    feed: http://priyankaivy.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default
    submitted in gerrit:52911 Jeremyb (talk) 20:20, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Another OPW intern here. Please add my blog's feed, which focuses on my internship. Thanks! Valeriej
    feed: http://valmj.wordpress.com/category/technology/foss/feed/
    submitted in gerrit:52911 Jeremyb (talk) 20:20, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  29. LVilla (WMF) (talk) 20:47, 27 February 2013 (UTC) - please add the wikipedia category feed from my blog. Probably better to use my name (Luis Villa) rather than my username.[reply]
    feed: http://tieguy.org/blog/category/wikipedia/feed/
    submitted in gerrit:52911 Jeremyb (talk) 20:20, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  30. I blog about gendergap in Wikimedia and my experiences with editing Wikipedia. Please add this blog to the English planet. Thanks! --Netha Hussain (talk) 17:59, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    feed: http://nethahussain.blogspot.in/feeds/posts/default
    submitted in gerrit:52911 Jeremyb (talk) 20:20, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Done all from Mitevam to Netha Hussein merged in gerrit:52911 Mutante (talk) 00:02, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Please add http://pblog.ebaker.me.uk/feeds/posts/default/-/wikipedia to the English planet. Feed has posts about Wikipedia in the GLAM sector --Edwbaker (talk) 10:15, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Submitted gerrit patch --> gerrit:55500 --Rangilo Gujarati (talk) 01:2x3, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
    Merged gerrit:55500. Mutante (talk) 16:56, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Please add http://yuvi.in/blog/category/wiki/ (RSS at http://yuvi.in/blog/category/wiki/feed/). Feed has posts about Mediawiki and Wikimedia on Mobile stuff. Yuvipanda (talk) 11:51, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Submitted gerrit patchset (gerrit:55462) for mine. Yuvipanda (talk) 12:16, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Merged gerrit:55462 after rebasing/amending. Mutante (talk) 16:57, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Please add my Gujarati (gu) blog http://rangilogujarati.wordpress.com/category/wikipedia/ (RSS --> http://rangilogujarati.wordpress.com/category/wikipedia/feed/). I post about Wikipedia related activities and reports. Thanks. --Rangilo Gujarati (talk) 20:11, 23 March 2013 (UTC) Realized lately that this is for posts in English only, so please discard this request. I'll get few posts in English on my blog first and later push this request. --Rangilo Gujarati (talk) 21:58, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Please add this blog to the french planet. Posts about photographies and Commons, in french. Thanks. Ludo29 (talk) 12:09, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not added

Requests for Update or Removal

To be done

  • In the same scope that below, I just read some messages on http://fr.planet.wikimedia.org and another blog seems to be inappropriate to be on an "official" Wikimedia website, at least in agreement with the "Items desired" section above.
    Some messages of http://wikirigoler.over-blog.com/ are explicitely insulting some community members or projects. You can see 2 old examples targeting 3 members (including me) of the Projet:Québec members ([7], [8]) using terms like « extrémistes », « intégristes linguistiques », « aparatchiks », etc.
    You can also see that this anonymous Wikipedian blogger target other members of the French community to attack their work, here Serein (Wikimédia France staff member), here Trizek and here KelamKelson.
    I think that if you judge that Hamelin de Guettelet blog must be removed from the Planet Wikimedia feed, so must be the one of Pierrot le Chroniqueur.
    That's why I hereby request the blog Observons Wikipedia : le blog de Pierrot le Chroniqueur to be removed from the french Planet Wikimedia. Thanks by advance. Simon Villeneuve 22:17, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
    @Simon : I think you have mistaken me with Kelson, so would you kindly correct yourself? I am totally unrelated to this man and furthermore, I totally disagree with this request and don't want to be associated at all. Kelam (talk) 06:35, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry for the mistake.
    So, must I understand that you agree that the WMF, via Planet Wikimedia, feed people with the posts of an anonymous French Wikipedian targeting and attacking the work of other French Wikipedians ? Simon Villeneuve 11:23, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
    I'm just saying that this particular blog doesn't bother me and I would do nothing to remove it from the Planet feed. If you feel insulted, this is your business, not mine. And if other people feel the need to make it removed, let them be my guests. Kelam (talk) 11:39, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the blog Observons Wikipedia : le blog de Pierrot le Chroniqueur has to be removed from the french Planet Wikimedia. --Guil2027 (talk) 19:53, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seriously ? So now, because you're not pleased with what is written on a blog you want it to be removed from Planet Wikimedia ? Please tell me where the insults are in [9], [10] and [11]. Can't this blogger just disagree with other Wikipedians ? Is it forbidden now ? And Guil2027, very strange that you don't want to remove a blog that really insults contributors from wp:fr (contributors with which you are in conflict, it is not a secret), and you strongly want to remove this blog, without adducing any argument... This proposal of remove really bothers me, because it shows that the conflicts inside WP:fr are moving outside of it, and that's a shame. --Woozz un problème? 00:13, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Je n'ai pas pu développer des arguments parce que mon anglais n'est pas bon tout simplement. Le blog de Pierrot le chroniqueur défend une vision de Wikipédia (ainsi que certains contributeurs), je ne la partage pas mais je n'aurais jamais eu l'idée d'aller demander son éjection de Planet Wikimedia (comme l'ont fait ceux qui ne sont pas d'accord avec le blog d'Hamelin). Je suis vraiment très choquée par cette action. Lors d'un des ses billets, Pierrot le Chroniqueur avait regretté que je n'ai pas été bloquée, ce n'est pas insultant ça peut-être ? Je ne me suis pas précipitée pour autant sur cette page. Même chose lorsque je lis des énormités dans les commentaires de certains billets de Pierrot le chroniqueur où excuse-moi du peu les gens sont loin d'être des bisounours. Je préférerais largement que les deux blogs restent sur Planet Wikimedia mais il est inadmissible que celui de Pierrot bénéficie d'un traitement de faveur. Voilà pourquoi je demande son retrait, je ne vois pas pourquoi les gens ne devraient avoir qu'un seul son de cloche. Quant aux fameuses insultes, c'est simplement un constat (surtout pour un contributeur). On ne va quand même pas appliquer aux blogs et à Planet wikimedia le puritanisme hypocrite qui règne sur wikipédia où on a le droit de faire les pires crasses mais surtout ne pas dire un gros mot ? Au passage, non je n'ai pas de conflits avec deS contributeurS. Il n'y a qu'une seule personne qui m'insupporte vraiment (et que j'évite d'ailleurs comme la peste pour ne pas perdre mon temps).--Guil2027 (talk) 09:27, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Pierrot n'a jamais traité quiconque de "psychotique" ou comparé quiconque à un mafieux. Hamelin, si. Mais comme le quelqu'un en question se trouve être la "personne qui t'insupporte vraiment", je suppose que ce n'est pas grave. Eh bien, si, c'est diffamatoire. Contrairement à des opinions. Dire que "X devrait être bloqué pour telle chose", c'est une opinion, et Hamelin pourrait le dire de SM s'il le juge utile. Dire que c'est un sociopathe, en revanche, ce n'est pas acceptable, et ce serait aussi vrai pour Pierrot s'il le faisait à ton encontre. Mais ce n'est pas le cas. Short english mode : Pierrot never qualified anybody of beeing "sociopath" or "mafia". Hamelin did. But since the "sociopath" was somebody Guil2027 doesn't like, it seems that it don't bother... And "nid de cons" (fools' nest) also is an unacceptable insult, for all those who vote for deletion of an article. He could politely say that he didn't agree. LittleTony87 (talk) 09:41, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Commme SM est à l'origine de la demande de retrait, on peut comprendre quand même que les gens réagissent de façon violente, non? C'est aussi d'une telle injustice qu'on ne peut qu'être écoeuré. Surtout que la façon dont le retrait a été effectué est lui aussi violent, il n'y a eu aucun message d'annonce sur Planet Wikimedia. Honnêtement ça n'a aucun intérêt de dire que SM est sociopathe ou pas, ce qui intéressant c'est l'analyse de son comportement destructeur sur wikipédia et c'est exactement ce que fait le blog d'Hamelin (ce n'est pas non plus le sujet principal de ce blog!). Qu'il soit je ne sais comment dans la vie réelle n'a absolument aucune importance, ce qui compte c'est comment telle ou telle personne ou telle ou telle affaire a un impact sur wikipédia et sur les contributeurs. --Guil2027 (talk) 09:55, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Your translation is very soft… "nid à cons" = "assholes nest" ; Pierrot is a way less insulting in his issues than Hamelin… He don’t say his contradictors are "emmerdeurs" ("pain in the ass") or "brebis galeuses" ("black sheeps") or "fouilles-merde" ("muckrakers") or "infirmes du cerveau" ("crippled brains") or "cowboys écervelés" (brainless cowboys)… He may use words that seem insulting to some people, but that’s not slang-insulting words. schlum =^.^= 20:18, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Les commentaires sont les commentaires, mais de mémoire, j’ai très souvent vu « Pierrot » mettre le holà dans les commentaires justement quand ça devenait trop « chaud ». schlum =^.^= 01:01, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This blog criticizes, but doesn't insult anybody. Simon Villneuve show a post which "insults" Trizek ??? That's a lie : Trizek himself peacfully discuss and debates with "Pierrot". This blog just tells some things that don't please to people who don't like those who think differently... It's a really different case from Hamelin's blog : Pierrot didn't call anybody "sociopath". Hamelin did. That's a difference... So keep. LittleTony87 (talk) 09:41, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't say that he insult Trizek. I say that he insult 3 members of the Projet:Québec in the past (including me) in a xenophobic way (you can smell that POV against the African peoples too here in that "we the Whites know better about this subject than them" post) and that he use his influence and his anonymity to attack the work of well known members of Wikimedia France.
    I still think that if the peoples operate Planet Wikimedia judge that the Hamelin blog must be removed, so must be the one of Pierrot.
    About the "sociopath" word, SM use it to describe himself on his own Twitter account. Simon Villeneuve 12:58, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
    An humoristic and ironic (obviously...) reaction, yesterday, to the vicious post of Hamelin de Guettelet. You bad faith seems limitless (Kelam first, then me)... I totally disagree with your handling of my remarks in order to associate me with a wacky request. I withdraw the word of my Twitter account so that it is'nt distorted and manipulated in this way any more. SM ** =^^= ** 13:20, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I didn't know that you used this word only yesterday as a "humoristic and ironic" reaction of the Hamelin blog post. I normally don't look at your Twitter account.
    The main idea of my request is that I think that it's inappropriate to exploit Planet Wikimedia to feed people with contributors bashing. Hamelin did that and his blog have been blocked. Pierrot did that and his blog must be blocked. Simon Villeneuve 17:56, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Simon Villeneuve seems to like comparing these blogs in order to have a bad revenge. In fact Pierrot's blog doesn't insult anyone, which is very different from Ainsi va wikipédia. So, we need to keep Pierrot's blog. In french, "comparaison n'est pas raison" ou comme l'a dit Drongou plus bas : "Bon, le retour de la revanche juste au-dessus, c'est juste du n'importe quoi." Pas mieux ! Floflo62 (talk) 12:00, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not always agree with Pierrot le Chroniqueur, but I think he has never been insultant or defamatory with someone in particular. And sometines, he peacefully debates with his critics on his blog. So keep, obviously Guillaume70 (talk) 13:43, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the blog Observons Wikipedia : le blog de Pierrot le Chroniqueur has to be removed from the french Planet Wikimedia. Mike Coppolano (talk) 13:53, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I can't agree with Simon Villeneuve's proposal. And I should have written same comments as Guillaume70's one. Hégésippe | ±Θ± 17:04, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Recently updated or removed

  • I just read some messages on http://fr.planet.wikimedia.org and found the blog idea really interresting. But some of them bringed my attention, and I'm not sure it's appropriate to have them on an "official" Wikimedia website, at least in agreement with the "Items desired" section above. Indeed, some messages are explicitely insulting some community members, most of them posted by "Hamelin de Guettelet". If you want an example, this one is using the terms "imbécile", "vicieux", "piètres individus", "ils sont incapable", "leur bêtise"... It will be easy for you to translate it and to understand that the content is far to be appropriate. It is even more explicit here, where some named contributors are qualified of being part of the "mafia des suppressionnistes" and some sysops of the "gang des balayeurs". That's why I hereby request the blog ainsi-va-wikipedia.blogspot.fr to be removed from the french Planet Wikimedia. Thanks by advance. -- Quentinv57 (talk) 19:15, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Could anyone look into this, please ? New articles are still posted on this blog, and are even more insulting... This has to be stopped and removed. Best regards, -- Quentinv57 (talk) 15:19, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry for the delay on these guys. This has been done as part of r73564 I can't merge myself but going to try and find someone to do so asap. Jalexander (talk) 10:09, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal of removal Ainsi va Wikipédia

Hi ! Just one contributor to complain for you to give him reason. This is not some posts highlighted by Quentin57 representing the tone of my blog. These posts [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] are also representative of my blog.

Have this page two contributors who did not oppose as those expressed here. The contributors that I denounce make much more hurt to Wikipedia that I do myself.

I ask you to reintroduce my blog in fr.planet.

Thank you in advance -- • Hamelin [ de Guettelet ] • 17:58, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly oppose. This blog always insults a lot of wp:fr's contributors (many examples given by Quentinv57), especially deletionists (or assumed such) and patrol's users, and criticizes Wikipedia's foundations. He repeatedly defames (the word is not an exageration) me. His ejection of Planet is logical. Sincerely, SM ** =^^= ** 19:39, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Oppose:Idem Suprememangaka. Rome2 (talk) 19:41, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Oppose: I agree with the two comments above. Many notes on this "blog" are totally defamatory and does not have to appear on Planet ! --Coyote du 86 (talk) 20:04, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the last blog issue where some contributors are namely called as troublemakers in injurious terms, and full of conspiration therories, tends to confirm that this blog’s tone is not adapted for Planet… schlum =^.^= 23:56, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Support: This blog is useful to recall the basic principles and to report on their use and respect. --Laurent Jerry (talk) 08:14, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep: there is no good reason to remove this blog from Planet Wikimedia as his author sometime (and among many other overall thoughts about the functioning of WP(fr)) highlights behaviors that can be viewed as not in line with the five pillars requirements. That some people disagree with some of the content quoted in this blog is not a sufficient reason to remove this blog from Planet Wikimedia and to conclude that it would be defamatory. --Lebob (talk) 09:11, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Oppose Hamelin insults a lot of users in his blog. The main motive for his insults is : "They disagree with me". Hamelin's tendancy to resort to insults is not new, it's not a temporary behaviour. Thus, no reason to provide him with Foundation's resources. Thus, no valid reason to reinstate his blog on the french planet. Meodudlye (talk) 09:31, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep - Per Lebob here above. Hamelin criticizes in his blog actions that he considers to be abuses of the Five Pillars of wikipedia principles. There is no reason to censor him [except from those who considered themselves as the targets of his critics]. I add that there is no defamation in his comments. Those who make these claims should provide evidence because without this, they behave like difamators... Pluto2012 (talk) 17:28, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No defamation ? There are only insults in this repulsive blog ! Enough evidence has been provided of that. Including this trash on planet.wikimedia is like treating "The Sun" or "Weekly World News" like a serious, scholarly source. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 22:46, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Oppose diffamation, insults, no real information, better without it. Hatonjan (talk) 17:24, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep I entirely desagree with Quentinv57. I like his blog, it's very interesting. Shame on you Quentinv57 !! --Guil2027 (talk) 19:53, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep Strongly - Hamelin critical those which are open to criticism, myself, he rather encouraged me. I regularly read his posts, they allow me to better understand the functioning of Wikipedia, for a newbie it's irreplaceable. There should be more blogs like this.
It is astonishing how the contributors problematics of francophone community, Suprememangaka, Jean-Jacques Georges, Schlum, Coyote du 86, Quentin57, Meodudlye and others, reported by Hamelin de Guettelet in his blog, can be found here for reduce him to silence. --Skorba (talk) 21:21, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Only one question: do you have any proof of what you say? Or is it a generalization of personal thought? --Coyote du 86 (talk) 14:16, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know who Skorba is, nor do I care, nor am I interested to know why he finds me "problematic". What I definitely know is that his pile of junk purporting to be a "blog" has no place on planet.wikimedia.org. Not only does it resort to insults, but the personal attacks (and by personal, I mean personal) it uses are even more crass. Here, the writer implies that I behave badly with my wife... If that is not defamation, I don't know what is. IMHO it shouldn't even have the right to be on the internet : this blog has even less intrinsec value than scatophile porn. It is not only insulting and vulgar, it is even morally despicable and hence deserves to be despised. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 16:35, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just a small contributor who does not appreciate the atmosphere that reign in the francophone community but me, I know you for your coarse crusade against the Arbitration Committee. It would be nice if you abstain always of intervene beneath the other opinions, especially for show us a particularly vulgar and insulting vocabulary, it's the pot calling the kettle black. You have done well to give a link because the comments reported are only your own words at the french TV. --Skorba (talk) 18:52, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do not mind insulting this blog, actually I am rather proud of it : it deserves no respect whatsoever. If we include this piece of trash, why not include wikibuster.org ? Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 20:22, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Oppose After some time of reflexion, I don't get the point to keep this blog on planet. The owner is known for his provocative behaviour, and he prefered to stay away from fr.wikipedia to dream about his vision of the project, but mostly insult his contradictors and never miss an occasion to do so. There is no constructive critics, a lot of unproven accusations, not much to make this blog relevant. Kelam (talk) 14:39, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Accusations are always proven. --Guil2027 (talk) 18:52, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Criticism is one thing ; insults are another. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 20:25, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep Many times I can't approve Hamelin's views, but it shouldn't be a reason to remove this blog from fr.planet. In the same way, I can't approve any proposal of removal for wikirigoler.over-blog.com. Some people feel harassment or defamation through Hamelin's keyboard, but is it more than a feeling? Hégésippe | ±Θ± 18:58, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No it's not, it's a fact. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 20:22, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rather Keep Keep : Same opinion than Hégésippe. « Ainsi va Wikipédia » reflects a lambda point of view of Wikipedia. We can agree or not (and I am very far from following the views of Hamelin !), but this does not justify a removal. Likewise Wikirigoler. However, I understand the reticence of people impacted by this blog. Regards, --Superjuju10 (talk) 19:33, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"lambda" : what about the defamation against me IRL ? I do not mind not being liked by the character who writes this trash : he despises me, and I despise him. But what I cannot accept is any implication that I behaved badly towards my wife IRL. This is defamation plain and simple. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 20:22, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Since you insist
You accuse the author of defamation against you and you give a link on one of his posts. Me, I give a link to the video of the TV programme and we are finding verbatim transcribed words (viewing 10 minutes 47 and 12 minutes)
Which Defames? You who accuse the blog's author or the author who transcribed exactly what you said or your wife said.
Mister Georges, you give here the example of harmful behavior, what you regularly to do on fr:Wikipedia: rudeness, lying, falses accusations, bad faith --Skorba (talk) 23:37, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep : idem Lebob and Superjuju10. Pucesurvitaminee (talk) 20:20, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep :"I just read some messages on http://fr.planet.wikimedia.org and found the blog idea really interresting. But .." Franchement le just c'est carrément Excellentissime. Bon, le retour de la revanche juste au-dessus, c'est juste du n'importe quoi. - Drongou (talk) 21:37, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Oppose diffamation and insults. Langladure (talk) 06:19, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep : Sorry, I don't speak english very well, if someone wants translate, he can... There's no diffamation and I prouve it. Hamelin ne mâche pas ses mots, c'est son style. Il a toujours été ainsi, son blog le reflète et cela ne plaît pas, mais alors pas du tout, à ceux qui sont visés par la critique. Par exemple, Jean-Jacques Georges s'estime diffamé (je le cite : "Here, the writer implies that I behave badly with my wife... If that is not defamation, I don't know what is."). Le lien qu'il donne est mauvais, c'est l'article suivant du blog qui est visé, là où Hamelin écrit de lui : "Jean-Jacques Georges, déjà bien connu des contributeurs pour sa grossièreté (cf. mon message du 9 juillet 2012) et son intolérance, nous fait à la télévision une malheureuse mais brillante démonstration de contributeur infatué. Il révoque, sans se poser de question, le travail d'un contributeur qui n'a pour seul défaut de ne pas être du même avis que lui, de l'énervé, de ne pas avoir « les paramètres intellectuels », les a-t-il lui « les paramètres intellectuels » ? Lui qui n'hésite pas, devant sa femme, à manifestement travestir ses habitudes de deals ménagers/wikipédiens. Lui qui pue la prétention « Alors là c'est un truc beaucoup plus spécialisé, ça c'est un livre en anglais "God's chinese son" et ça parle de la révolte des Taiping, vous connaissez le sujet ? ». Quel exemple donne-t-il des patrouilleurs ? Quelle image donne-t-il de Wikipédia ? Il ne faut plus s'étonner si tous les jours la moitié des articles créés sont blanchis - supprimés en langage wikipédien - au grand dam de ces nouveaux contributeurs qui sont ainsi rejetés de l'encyclopédie aux grands cris d'un certain Marc/JJG « Encore un qui met des conneries ». Voilà un exemple édifiant, alors que toutes les Wikipédias essayent de recruter ces nouveaux contributeurs. Et ce n'est pas son explication, en partie bidonnée, sur un lien vers un site pédophile qui rattrapera sa prestation. Le lien était fait vers une très sérieuse étude universitaire traitant du sujet, mais malencontreusement hébergé par un site pédophile. Il fallait effectivement supprimer ce lien mais pour le remplacer par un autre pointant directement vers ce document qui lui était de qualité."
Les seuls mots un peu excessifs sont : "contributeur infatué" et "pue[r] la prétention". La soi-disant diffamation concerne le passage où Hamelin dit qu'il "n'hésite pas devant sa femme, à manifestement travestir ses habitudes de deals ménagers/wikipédiens." Malheureusement, il suffit de regarder la vidéo et d'écouter la réponse de sa femme pour se rendre compte qu'Hamelin a très bien analysé la chose. En voici la transcription intégrale d'un extrait de 10:40 à 11:27 :
Journaliste : "Depuis 5 ans, Wp a envahi la vie de ce fonctionnaire, au grand désespoir de son épouse."
L'épouse (plus loin : É) : "Il passe énormément de temps dessus, au détriment des fois des tâches ménagères et de la vie familiale"
Jean-Jacques Georges (plus loin : JJG) : "Oh, la vie familiale..."
É : "Si !... Ça ne laisse pas beaucoup de temps pour les vrais échanges avec des vrais êtres humains..."
- Coupure au montage. -
JJG : "Alors quand je dis que j'ai vraiment envie ou besoin de temps pour faire un truc, là, on essaie de dealer (bien voir la moue de son épouse qui n'a pas du tout l'air d'approuver ses propos à 11:09 et secoue négativement la tête) on l'a fait hier, donc je lui ai dit est-ce que tu es d'accord pour que je passe du temps sur l'ordinateur ce soir ou demain soir, elle me dit oui, elle me dit non, et puis alors euh..."
É : "Ça marche pas toujours, hein... Ça ressemble un peu aux passions des ados attardés..."
JJG : "Merci, c'est gentil..."
É : "Ils sont shootés à WP..."
Le moins qu'on puisse dire est qu'il ne s'agit pas de diffamation de la part d'Hamelin, les deux parties (JJG et son épouse) n'étant manifestement pas d'accord et Hamelin prenant simplement le parti de l'épouse (plus diplomate que lui)... Sur l'accusation de grossièreté de la part de JJG, Hamelin n'invente rien non plus, cela a été relevé par des arbitres, notamment lors d'un arbitrage en 2009 (arbitrage que JJG n'a jamais digéré, ce qui lui permet, à chaque fois qu'il en a l'occasion, de vitupérer contre le CAr et les arbitres en général, c'est un fait connu par tous les contributeurs habituels de WP:fr). Sur l'accusation de révocation "sans se poser de questions" (et sans poser de questions à l'autre contributeur non plus), là encore, c'est exact, JJG s'en vante, avec au passage une attaque personnelle (ne pas avoir les "paramètres intellectuels", c'est une périphrase pour traiter d'imbécile). Quant à l'histoire du site pédophile, que j'avais parcourue à l'époque, là aussi, l'analyse d'Hamelin est pertinente. Au lieu de se lancer dans des accusations de pédophilie vis-à-vis de son contradicteur, si JJG avait calmement expliqué que ce qui posait problème c'était le site où était hébergé le document et avait cherché une autre source, la question se serait résolue sans heurt (mais sur certains sujets, - pédophilie, CAr, par exemple pour ne citer qu'eux - JJG est incapable de discuter sereinement, le revendique dans les termes les plus méprisants voire grossiers, et personnalise les débats, refusant tout net la discussion avec certains utilisateurs).
Bref, je ne vais pas faire une étude de chacun des posts de Hamelin qui sont mis en cause. Oui, parfois, il y va un peu fort. Mais à mon sens, ses coups de geule sont bien souvent fondés. Et son blog ne se contente pas de cela. Comme il l'a lui-même indiqué plus haut, il écrit aussi de nombreux articles de fond qui, même si je ne souscris pas toujours à ses analyses, ont le mérite de poser des questions et de faire réfléchir sur Wp. Wikipédia se construit aussi sur la confrontation de divergences d'opinion. Cela dit, que son blog ne figure plus sur Planet WM ne m'empêchera nullement de le consulter (pas plus que d'autres), je le lui ai déjà dit, il figure depuis belle lurette dans mon flux RSS. Mais je trouve quand même particulièremnt dommageable que, parce qu'un certain nombre de contributeurs n'étant pas eux-mêmes des petits saints n'admettent pas qu'on les critique, hors Wikipédia, de la même façon qu'eux se permettent de le faire vis-à-vis d'autres (y compris à la télé, sur IRC ou sur twitter), ils obtiennent que ce blog soit viré de Planet. Cela ressemble beaucoup à une censure sur le fond qui se sert du prétexte de la forme. Cordialement. Best regards. Musicaline (talk) 08:19, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Musicaline, je ne suis pas du tout surpris que vous défendiez cet ignoble blog : vous n'avez strictement rien compris à l'histoire du site pédophile - j'avais au contraire expliqué le problème sans m'énerver, et n'étais devenu virulent que devant l'acharnement de l'autre contributeur. Je trouve votre attitude déplorable, que ce soit sur wp fr ou ailleurs. "Les seuls mots un peu excessifs" ? Tout dans cet article est insultant; je ne peux que constater que vous êtes incapable de la moindre analyse intelligente, dans quelque contexte que ce soit. Quant à ma soi-disant "grossièreté" relevée par des "arbitres" incompétents, je m'étonne que vous vous en offusquiez alors que celle de l'auteur de ce torchon ne vous choque pas. Ou plutôt non, ça ne m'étonne pas, puisque visiblement pour vous, il y a deux poids et deux mesures. Toujours à mon désavantage, évidemment. Quand je pense que vous avez été "arbitre" - alors que je ne vous connaissais pas, on m'avait assuré que vous étiez particulièrement peu fiable - cela me donne une raison supplémentaire de mépriser ce soi-disant "comité d'arbitrage". Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 08:49, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes,I know. But the fact is that my analyses are - sometimes ? often ? sure, not always - the same of several contributors. Remember. Or, are you the onliest one who has "clever analyses" ? Congratulations and regards. Musicaline (talk) 10:07, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Besides uninteresting exchanges such as above, what definitely emerges is that this blog is not consensual, to say the least : Pierrot le chroniqueur (wikirigoler.over-blog) may be somewhat controversial, but at least, unlike this one, it is not insulting. "Ainsi va..." must not be reintegrated : we cannot afford to give the impression that this piece of trash is "wikipedia approved". Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 09:18, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
L'accusation de Jean-Jacques est parfaitement et solidement étayée (et votre compte-rendu détaillé, Musicaline, en fait la démonstration. Ce que vous ne saisissez évidemment pas, l'amitié indubitable qui vous lie à Hamelin (en témoigne vos messages conclus par des familiarités affectves que vous laissez parfois sur ledit blog...)). Les diffamations, sur son blog, de Hamelin de Guettelet (qu'il s'agisse de ses considérations sur le couple entre Jean-Jacques et sa femme, me qualifier de "psychotique", de "sociopathe", ou encore asséner sans l'ombre d'une preuve (évidemment) que j'abuse de faux-nez pour forcer des points de vue dans les articles de mes centres d'intérêt. Et encore, je ne parle pas des simples insultes, bien sûr, qui, elles, sont hebdomadaires et ciblent à peu près une dizaine de contributeurs en tout (Jean-Jacques, Kirtap, Patrick Rogel, Meodudlye, Grimlock, Addacat, Rémi Mathis, Rome2, Schlum, Coyote du 86, Azurfrog, moi-même, etc.) qualifiés, au gré de l'humeur du propriétaire des lieux, d'"emmerdeurs", de "fouteurs de merde", de "vrais cons", d'"infirmes du cerveau", ou encore de "virus" et de "nid à cons", inventaire très loin d'être exhaustif) sont caractérisées, et le dire relève donc du simple constat. À défaut, évidemment, d'être utile puisque l'on ne peut (logiquement) sanctionner un contributeur ici (= sur wikimedia ou wikipedia.org) pour ce qu'il prend soin de dire (lâchement) ailleurs. Mais on peut au moins l'empêcher d'être relayé ici. Cela me semble être la moindre des choses.
Bref, en un mot comme en cent, votre argumentation ne tient pas la route une seconde. Dans tous ses aspects. En ce qui concerne les insultes, par exemple, votre axe est de dire qu'il s'agit de critiques (et que donc nous ne supporterions pas la critique). Hé bien, je suis désolé, mais non : il y a une différence entre critiquer et insulter. Dire, par exemple, que je pose des problèmes, que je contribue très mal, en expliquant pourquoi, serait une critique. Me qualifier gratuitement, sans autre forme d'explication, de "sociopathe" ou de "con" n'est pas une critique, c'est de l'insulte claire. Parce que, si vous voulez, je pourrais très bien m'amuser à faire un blog où je parlerais de vous de la même manière que lui parle de moi. Une critique de vous façon Hamelin. On verrait bien, alors, si vous jugeriez que ce n'est pas de l'insulte, une fois "sociopathe", "conne", "foutant la merde avec des faux-nez", et que sais-je encore. On comprend toujours mieux, c'est humain, quand on est la victime (et rassurez-vous, c'était juste pour faire une analogie : loin de moi l'idée de faire un tel blog, et loin de moi l'idée, bien sûr, de penser réellement ces choses à votre égard).
Et, en conclusion, je préciserais que c'est par exemple toute la différence entre un blog comme celui de Hamelin, et des blogs comme ceux de Pierrot le chroniqueur ou d'Alexander Doria. Je suis, par exemple, fondamentalement en désaccord avec la philosophie de Wikipédia défendue par Alexander Doria sur son blog. Alexander Doria, sur son blog, a également parfois été critique à mon égard. Critique. Mais il ne m'y a jamais insulté. Ni jamais insulté qui que ce soit d'autre. Il a donc parfaitement sa place, à mon avis, sur le Planet, bien que je ne sois pas d'accord et bien qu'il me critique. Cela ne me dérange évidemment pas, et c'est très sain. Le blog d'Hamelin, lui, insulte, diffame et dénigre. Je suis désolé, on ne peut pas appeler ça de la "critique". Il y a des nuances de taille. Vraiment de taille.
Cordialement, SM ** =^^= ** 12:14, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bonjour SM. Nous sommes d'accord, il s'agit d'insultes - en réponse à d'autres insultes, ce qui est une circonstance atténuante - mais en aucun cas de diffamation. Quant à ma proximité avec Hamelin, que je sache, elle vaut bien autant que ton éloignement (et puis, je suis d'un naturel affectueux, pas seulement à l'égard d'Hamelin). En outre, le dénigrement de contributeurs est tout autant pratiqué par Pierrot le Chroniqueur qui toutefois y met un peu plus les formes. Bon dimanche. Musicaline (talk) 12:59, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
En réponse à d'autres insultes ? Je ne me souviens pas avoir jamais insulté Hamelin qui, d'ailleurs, ne contribue plus depuis deux ans. Jean-Jacques indique, si j'ai bien compris, n'avoir jamais interagi avec lui, et je ne crois pas non plus que Schlum, Coyote (réellement actif sur WP depuis après le départ d'Hamelin) ou Azurfrog ne l'aient insulté au préalable de quelque manière que ce soit. Il faudrait donc, s'il vous plaît, arrêter de suggérer n'importe quoi pour tenter désespérément de justifier l'injustifiable. Et comparer celà à Pierrot me semble hors de propos. Pierrot est parfois (voire souvent) sarcastique, critique (j'ai récemment été qualifié d'"as des coups tordus", ce qui n'est certes pas très sympathique, et m'a évidemment déplu, mais n'a rien à voir avec le tombereau d'injures d'Hamelin) mais n'insulte pas. Et il est anonyme. Tout cela le rend controversé, comme le dit bien Jean-Jacques. Il n'a pas sa langue dans sa poche et a des avis bien tranchés (que je ne partage pas forcément, loin s'en faut) mais, au final, il n'insulte pas et a le droit d'avoir les avis qu'il a. Comme Alexander Doria (duquel il est somme toute très proche sur la forme et parfois sur le fond). Cordialement, SM ** =^^= ** 13:20, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Que Musicaline ose se prétendre "d'un naturel affectueux", à en juger par ses interventions habituelles, franchement...
Entièrement d'accord avec l'analyse de SM : il y a un monde entre les analyses critiques, qui sont tout à fait légitimes, et les tombereaux d'injures présents sur ce torchon. Lire, comme l'affirme fait Musicaline, qu'un tel dégueulis de haine est une "analyse pertinente" ne laisse pas d'inquiéter quant aux capacités de jugement de qui émet un tel avis... Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 15:20, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@ SM> Je n'ai jamais écrit que toi ou d'autres avaient insulté Hamelin, ne me fais pas dire ce que je n'ai pas dit (encore que, je ne sais et n'ai pas envie de chercher, Hamelin, lui, pourrait peut-être trouver des exemples), par contre lequel d'entre vous n'a jamais insulté, dénigré ou attaqué un contributeur ou groupe de contributeurs, ni sur Wp, ni sur IRC, ni sur Twitter, ni dans des commentaires de blogs, à défaut d'avoir son propre blog ? (rien que toi vis-à-vis de moi et d'autres, j'en tiens plusieurs exemples à ta disposition lors d'un long échange hors Wp.) Et cela ne règle pas le problème de l'accusation infondée de diffamation que tu te gardes bien de reprendre, sachant très bien qu'elle n'est pas fondée, comme je l'ai démontré. Tout aussi cordialement. Musicaline (talk) 17:16, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@ JJG> Évidemment, je ne pousse pas l'abnégation jusqu'à sauter au cou de qui s'essuie les pieds sur moi (et sur le Comité d'arbitrage de Wp:fr, et s'essuyer les pieds est un euphémisme) et me fait part de sa profonde antipathie. Je sais me tenir, quand même ! Qui plus est, je m'attache plus au fond qu'à la forme (ce qui me permet de conserver politesse et courtoisie tout en disant ce que je pense). Entre parenthèses, moi je ne pratique pas comme toi qui te permet d'informer l'un de tes sympathisants par mail afin qu'il vienne donner son avis ici. Y en a t'il d'autres plus discrets (de mails) ? Tiens, à propos, je me demande si inconscience ou bêtise constituent des attaques personnelles ? Musicaline (talk) 17:16, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
La bonne blague... Je n'ai pas pour habitude d'insulter qui que ce soit sur Wikipédia, sur IRC, Twitter ou autre (à l'inverse de certains [26] [27] [28]). Et quoi qu'il en soit, je ne vois pas en quoi de supposées insultes de certains contre quelqu'un d'autre qu'Hamelin justifie que celui insulte en retour. En admettant même (et c'est parfaitement lamentable) qu'on admette ce lien de cause à effet absolument pathétique (en gros légitimer le "j'insulte ceux qui ont prétendûment insulté mes potes", bonjour la conception clanique), il va falloir, pour justifier votre argumentation, que vous prouviez que tous ceux qui ont été insultés par Hamelin (moi-même, Jean-Jacques, Meodudlye, Azurfrog, Kirtap, Rémi Mathis, Schlum, Chansonnette, Martin, Coyote du 86, Rome2, Patrick Rogel, Grimlock... Sans oublier tous ceux qui ont voté la suppression avec transformation en redirection (cas précis ciblé) de l'affaire Clément Méric, englobés dans un généraliste et insultant "cons" et "nid de cons qui embraye à la suite d'Azurfrog" dans ce billet, ce qui nous permet de rajouter : Passoa15, B-noa, Sebk, Frédéric et Necrid Master) ont, en admettant la validité de votre théorie qui consiste à excuser des insultes par de supposées autres, déjà commis des insultes. Pure conclusion logique, vous en conviendrez. Bon courage :).
En ce qui concerne les diffamations, répéter comme un mantra qu'elles ne sont pas prouvées (ce que vous n'avez nullement démontré, puisque vous n'argumentez pas) ne changera rien. J'ai moi-même, comme je l'ai expliqué, été diffamé par Hamelin de Guettelet sur son blog : me qualifier de "sociopathe" ou de "psychotique" entre indubitablement dans ce champ de l'atteinte à l'honneur. Et je ne parle même pas de la réponse d'Hamelin à un commentaire dans ce billet où il dit très clairement, sans aucune preuve (et pour cause), que je "contribue sur les articles de [m]es centres d'intérêt sous un autre pseudo" et que je "fai[s] attention à ne pas mélanger [m]es identités" mais que je "ne [suis] pas à l'abri d'une mauvaise utilisation de [m]es pseudos", ce qui est une accusation très grave (abus de faux-nez, donc malhonnêteté) à l'emporte-pièce et sans la moindre preuve. Autrement dit, une diffamation caractérisée pour me dénigrer gratuitement. SM ** =^^= ** 18:54, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Encore une fois, ne me fais pas dire ce que je n'ai pas dit s'il te plaît, cela devient une habitude  : je n'ai pas parlé d'insulter des "potes", j'ai parlé d'insultes en réponse, ce qui n'a rien d'excessif au vu de ce qui peut passer sur les divers canaux liés à WP. Et je n'ai pas parlé de justifier des insultes en retour, j'ai parlé de circonstances atténuantes. Toi plus que tout autre, tu devrais être capable de faire la différence. Ou alors, you have a problem aucun rapport avec "Houston", mais tu fais du droit, non ? Ce sont donc des notions qui devraient t'être connues. Lorsque l'insulte et l'attaque personnelle, qu'elles soient grossières ou feutrées, font partie du mode de communication habituel d'un groupe, elle en deviennent banales. Elles ne sont pas justifiées pour autant, mais il n'y a pas plus lieu qu'un des membres de ce groupe s'en offusque qu'un autre, désolée. Même sur WP, où pourtant elles ne devraient pas avoir droit de cité, j'en vois régulièrement passer, y compris à mon égard. Je peux en souligner quelques unes de divers lieux si tu le souhaites : l'absence de "paramètres intellectuels" de JJG mentionné plus haut (télé) ou son "je ne peux que constater que vous êtes incapable de la moindre analyse intelligente" à mon encontre (ici même) un peu plus haut aussi (si ce n'est pas me traiter de con, je veux bien manger mon clavier), ou "l'inconscience ou la bêtise" de Kirtap (sur WP:fr), déjà cité et dont j'ai donné le lien ci-dessus (même chose, mais je croque la souris pour changer), ou même ta manière de tenter de disqualifier mes propos ci-dessus : "Il faudrait donc, s'il vous plaît, arrêter de suggérer n'importe quoi" (toujours la même idée, je serais idiote), ce ne sont qu'arguments ad hominem.
D'autre part, sans doute m'as-tu mal lu, ma "démonstration" dans ma première intervention ici visait à mettre en évidence qu'on ne peut pas parler de diffamation dans le cas précis évoqué par JJG et cela uniquement. Il ne s'agit d'ailleurs pas à proprement parler d'une démonstration, je n'ai fait que retranscrire fidèlement des propos enregistrés pour bien montrer que le court résumé qu'Hamelin en avait fait était exact et ne saurait donc être diffamatoire (encore une notion de droit français que tu connais, je n'en doute pas). Qui plus est, il s'agissait d'une accusation de diffamation et non des diffamations (au pluriel) comme tu le laisses entendre afin de faire paraître les choses plus graves. Et puisque tu es soi-disant toi aussi diffamé par les termes "sociopathe" ou "psychotique", parlons-en. Mais avant tout, je te rappelle qu'en droit français la diffamation découle de l'imputation d'un fait et que "sociopathe" ou "psychotique" ne me paraissent pas relever de cette catégorie (mais éventuellement de l'insulte comme il en fuse de manière récurrente un peu partout, situation de facto que je constate ET déplore). En outre le qualificatif "sociopathe" était, jusqu'il y a peu, employé par toi-même pour te présenter sur Twitter (oui, je sais, tu l'as désormais fait disparaître. Envie de changement ? Prise de conscience ? Prudence ? Prévoyance ? Machiavélisme c'est bien le terme de vocabulaire soutenu pour "coup tordu" ? ? Ce n'est pas moi qui trancherai...)
Quant à ton honnêteté, je suis bien placée pour savoir qu'elle est à géométrie variable puisque j'attends toujours, depuis octobre 2011, que tu me cites précisément l'endroit d'une conversation où je t'aurais personnellement insulté, ce que tu as bien été incapable de faire, bien que m'en ayant précédemment accusée (Ta phrase précise était : "Aux autres qui insultent (dans cette parenthèse : trois pseudos dont le mien) : n’espérez finalement aucune réponse de ma part."). Ou, à l'époque, tes mots ont dépassé ta pensée (je suppose toujours la bonne foi en priorité) ou compte tenu du fait que je n'ai jamais vu venir ni preuve, malgré ma demande polie, ni excuse (non, ça, je n'avais pas demandé), et que tu t'es même par la suite permis de confirmer tes propos, puis de pratiquer une jolie attaque personnelle à mon encontre, j'en déduis que je ne peux absolument pas te considérer comme un "honnête homme". Une accusation non prouvée malgré une demande, et réitérée (ce qui exclut toute erreur) alors qu'il est manifeste qu'elle est fausse (par conséquent faite en toute connaissance de sa fausseté) est un mensonge. Tu noteras que je ne te traite pas de menteur (inutile de le prendre pour une offense), mais que j'affirme et démontre, preuve à l'appui, que tu as proféré un mensonge (c'est un constat, véridique, que je justifie, donc pas diffamatoire, voir lien ci-après). L'intégralité des échanges est en effet consultable dans les commentaires de ce billet de blog, pour les courageux - y en a 4 pages - qui voudraient se faire leur propre opinion ou tenter de montrer où j'aurais bien pu insulter SM (je me doute bien que certains vont aller pouiller). Autre exemple, plus commun, de prise de liberté avec l'honnêteté intellectuelle de base (et ce n'est pas moi qui l'ai relevé), ta définition du consensus qui semble elle aussi à géométrie variable. Mais je te concède que c'est moins flagrant et peut se discuter. J'ajouterai bien sûr ta manière de déformer les propos de tes interlocuteurs au point par exemple que j'ai été contrainte plus haut de te le faire remarquer à quatre reprises et de m'auto-citer pour rectifier.
Pour finir, l'affirmation (et non l'accusation) que tu contribues avec un autre pseudo (il me semble en effet avoir vu passer quelque chose sur Wikipédia à ce sujet, mais je peux me tromper et comme cela m'est parfaitement égal, je n'irai pas faire des recherches à ce sujet) cette affirmation disais-je, ne constitue en rien une "accusation très grave" (ce n'est pas interdit me semble t'il et tu ne serais ni le premier, ni le seul) et personne n'est à l'abri d'un cafouillage dans ce type de cas (si c'est vrai et que tu fais attention à ne pas te mélanger les pinceaux, c'est très bien, il ne peut pas y avoir d'abus ; si c'est vrai et que tu fais une fausse manœuvre, volontaire ou non, tu es grand, tu connais les risques, je te souhaite de les assumer. (Il me semble que j'ai déjà tenu ce genre de raisonnement à propos de ton blocage lorsque tu étais intervenu sur une page méta de WP:fr en étant sous le coup d'un arbitrage te l'interdisant.) Par contre, dans les deux cas, je pense nécessaire qu'au moins quelques contributeurs soient au courant, cela me semble normal et permet de vérifier qu'il n'y a pas d'abus. Enfin, si c'est faux, cela n'a aucune importance puisque de toutes façons c'est autorisé et que tu ne cours aucun risque de faire involontairement ce qui peut paraître un abus). Difficile de voir là une diffamation, sauf à avoir une susceptibilité à fleur de peau ou à chercher une raison vraiment grave de museler Hamelin et d'enlever de la visibilité à ses analyses qui te déplaisent.
Bonne journée. Musicaline (talk) 11:55, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Oppose:Many insults and defamatory. Floflo62 (talk) 12:01, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep Very good blog Mike Coppolano (talk) 13:30, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please take note that Mike Coppolano is currently blocked for one year for insults againts several contributors. It is only natural that he would support such a character. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 15:20, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not true. Not against several contributors as JJG said. Only one (Hégésippe Cormier) and that is all. In fact Jean-Jacques Georges was the point of departure of that conflict : he said to me "raus" and he was never sanctionned. This man is a real problem on wiki. For that and several reasons we can argue that this blog is a good one. Mike Coppolano (talk) 15:50, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
the way of the contributor Jean-Jacques Georges. Just read it Mike Coppolano (talk) 15:56, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly : I removed, at least once, unwanted messages and unwanted company from under my own messages, and I always remove such stuff from my talk page. So what ? Really, this is getting pathetic... FYI, Mike Coppolano was blocked because he blew his top after failing to have me blocked, so he started insulting everybody. His hatred for me is profound, so it's normal that he would approve of a blog which defames me and my family life. Me, I just find him amusing. Anyway, this is further proof that this blog is 0% consensual and just fuels conflict among users. The only reason some users like it is because it insults and defames other users they don't like. Anyway, It should NOT look like it is wikimedia-approved. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 16:05, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This blog do not defame you and your family. Really this is getting pathetic. Just read Musicaline. In fact it is amusing ... Mike Coppolano (talk) 16:09, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What Musicaline writes above is worthless, nor do I care about what this person writes in general. Now please get on with your life and forget about me, thanks. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 16:12, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Musicaline is right .... please "get on with your life and forget about me thanks" Mike Coppolano (talk) 16:15, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is kindergarten-level, really... I never think about you, you're not important enough ! :) You should try to find something more worthwile to do and stop arguing like that, as you're not doing yourself any favors. Now I'm done with this exchange, thanks. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 16:41, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think Musicaline, Guil2027, Erdokan, Superjuju10, Pucesurvitaminée and many others who are not thinking like you Are RIGHt ! ! Mike Coppolano (talk) 18:04, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The question is Appeal of removal Ainsi va Wikipédia, only that, and not the reason why Mike Coppolano was blocked on fr.wikipedia.org. Please don't deny him implicitly (oui, j'arrive même à placer mon adverbe favori en anglais...) to express an opinion. Hégésippe | ±Θ± 08:43, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Hégesippe Cormier. The reasons for what I'm blocking for. Here I apologize (Je vous prie de m'excuser, c'étaient des mots choisis sous l'emportement de la colère. Mais si vous voulez me comprendre. Que l'on vire mon texte accompagné d'un "raus" m'a ulcéré, je vous le dis carrément. Bon, après que j'ai "déconné" n'est pas excusable, je le comprends. Ni ces insultes que je vous ai envoyé.) Cordialement. Mike Coppolano (talk) 10:22, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Oppose:This blog is an insult to the community of fr.Wikipédia and his contributors. It is not acceptable that such blog are visible through a link on Planet Wikimedia. It's just a matter of respect of our community, and contributors insulted through this blog. Kirtap (talk) 14:42, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's flawed logic. You are not the community and several editors from fr.wp do NOT feel insulted by this blog: so what? are they bound to be excluded from fr.wp? (:Julien:) (talk) 09:46, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Je vais te répondre en français julien, puisque tu est contributeur comme moi de wp:fr. Je suis membre de la communauté, et cité dans ce blog (et pas en bien). Le simple fait que des contributeurs puissent protéger ce type de contenu diffamatoire à l'égard de certains autres contributeurs injustement insultés (car a ce que je sache me concernant, je n'ai pas eu d'interaction avec Hamelin pour me retrouver cité par lui), qui aurait valu à Hamelin d'être banni de wp si il les avait exprimé sur WP:fr, en dit long sur leur mentalité douteuse et problématique pour wp:fr. Cela prouve la nocivité effective de ce blog pour ainsi cristalliser des conflits. In short, i am a member of this community and i fell free to express my point of view about this insulting blog. Kirtap (talk) 15:45, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep: If there were only posts about what Wikimedia is doing wrong, I could consider to have this blog removed from the planet. However it's not the case. Besides, it's clearly written at the top of this page "The Wikimedia Foundation assumes no responsibility or liability for any posts aggregated on Planet Wikimedia." so what's written only commits the author of the posts (and I'm far from always agreeing with him). Erdrokan (talk) 16:11, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep idem Erdrokan and Superjuju--Remy34 (talk) 21:52, 21 July 2013 (UTC) 21:48, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Oppose. To keep it short: the point is not to challenge Hamelin's right to be included here just because he is venting his spleen on his blog, nor to dispute a few strong words used to phrase his opinions.
But from what I have recently seen of this blog, it appears that a significant part of it is in fact dedicated to blatant personal insults (i.e, with the mention of usernames, and in some cases of real life names) that would be considered as WP:NPA if they were written on Wikipedia ("the Yakuzas are no longer trying to conceal their sickening schemes", "mafia", "self appointed vigilante", "hopeless jerks", "a whole nest of dicks"...).
So much for the Five Pillars it claims to defend (most notably the one that says "Editors should treat each other with respect and civility"), and the "constructive criticism" required here, in Planet Wikimedia...
So that providing direct access to such inappropriate outbursts is tantamount to accepting them as justified within Wikimedia. Given the large number of people that are targeted by this blog, it would be unfortunate to leave the feeling that it's OK for Hamelin to go on. --Azurfrog (talk) 23:15, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Oppose.--Mattho69 (talk) 08:00, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep. In the scope of the Planet. See for instance one of his last series using the work of Dario Taraborelli et al, his post on the visual editor, some didactic posts on the 5 pilars, various philosophical arguments on WP, and so on. I think the uproar against his blog is mostly for ideological reasons hence not the best of arguments (I may or may not agree with his views but that's no reason to kick him out). Both sides unfortunately use colorful words in their endless squabble and I can only hope a cooler & busier autumn can turn the heat down between rival parties. Yours, (:Julien:) (talk) 09:46, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No "ideological" reasons here : as Azurfrog pointed out, the author of this piece of junk resorts to endless and blatant personal insults. If he didn't, his writings would be as acceptable as any other blog's. Given the tone he uses, they are just worthless and only deserve to be flushed down the drain. The autumn's temperature are very unlikely to make anyone forget or forgive these repugnant methods. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 09:56, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think you don't have to comment every vote or every DIFFERENT POINT OF VIEW. People who don't THINK like you ... Best regards Mike Coppolano (talk) 10:15, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep your regards for yourself, thanks. I couldn't care less about your opinion. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 11:57, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care too. But YOUR opinion ist no the One, don't you know. People who think different have a freedom of speech. Best regards. Mike Coppolano (talk) 13:42, 22 July 2013 (UTC) Addenda : Musicaline is right ! ![reply]
Freedom of speech is not freedom of defamation. Kirtap (talk) 15:45, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sincerely Kirtap there is no diffamation against JJG and his wife : just his wife said to him, he wasted time with Wikipedia. I think she's right, and that is not defamation. So what have done Hamelin ? Nothing Mike Coppolano (talk) 15:51, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep Per Erdrokan and (:Julien:). Pleclown (talk) 10:58, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep, no more and no less "defamatory" than some other blogs on the planet (that should also not be removed)... Although I agree that he should be more moderate in some posts. Elfix 21:18, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep The articles written on this blog respect "Purpose", "Items desired" and "Things to avoid" requirements of Planet Wiki (and are sometimes interesting but this consideration is off topic). I think the so-called defamation is to be considered with leniency in the light of writing tradition in some French satitic newspapers.--Nicolas Eynaud (talk) 09:24, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This request doesn't show any consensus for the removal of ainsi-va-wikipedia.blogspot.fr in fr.planet.wikimedia.org aggregator.
    • Keep (against the removal) : Hamelin de Guettelet (request's author), Laurent Jerry, Lebob, Pluto2012, Guil2027, Skorba, Hégésippe Cormier, Superjuju10, Pucesurvitaminee, Drongou, Musicaline, Mike Coppolano, Erdrokan, Remy34, (:Julien:), Pleclown, Elfix, Nicolas Eynaud, = 18 users at 12:31, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Remove : Quentinv57 (first requester), Supremangaka, Rome2, Coyote du 86, schlum, Meodudlye, Jean-Jacques Georges, Hatonjan, Kelam, Langladure, Floflo62, Kirtap, Azurfrog, Mattho69, = 14 users at 12:31, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Requests

and please check these: 

WARNING:planet.runner:No data http://brightbyte.de/feeds/PlanetWikimedia.atom

ERROR:planet.runner:Error 503 while updating feed http://www.phoebeayers.info/phlog/?cat=10&feed=rss2

ERROR:planet.runner:Error 502 while updating feed http://muddybtz.blog.com/feed/

Not updated or removed

Archive

See /Archive for older requests.

Other languages

The Planet at en.planet.wikimedia.org is for English language posts and blogs. To request a planet in your language, please see Planet Wikimedia/New language. 

de-planet.log:ERROR:planet.runner:Error 401 while updating feed http://1912038.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default/-/WMDE

es-planet.log:ERROR:planet.runner:Error 404 while updating feed http://imperiogremlin.blogspot.com/rss.xml
es-planet.log:ERROR:planet.runner:Error 404 while updating feed http://siabef.blogspot.com/rss.xml
es-planet.log:ERROR:planet.runner:Error 404 while updating feed http://wikidemencia.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default
es-planet.log:ERROR:planet.runner:Error 500 while updating feed http://wikipedia.jynus.com/mensaje.rss

fr-planet.log:ERROR:planet.runner:Error 404 while updating feed http://luminar.blog.free.fr/index.php?feed/category/Wikipédia/rss2
fr-planet.log:ERROR:planet.runner:Error 500 while updating feed http://hyperboree-apollon.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default/-/wikipédia
fr-planet.log:ERROR:planet.runner:Error 500 while updating feed http://pymouss.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default/-/Wikipédia

gmq-planet.log:ERROR:planet.runner:Error 404 while updating feed http://jobjorn.se/tagg/wikipedia/feed

it-planet.log:ERROR:planet.runner:Error 404 while updating feed http://syndication.splinder.com/doppiequadre/rss2.xml

pl-planet.log:ERROR:planet.runner:Error 404 while updating feed http://bigosnamadagaskarze.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default/-/Wikipedia
pl-planet.log:ERROR:planet.runner:Error 500 while updating feed http://blog.kangel.info/rss/cat/wikipedia/content/html/10
pl-planet.log:ERROR:planet.runner:Error 500 while updating feed http://dodek.jogger.pl/rss/cat/wikipedia/short/
pl-planet.log:ERROR:planet.runner:Error 500 while updating feed http://wikiźródła.pl/blog/?feed=rss2

pt-planet.log:ERROR:planet.runner:Error 404 while updating feed http://www.google.com/notebook/feeds/05959439175835756100/notebooks/BDQjbSwoQzfqqucci

ru-planet.log:ERROR:planet.runner:Error 404 while updating feed http://rombeck.livejournal.com/data/rss?tag=wikipedia
ru-planet.log:ERROR:planet.runner:Error 500 while updating feed http://kaliy-linux.livejournal.com/data/rss/?tag=Википедия

zh-planet.log:ERROR:planet.runner:Error 500 while updating feed http://feed.saywiki.com/

Alternatives

All languages

Chapters Planet (run by Bence Damokos of Wikimedia Hungary) aggregates blogs from Wikimedia chapters. All languages are accepted. There is a Google Translate link at top left.

English

Open Wiki Blog Planet, run by en:User:Nickj, offers a less filtered feed. It can be edited here.

Chinese / Russian incubator planets

There are several incubator planets, which will be redirected to the Planet Wikimedia sites as and when they come online, so please add feeds following the directions on this page:

Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Planet_Wikimedia&oldid=5672315"