|
Please refrain from adding images used under a claim of fair use (usually referred to as "non-free" on Wikipedia) to pages other than articles. Please see WP:NFCC#9 for the rule. All non-free images in any page that is not in article space are to be summarily removed. -- B ( talk) 02:51, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
If you want one team in your league to be decorated differently than others, feel free to. Please don't push your preference on other leagues. Discuss. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 23:28, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
thought I would let you know that the issue you had is browser related, if you access the same page with IE or Chrome wikipedia will have no trouble with the URL. I ran into the same issue previously and there is a simple fix in the script of the address but I forget what it is. If I remember I will let you know. 18abruce ( talk) 00:41, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Walter Görlitz ( talk) 02:21, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi. I realize you've already received complaints about this, but I make one last request here.
Wikipedia:Signatures states that the purpose of signatures are to identify you as a user and your contributions to Wikipedia
, and that in general, anything that is not allowed in a user name should not be used in a signature either
. The
username policy prohibits disruptive usernames that are likely to offend other contributors, making harmonious editing difficult or impossible
.
Your signature currently says " CÉDRIC TSÄN CANTONAIS SAYS NO TO I.P. EDITS!". This signature is not in line with the purpose of signatures, as it seems to promote a particular point of view that you have—that editors should not be allowed to contribute with an IP address. Current English Wikipedia policy and practice allows for anonymous IP editing (and remember, IPs are human too). This means that your signature automatically puts you in unnecessary conflict with our anonymous editors—a violation of WP:CIVIL. In other words, having your signature as it is right now will make participating in harmonious discussions with anonymous editors very difficult, as we already see on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vancouver Angels (Ice Hockey). As a result, you need to change your signature. I have no problem with you proposing to the English Wikipedia community that anonymous editing be disabled, but your signature is not the place to do it. Mz7 ( talk) 04:16, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:VancouverAngels.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 02:26, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
PBS, Fyunck, WhatamIdoing and a few others aside the encyclopedia accepts and uses diacritics. Do you know of any article which doesn't? Cheers. In ictu oculi ( talk) 22:41, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Just as a note Cedric, referring to an agreement you dislike as "
BIGOTED", and whining about "ANTI-DIACRITIC CRUSADES" when you are on a "pro-diacritic crusade" yourself is both hypocritical and bordering on a personal attack. If you wish to build support for your position, try behaving like an adult.
Reso
lute
15:25, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi. I added subsections at my proposal to differentiate between opposition on technical grounds, and opposition in principal. Would you please move your opposition to the most suitable section? Thanks. fredgandt 09:27, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
You may be
blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make
personal attacks on other people, as you did at
Whitecaps FC 2. Comment on content, not on fellow editors.
Walter Görlitz (
talk)
04:48, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Walter Görlitz (
talk)
05:20, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Laber□ T 05:54, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Hijiri88 pinged me in that talk going on at ANI. I can't really follow the detail of what's going on and I don't know the context and haven't been watching this. I am sure Hijiri88 is joking not attacking me - I like Hijiri88 was one of the editors supporting the restoration of Czech and so on names after efforts to "Anglicize" them by a minority of Tennis editors. And again restoration of Vietnam articles after a similar actions by one editor who moved the entire Vietnam article corpus. And has since been banned. I cannot follow what Walter Görlitz position or lack of position is, but don't see a problem. I suggest just smoothing it all over if that is possible. Cheers. In ictu oculi ( talk) 11:24, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Hardly going to argue much about the wording of your own template, but what conventions are you citing? The wording change in question would address them if they exist, and any that people would want to impose. I.e., "any" is more inclusive. :-) — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 23:13, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. ‑ Iridescent 20:44, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Cedric tsan cantonais ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I was not guilty of either violation that Walter Görlitz accused me of. I have not attacked anyone since April (and of course not in the edit in which Walter Görlitz wrongfully accused me of attacking an IP) and I did not blank any page. All the accused "battleground behaviours" are the direct and indisputable result of Walter Görlitz's and Hijiri88's wrongful and possibly malicious accusations. If this was a retro-active punishment for April, then so be it. But Walter Görlitz must go down for wrongfully accusing me of attacking an IP while all I did was saying "suspected vandalism" due to the fact that the IP did not add any references to his/her edit. Also, I refused to be tried by popularity contests. I demand an arbitration. I aslo demand that Walter Görlitz and Hijiri88 recuse themselves from the arbitration. — Cédric the wrongfully recused 22:06, 29 December 2016 (UTC) 21:58, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Decline reason:
The consensus is pretty conclusive, and you have not addressed your behaviour that led to it. And you don't get to simply refuse to accept consensus here. You can try contacting the Arbitration Committee if you really want to (link below), but I wouldn't get your hopes up unless you change your approach. Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 22:40, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
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.
You're down a very big hole and yet you're uselessly trying to dig up out of it. Please take a read of WP:HOTHEAD and think about how it might apply to your situation. Twitbookspacetube ( talk) 01:10, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Your complaint appears to be that the community consensus got it wrong, but that is not a judgment that is open to admins to make. I see only two ways in which you could get that community discussion overturned:
One is to appeal to the community again, by requesting a new review of the case (which would be held at WP:AN, I guess). I don't think that would stand any chance of success right now, so soon after the current decision. You might stand a better chance by waiting for at least the usual six-month WP:OFFER period and then asking for a new review.
Alternatively, you could appeal to Arbcom. But as has been suggested, I also suspect they would be very reluctant to get involved at this stage unless there has been some procedural error - and there has not been one that I can see.
I'm sorry if that's not what you want to hear, but I hope it does at least help you understand why no admin can do what you appear to want. Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 20:41, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
![]() | Contents from a persona non grata had been deleted. |
Cedric tsan cantonais ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I am appealing to have my sentence reduced from "indefinite" to one year, for the following reasons:
I have promised to stop using diacritics in edit summaries.
I have promised to stop battleground behaviours.
I took a plea in April to stop personal attacks and I had already stopped at the point when I was blocked.
For whatever it is worth, I had decided to stop seeking vindications.
I have already stated that I have no intention to be an frequent editor of English Wikipedia, due to irreconcilable differences between my beliefs and English Wikipedia's mainstream culture.
Decline reason:
Firstly, you don't request to be unblocked now. Secondly, if there are "irreconcilable differences between [your] beliefs and English Wikipedia's mainstream culture", this clearly is not the project for you. Huon ( talk) 00:32, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
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.
@ Huon: It's one thing to reject my appeal for technical reasons, but it's something completely different to reject my appeal simply because I expressed my disagreement with the culture of English Wikipedia. Expressing disagreement with the culture and actually breaking rules are two different things. Cédric (the wrongfully recused) 00:46, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
![]() | Appeal withdrawn. |
Saw this pop up on my watchlist. I'm just going to say that there is no way your unblock request will be accepted. If you were going to ArbCom to open a case for yourself that might be possible, but what you're asking for is going to be rejected. While you're blocked the last thing you need to be worried about is what's going on in articles. Get yourself unblocked first then worry about articles. Blackmane ( talk) 05:21, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Cedric tsan cantonais ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I have promised to stop using diacritics in edit summaries (unless they're absolutely relevant).
I have promised to stop battleground behaviours.
I took a plea in April to stop personal attacks and I had already stopped at the point when I was blocked.
For whatever it is worth, I had decided to stop seeking vindications.
After the unblock, my focus on English Wikipedia will be campaigning for changes of culture and for new rules, namely new rules that will protect victims of false accusations from getting lynched on
WP:ANI and rules that will allow admin to overrule a non-admin majority decision, like how a presiding judge can overrule a jury's decision should the judge conclude that the jury had made the wrong decision.
Decline reason:
This request reason was already declined. Repeating it is not likely to get anywhere. Jayron 32 03:38, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
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.
Cedric tsan cantonais ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I have promised to stop using diacritics in edit summaries (unless they're absolutely relevant).
I have promised to stop battleground behaviours.
I took a plea in April to stop personal attacks and I had already stopped at the point when I was blocked.
For whatever it is worth, I had decided to stop seeking vindications of old beef.
After the unblock, my focus on English Wikipedia will be writing essays that advocate culture changes on English Wikipedia (which is
WP:TOTALLYHERE) and removing contents that are proven to be false by proper research.
Decline reason:
I find everything about this request disruptive. You are simply reposting the same declined appeal hoping for a different answer each time. I also find your proposed post-block activities (as stated in this appeal and directly below) to be rife for continued disruption. As I have no doubt you will just make another duplicate appeal, I will be revoking your talk page access. Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 22:37, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
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.
For what it is worth, the culture (and policy) changes that I will be advocating include:
Also, I demand access to my user page in order to prevent my opponents from blanking it through the intensional misinterpretation of WP:POLEMIC. Cédric SAY NO TO WP:WIKILYNCHING!' 22:26, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
( block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
I need someone (anyone) to get rid of the logo on the page, since the terrier was never one of the logos used by the programme, and replace it with the real one. I would've changed it myself if I wasn't stuck here. Alas, I even have enough to suspect that the terrier image wasn't even "own work", since vectorising an image doesn't mean the vectoriser gets to claim the copyright. Cédric 19:06, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Cedric tsan cantonais ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
UTRS appeal #18828 was submitted on Jul 25, 2017 23:11:31. This review is now closed.
|
Please refrain from adding images used under a claim of fair use (usually referred to as "non-free" on Wikipedia) to pages other than articles. Please see WP:NFCC#9 for the rule. All non-free images in any page that is not in article space are to be summarily removed. -- B ( talk) 02:51, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
If you want one team in your league to be decorated differently than others, feel free to. Please don't push your preference on other leagues. Discuss. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 23:28, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
thought I would let you know that the issue you had is browser related, if you access the same page with IE or Chrome wikipedia will have no trouble with the URL. I ran into the same issue previously and there is a simple fix in the script of the address but I forget what it is. If I remember I will let you know. 18abruce ( talk) 00:41, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Walter Görlitz ( talk) 02:21, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi. I realize you've already received complaints about this, but I make one last request here.
Wikipedia:Signatures states that the purpose of signatures are to identify you as a user and your contributions to Wikipedia
, and that in general, anything that is not allowed in a user name should not be used in a signature either
. The
username policy prohibits disruptive usernames that are likely to offend other contributors, making harmonious editing difficult or impossible
.
Your signature currently says " CÉDRIC TSÄN CANTONAIS SAYS NO TO I.P. EDITS!". This signature is not in line with the purpose of signatures, as it seems to promote a particular point of view that you have—that editors should not be allowed to contribute with an IP address. Current English Wikipedia policy and practice allows for anonymous IP editing (and remember, IPs are human too). This means that your signature automatically puts you in unnecessary conflict with our anonymous editors—a violation of WP:CIVIL. In other words, having your signature as it is right now will make participating in harmonious discussions with anonymous editors very difficult, as we already see on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vancouver Angels (Ice Hockey). As a result, you need to change your signature. I have no problem with you proposing to the English Wikipedia community that anonymous editing be disabled, but your signature is not the place to do it. Mz7 ( talk) 04:16, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:VancouverAngels.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 02:26, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
PBS, Fyunck, WhatamIdoing and a few others aside the encyclopedia accepts and uses diacritics. Do you know of any article which doesn't? Cheers. In ictu oculi ( talk) 22:41, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Just as a note Cedric, referring to an agreement you dislike as "
BIGOTED", and whining about "ANTI-DIACRITIC CRUSADES" when you are on a "pro-diacritic crusade" yourself is both hypocritical and bordering on a personal attack. If you wish to build support for your position, try behaving like an adult.
Reso
lute
15:25, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi. I added subsections at my proposal to differentiate between opposition on technical grounds, and opposition in principal. Would you please move your opposition to the most suitable section? Thanks. fredgandt 09:27, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
You may be
blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make
personal attacks on other people, as you did at
Whitecaps FC 2. Comment on content, not on fellow editors.
Walter Görlitz (
talk)
04:48, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Walter Görlitz (
talk)
05:20, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Laber□ T 05:54, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Hijiri88 pinged me in that talk going on at ANI. I can't really follow the detail of what's going on and I don't know the context and haven't been watching this. I am sure Hijiri88 is joking not attacking me - I like Hijiri88 was one of the editors supporting the restoration of Czech and so on names after efforts to "Anglicize" them by a minority of Tennis editors. And again restoration of Vietnam articles after a similar actions by one editor who moved the entire Vietnam article corpus. And has since been banned. I cannot follow what Walter Görlitz position or lack of position is, but don't see a problem. I suggest just smoothing it all over if that is possible. Cheers. In ictu oculi ( talk) 11:24, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Hardly going to argue much about the wording of your own template, but what conventions are you citing? The wording change in question would address them if they exist, and any that people would want to impose. I.e., "any" is more inclusive. :-) — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 23:13, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. ‑ Iridescent 20:44, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Cedric tsan cantonais ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I was not guilty of either violation that Walter Görlitz accused me of. I have not attacked anyone since April (and of course not in the edit in which Walter Görlitz wrongfully accused me of attacking an IP) and I did not blank any page. All the accused "battleground behaviours" are the direct and indisputable result of Walter Görlitz's and Hijiri88's wrongful and possibly malicious accusations. If this was a retro-active punishment for April, then so be it. But Walter Görlitz must go down for wrongfully accusing me of attacking an IP while all I did was saying "suspected vandalism" due to the fact that the IP did not add any references to his/her edit. Also, I refused to be tried by popularity contests. I demand an arbitration. I aslo demand that Walter Görlitz and Hijiri88 recuse themselves from the arbitration. — Cédric the wrongfully recused 22:06, 29 December 2016 (UTC) 21:58, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Decline reason:
The consensus is pretty conclusive, and you have not addressed your behaviour that led to it. And you don't get to simply refuse to accept consensus here. You can try contacting the Arbitration Committee if you really want to (link below), but I wouldn't get your hopes up unless you change your approach. Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 22:40, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
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.
You're down a very big hole and yet you're uselessly trying to dig up out of it. Please take a read of WP:HOTHEAD and think about how it might apply to your situation. Twitbookspacetube ( talk) 01:10, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Your complaint appears to be that the community consensus got it wrong, but that is not a judgment that is open to admins to make. I see only two ways in which you could get that community discussion overturned:
One is to appeal to the community again, by requesting a new review of the case (which would be held at WP:AN, I guess). I don't think that would stand any chance of success right now, so soon after the current decision. You might stand a better chance by waiting for at least the usual six-month WP:OFFER period and then asking for a new review.
Alternatively, you could appeal to Arbcom. But as has been suggested, I also suspect they would be very reluctant to get involved at this stage unless there has been some procedural error - and there has not been one that I can see.
I'm sorry if that's not what you want to hear, but I hope it does at least help you understand why no admin can do what you appear to want. Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 20:41, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
![]() | Contents from a persona non grata had been deleted. |
Cedric tsan cantonais ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I am appealing to have my sentence reduced from "indefinite" to one year, for the following reasons:
I have promised to stop using diacritics in edit summaries.
I have promised to stop battleground behaviours.
I took a plea in April to stop personal attacks and I had already stopped at the point when I was blocked.
For whatever it is worth, I had decided to stop seeking vindications.
I have already stated that I have no intention to be an frequent editor of English Wikipedia, due to irreconcilable differences between my beliefs and English Wikipedia's mainstream culture.
Decline reason:
Firstly, you don't request to be unblocked now. Secondly, if there are "irreconcilable differences between [your] beliefs and English Wikipedia's mainstream culture", this clearly is not the project for you. Huon ( talk) 00:32, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
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.
@ Huon: It's one thing to reject my appeal for technical reasons, but it's something completely different to reject my appeal simply because I expressed my disagreement with the culture of English Wikipedia. Expressing disagreement with the culture and actually breaking rules are two different things. Cédric (the wrongfully recused) 00:46, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
![]() | Appeal withdrawn. |
Saw this pop up on my watchlist. I'm just going to say that there is no way your unblock request will be accepted. If you were going to ArbCom to open a case for yourself that might be possible, but what you're asking for is going to be rejected. While you're blocked the last thing you need to be worried about is what's going on in articles. Get yourself unblocked first then worry about articles. Blackmane ( talk) 05:21, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Cedric tsan cantonais ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I have promised to stop using diacritics in edit summaries (unless they're absolutely relevant).
I have promised to stop battleground behaviours.
I took a plea in April to stop personal attacks and I had already stopped at the point when I was blocked.
For whatever it is worth, I had decided to stop seeking vindications.
After the unblock, my focus on English Wikipedia will be campaigning for changes of culture and for new rules, namely new rules that will protect victims of false accusations from getting lynched on
WP:ANI and rules that will allow admin to overrule a non-admin majority decision, like how a presiding judge can overrule a jury's decision should the judge conclude that the jury had made the wrong decision.
Decline reason:
This request reason was already declined. Repeating it is not likely to get anywhere. Jayron 32 03:38, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
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.
Cedric tsan cantonais ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I have promised to stop using diacritics in edit summaries (unless they're absolutely relevant).
I have promised to stop battleground behaviours.
I took a plea in April to stop personal attacks and I had already stopped at the point when I was blocked.
For whatever it is worth, I had decided to stop seeking vindications of old beef.
After the unblock, my focus on English Wikipedia will be writing essays that advocate culture changes on English Wikipedia (which is
WP:TOTALLYHERE) and removing contents that are proven to be false by proper research.
Decline reason:
I find everything about this request disruptive. You are simply reposting the same declined appeal hoping for a different answer each time. I also find your proposed post-block activities (as stated in this appeal and directly below) to be rife for continued disruption. As I have no doubt you will just make another duplicate appeal, I will be revoking your talk page access. Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 22:37, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
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.
For what it is worth, the culture (and policy) changes that I will be advocating include:
Also, I demand access to my user page in order to prevent my opponents from blanking it through the intensional misinterpretation of WP:POLEMIC. Cédric SAY NO TO WP:WIKILYNCHING!' 22:26, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
( block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
I need someone (anyone) to get rid of the logo on the page, since the terrier was never one of the logos used by the programme, and replace it with the real one. I would've changed it myself if I wasn't stuck here. Alas, I even have enough to suspect that the terrier image wasn't even "own work", since vectorising an image doesn't mean the vectoriser gets to claim the copyright. Cédric 19:06, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Cedric tsan cantonais ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
UTRS appeal #18828 was submitted on Jul 25, 2017 23:11:31. This review is now closed.