User talk:Amaury/2009/February

2009 Archive Index: January • February • March • April • May • June • July • August • September • October • November • December

Talk:Miley Cyrus

Do not correct comments in talk pages. Talk page comments pretty much belong to other editors, and, except in certain cases, shouldn't be modified by other editors. It's OK to remove vandalism. It's OK to remove "forum" comments, where someone has just posted something like "I think Miley Cyrus is the greatest!" or other crap like that. But correcting other editors spelling, capitalization, and grammar? Strictly off limits. That's an offense that can get you blocked if you repeat it. —Kww(talk) 14:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Jeez, you get busted for every little thing here. No offense, Kww. I'll stop. It's just that every little thing gets you busted (talking about other users... not just me.) - Amaury (talk) 16:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, most users don't have the kind of trouble you've had. I think you would do yourself well to focus a bit on working on article content on a few areas that you are interested in until you get more of a feeling of how things work. The impression I get of you is that you are someone that sincerely wants to help, but you charge ahead a little bit too fast. —Kww(talk) 16:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, at least I don't blank pages or add gibberish and swear words to articles. :) - Amaury (talk) 16:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Barack Obama

Will you please review the administrative report here regarding the deleted materialy you have just re-added at Talk:Barack Obama? You are also leaving inappropriate warnings on editors' talk pages.[1][2][3] Perhaps you were not aware that this matter is already escalated to an administrative notice board. If you think this is an issue, please discuss it in the appropriate place but do not reinsert material that has been removed on WP:BLP grounds, or join an edit war on pages like the Obama talk page that are under article probation (notice to follow). Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 21:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I also put January instead of February. Haha! Anyway, yeah... I was not aware of the discussion until you posted on my talk page. I thought it was vandalism. Thank you for contacting me. - Amaury (talk) 21:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

BTW, I brought up you continuation of the edit war on the AN/I discussion Wikidemon linked to above. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

User talk:AndyManchester

Users are allowed to remove warnings from their own talk pages per WP:TALK. When they do this, please do not revert it. AndyManchester is perfectly within his rights to remove them. It seems you know this since you have removed warnings and notices on your own talk page. Besides, his edits do not appear to be vandalism. They may or may not be correct, but they certainly appear to be good faith edits. Please be careful. Looking at the WP:ANI discussion on you, the community appears to be losing patience. Please be careful. Apparition^{11 Complaints}/Mistakes 08:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Since we're sort of good friends, I will listen to you. You're nicer than some of the administrators here. :) - Amaury (talk) 16:30, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Just to make sure that I don't give the wrong impression, I'm not an admin. I'm pretty sure you remember that and I didn't take your last comment to imply that I was, but I just like to be careful not to misrepresent myself. Despite whether you feel that the other users are nice or not, you really should try to listen to what they are saying. For example, below, Deor left a warning that it seems you didn't care for. While you may not like the template, you would be better off listening to what Deor is saying. It is not in good practice to refactor other people's talk page messages. Even if it is just to correct a typo, you should not do it. Also, while you may not have liked Elbutler's WP:MENTOR suggestion, it was good advice, and it was quite nice of her to offer to do it herself. I would ask you to reconsider, as it stands, you are on pretty thin ice. Please listen to what others are saying more and be a little less dismissive. While you may feel that they could be nicer, they are speaking in the best interests of Wikipedia and trying to help you. Apparition^{11 Complaints}/Mistakes 20:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Editing advice from Kww

I can tell that you want to be a good editor, so I'm going to try again to talk to you. First, let's talk background here: you have 533 edits. In those 533 edits, you've managed to bother people enough that you've been blocked twice, for 24 hours each. I have over 22,000 edits, and I've also been blocked twice: both by mistake or misunderstanding, and for under 3 hours each. You should be able to understand that that means I've learned a bit about how to edit effectively here. If I got blocked at your rate, I'd have been kicked off Wikipedia years ago ... they don't let people get 45 blocks, and that's how many it would have been.

You really need to stop letting anger show. It's impossible not to get pissed off at people here. It's going to happen. Do you think calling them "stupid" or "smarty-pants" helps? Does telling someone that's giving you advice to "shut it" help? Nope. That's pretty much what got you blocked this time. Especially when people that you do it to people that are trying to help you learn something about how to edit here.

As for your editing, some of it's OK. The articles that you created have a common problem, and I'll try to explain it. High-schools simplify a lot of stuff. They teach things as being absolutely true, when in fact it's just one of several techniques, or sometimes just your teacher's or textbook author's opinion. When I pointed you at English grammar as containing everything in your Elements of grammar article, I meant it. Had you stopped for a moment and studied that article, you would have learned a lot about English grammar, and would have seen for yourself that your article was redundant. Drmies tried to give you the same advice, and all you did was get angry at him, and that's silly. Look at his userpage, look at his edits. He teaches language instruction, is fluent in four languages and familiar with two more. Hard to tell from my userpage, but you should be able to guess from my hobbies and list of places that I've lived: I function well in three languages and am familiar with three more. Our advice is sound: we know more about grammar than you do, and when we try to help you, we don't deserve to be bitten. You would be well served to listen instead of bite.

Next time you want to create an article, why don't you leave a message on my page and describe what article you want to build? I can help you figure out whether its appropriate, and where it would fit in Wikipedia if it is. If you work on fitting in and helping, things will go smoothly. If you just bite the people that try to help, life will go badly quickly. —Kww(talk) 13:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying you guys don't know things, but my English teacher knows things, too. - Amaury (talk) 15:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

You're missing the point. Elbutler (talk) 15:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Then listen to your friend when he tells you that that was completely uncalled for and inappropriate. Elbutler hasn't ruined anything that I can see, and was pointing out that you had, indeed, missed my point. No one is saying that your English teacher doesn't know things. I'm saying that he is teaching you a highly simplified form of English grammar. The things he teaches you, by and large, are already covered, and don't warrant individual articles. That problem is an editing problem, and won't get you blocked if you listen to people's advice. Things like You stay out of this! You've ruined enough are a sign of an attitude problem, and that problem will get you blocked. —Kww(talk) 15:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

For someone ostensibly interested in English grammar, it's surprising that you would write the grammatically incorrect "This is between Kww and I," rather than "This is between Kww and me." Bongo matic 18:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, no, you're the one who's incorrect. Kww and I is the correct way to say it. - Amaury (talk) 20:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

LOL. Here's free advice from an English grammar teacher. Prepositions such as between govern the object case (that is, according to the normative grammar which your high school teacher is certainly trying to impart to you. In reality, the situation is of course far more complex, and you may be consoled, your "mistake" isn't necessarily really one.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll grant you that. Sorry... :-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Revert on your talk page

Why did you make this edit? —Kww(talk) 21:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Formatting on your talk page

Hi Eugene Krabs. Perhaps you are not aware of the "New section" or "+" tab on the top of pages, but it makes it easy for an editor to create a new section at the bottom of a page. This is conventionally what an editor does to add a new topic to a Talk page. As you will see if you try it, it adds a heading-level divider. So notwithstanding your dislike of first-level headings, you'll be fighting against the tools to keep your dividers as second-level headings. Bongomatic 23:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Avalanche

I'm trying to revise the avalanche article. There are many errors in the existing article. Does Wikipedia make everything so difficult? If you actually looked at my changes, you'd see that they don't constitute vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Somerandomicicle (talk • contribs) 23:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Editing advice from PhilKnight

Instead of doing something like this which could get you blocked for impersonating an admin, I'd suggest you report persistent vandals to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. PhilKnight (talk) 00:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I see. Thanks! Hey, is there anywhere I can go to request becoming an administrator? - Amaury (talk) 00:28, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Not anywhere where you'd stand a chance right now. Rack up a year without a block and several thousand constructive edits, and it's worth talking about. —Kww(talk) 01:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

While I fully agree with Kww's comment, should you be interested in the process of how editors become admins, you can read WP:RFA. Perhaps if you develop an ambition to become an admin it will dissuade you from making so many counterproductive edits in the meanwhile. Bongomatic 03:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Thorley Street

May I ask why you made this revert? Tagishsimon inserted the coordinates, and you removed them without an explanation. Anytime you revert something that is not obvious vandalism, you should always explain why. Using a WP:ROLLBACK edit summary as you did implies that you are reverting vandalism, which this obviously was not. I saw that you didn't warn place a warning, so I thought that it may have been a mistake; but, you didn't self revert, so I'm not sure. I reverted you for the time being, but I just wanted to see if there was something that I was missing. Apparition^{11 Complaints}/Mistakes 01:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for one week due to disruptive editing

You have been temporarily blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeated abuse of editing privileges. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below. Toddst1 (talk) 02:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

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

Amaury/2009 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

This is so unfair. I wasn't even told what I was doing before getting blocked. Please unblock me. - Amaury (talk) 02:24, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Decline reason:

After reviewing your edits, it looks like you continued to make admin-like edits after Phil Knight cautioned you not to...he even told you that this could get you blocked. Looks like he was right. And what's with the deletion of the coordinates? Once your block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive edits...we definitely have a big need for those around here. AKRadecki^Speaketh 02:48, 12 February 2009 (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.

No, I stopped. I didn't get the warning until after I posted the second block template on another user's talk page. Now unblock me. - Amaury (talk) 02:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Please don't lie, it doesn't give you credibility. You acknowledged the caution at time stamp 00:28, then made 4 more edits, including the ones I was referring to. What, you didn't think we'd actually check? AKRadecki^Speaketh 14:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, he did respond, just not in the way you or I would expect. He continued to leave the block notices, but only on the talk pages of people that were actually blocked, and crediting the block to the admin that had actually performed the block. Not an edit I would make, but was it disruptive? —Kww(talk) 14:55, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

To Akradecki: Yes, I made more edits, but I was just fixing that one because he got blocked for something else and I put disruptive editing, but I never actually posted more block templates on other talk pages. I only posted block templates on two people's talk pages. After I posted the second one, I noticed I had a message from PhilKnight regarding those edits. I stopped. I didn't post any more block templates on other people's talk pages. I was just fixing some errors on that second one. Please reconsider this block. Thank you. - Amaury (talk) 20:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm inclined to let things stand, as this is your 4th block (if it was your first, I'd be a bit more lenient, but at some point, you need to realize that we take disruption pretty seriously.). I won't have any heartburn, though, if you put up another unblock template and get a second opinion from another admin. AKRadecki^Speaketh 23:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I see you've been blocked again. And by the way, i'd like to point out that you can't "ban someone from your talk page", because it isn't "yours": it belongs to everyone, anyone can post on it. Are you going to act mature and listen now? Elbutler (talk) 12:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

User talk:The Cool Kat

[4] is just wrong. That edit was not vandalism. Just because you don't like someone's edit does not make it vandalism. How many different users will have to point this out to you before you make some effort to understand? Beeblebrox (talk) 02:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

It is vandalism. That's the anime, not the game. He's also reverting a typo an IP address fixed. - Amaury (talk) 02:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Even if you are right, a mistake is not vandalism and getting in an edit war is not the way to deal with a content dispute. Discuss it on the talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

No, no, no. A non-registered user fixed a typo on the page. "...whe nshe..." fixed to "...when she...". I'm not reverting the typo fix that was made, Cool Cat is... so you're wrong there by saying I was reverting the typo fix, because I wasn't. - Amaury (talk) 02:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I meant the re-titling of the section. That seems to be the core of this disagreement, and you two need to talk it over instead of edit warring. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

But it's the anime! That thing about Pokemon level 70 and above is only in the games. - Amaury (talk) 02:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

That just means it's wrong, not vandalism. Vandalism is an edit made with the intent of harming Wikipedia. That's why reverting vandalism is not subject to the 3RR policy. In this case, the other editor simply appears to be mistaken. That means that you have to take the time to convince him he's wrong, and, if you revert more than three times in 24 hours, you are subject to blocking. In this case, I can assure you ... revert that edit again, even after waiting, and you will nearly certainly be blocked. I took care of the typo. Please discuss the other problem on the talk page. —Kww(talk) 02:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. I certainly will discuss it. - Amaury (talk) 02:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that you've already began the discussion, so this appears to already be in the process of getting resolved, but I wanted to expand a bit on what Kww pointed out and, hopefully, help avoid this in the future. In the future, when you're reverting a good faith edit, instead of using a Rollback edit summary, try explaining why you believe that the edit was incorrect. Using a simple "reverted edits by" edit summary is fine when it is a case of obvious vandalism, such as when someone randomly inserts a curse word, but in good faith edits, an explanation should be given. If you start explaining using edit summaries, I think that you'll find yourself in these situations a lot less often. Apparition^{11 Complaints}/Mistakes 03:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Kind of like this? - Amaury (talk) 03:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd hate to have you use that as a model, because it was a vandalism reversion. This is probably a better model. —Kww(talk) 03:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that sock revert was not the best example, but too much information is better than too little :) Apparition^{11 Complaints}/Mistakes 03:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Heh heh. Okay. Thanks for your input. :) - Amaury (talk) 03:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that when the series started in Japan it was simply known as "Pokemon", the first season was nameless. "Indgo League" is a just a name used on the DVDs. This is the same reason you kept trying to move pages. And that i'm watching you, if you revert that page one more time between here and tonight you can be reported to WP:AIV and blocked post-haste. The Cool Kat (talk) 13:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions

I like your contributions. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by ManasShaikh (talk • contribs) 15:26, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Heh heh. You're welcome. By the way, you forgot to sign. :o - Amaury (talk) 15:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Long live SineBot. :) --ManasShaikh (talk) 17:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Madiga

Hello, I think we should remove the reference to Arun Kumar from Madiga wiki page. You seem to be reverting back and putting his name. HE is not a madiaga and I dont think this page should be his advertisement page. Let me know your thoughts. I believe wiki should provide information but not serve as an advertisement media. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.169.141.116 (talk) 02:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)