User talk:Amaury/2009/March
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Amaury. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
User Boy2334
Hi, it seems that User:Boy2334 is in the process of getting blocked, see here. Additionally, there is a Sockpuppet investigation going on regarding that user right now as well. - Fastily (talk) 20:20, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Hi Eugene - I've replied on my talk page. pablohablo. 20:42, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello there Sorry about not leaving a note on the edit summary about removing some content. The robot searches for Canadian road articles, and a person must manually remove false positives. The robot works fairly well, however some articles do get added to the list which are not about Canadian roads, or are Canadian articles not about roads. I added a note to the talk page, if I miss another edit summary. Kind Regards SriMesh | talk 01:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I've just reverted your restoration of warnings on the User talk:208.54.4.35 page. The restoration of warning is not necessary (as per WP:BLANKING and Wikipedia:Don't restore removed comments), and should not warrant a warning in itself. Cheers Cycle~ (talk) 02:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry, didn't realise you had comments formatted in months :) Cycle~ (talk) 02:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Vandalism article
Hello. British English actually does spell behavior with a U, behaviour. Since it already written with this spelling and looks to be consistent with the rest of the article, the spelling should stay that way. If you need any more help with American and British spellings, you can check out our article on American and British English spelling differences or always ask :) Cheers! Apparition11 Complaints/Mistakes 02:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- Technically speaking, the way we Americans spell things seems better (behavior, color, flavor) because they're spelled more or less how they sound, but with British spelling (behaviour, colour, flavour), they're not like that. That's just my opinion. - Amaury (talk) 02:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- Maybe, but opinions don't really matter here. Our manual of style dictates how our articles should be, and WP:ENGVAR specifically addresses this. Apparition11 Complaints/Mistakes 03:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
If an editor has removed information because it is unsourced, you need to provide sources before restoring it. —Kww(talk) 17:50, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- Kww! You got it! - Amaury (talk) 18:45, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Disambiguation pages
Hello again. I wanted to let you know that I reverted a couple of your edits to Bart and wanted to explain why. The point of disambiguation pages are the links. MOS:DAB explains how they should be laid out. WP:Red links aren't as useful as they were during the early stages of Wikipedia, but they are still used and shouldn't be removed altogether (especially on disam. pages) also, regarding the entry that the IP removed, a quick Google search shows that he is not WP:Notable. I keep a lot of disambig. name articles watchlisted because a lot of people tend to add themselves to them, like in this case. Cheers! Apparition11 Complaints/Mistakes 06:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- All right, I understand. By the way, did you remember to set your clocks an hour ahead? :) - Amaury (talk) 06:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- Cool :) Yep. I set all of my clocks last night except for in my Wikipedia preferences. I forgot about it, and it confused me when I checked my watchlist today. I thought all of the edits I checked were made an hour earlier :) Apparition11 Complaints/Mistakes 06:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Moving Pokémon season pages
The message below from Melicans is a response to a message I left at User talk:Melicans: Requesting permission. =)
I have no objection, except perhaps to the last one. I think "List of Pokémon: Diamond, Pearl and Platinum episodes" would work better in conjunction with the other changes you've suggested. I'd recommend bringing it up at the Pokémon WikiProject beforehand though. MelicansMatkin (talk) 18:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. As for the last one, it looks like Diamond and Pearl Platinum is its name because of the Japanese logo. I see "Diamond & Pearl (Japanese word, which I'm guessing means "Platinum")." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amaury (talk • contribs) 18:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Notable alumni of minor league teams
Hi. Another editor, NatureBoyMD, has come up with what I think is a good and thoughtful template and conditions for a "notable alumni" list for a minor league team that interests him. See [1]. I thought that before he finalizes it, it/he might benefit from you taking a glance at it, and giving him any comments that you may have, since I could see it being used for other minor league teams (its better than anything I've seen), and you are a baseball editor whose views I respect. Feel free to leave your comments on it for him on my home talk page at the above url, as that is where he and I have been discussing it. Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not a baseball fan or editor. - Amaury (talk) 18:05, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
The post below is a response to a post I made at User talk:Melicans: Re: Your move to the Pokemon: Orange Islands page.
No problem, it's just a simple grammatical thing. MelicansMatkin (talk) 18:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Your request for rollback
I saw your request on my watchlist. And before i you're given rollback rights i thought i should give you some advice. Please be careful having rollback rights is a big responsibility. The power can be abused easily, if you use it to revert anything other than obvious vandalism is known as misuse, and any admin can remove your rollback rights. When i got mine i lost them after a few days, and it took me a while to get them back. I'm pretty sure you're ready but remember, use it wisely. I know you don't like me, but i don't want you to make the same mistake as me. The Cool Kat (talk) 22:47, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry your request was turned down again. But as Perdro said, i don't think you have enough expirence, you've only been editing for a few months and most rollbackers haven't been blocked more than once. I hope you don't take this personally. The Cool Kat (talk) 22:53, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
- I don't consider you an enemy anymore. - Amaury (talk) 22:54, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello Eugene. Sorry that your request was denied before I had a chance to comment. Don't be discouraged though, I have no doubt that you'll get it eventually. I looked through your reverts for the past month, and I'll try to give you a little advice that hopefully will help your next request be successful. I'll start by saying that you have made significant improvements. Anytime that I have noticed any little mistake that you've made, I've been quick to point it out to you. On the other hand, I haven't really commented on any of your good contributions. I'm sorry about that. I really am very proud of you for the progress that you have made. Now that I've said that, I'll get back to nit-picking :)
These reverts really gave me the most pause:[2], [3], [4], [5], [6] In all of these reverts, the other editor left an edit summary explaining why they were making the edit. Had they not left an edit summary, it wouldn't have been too bad, but anytime a truthful edit summary is left, you really should not revert without an explanation. In these cases if you are unable to explain why you are reverting, then it is usually best just to leave it be. If the edit is truly incorrect, someone else will come along and deal with it.
There are really 3 things that I think that you should work on. 1) Be be careful about reverting the removal of unsourced content. Per WP:V, content should be verifiable. If it's not and it's removed, you really shouldn't reinsert it without also providing a reliable source. 2) Make sure to read edit summaries and always assume good faith when one is left (assuming that it is truthful). 3) Bad edits are not necessarily vandalism and an explanation may help the other editor see what they did wrong. This is especially important to remember when editing articles about cartoons and such, as they attract many children. Sorry for being long-winded and probably being WP:TLDR, but I hope this helps at least a little! Apparition11 Complaints/Mistakes 01:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comment. Why are 6 and 7 the same? - Amaury (talk) 01:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- I must've opened 6 & 7 two different ways since it was the same diff, but different URL. Sorry about that, I've stricken one of the duplicates. I also want to reiterate that I wasn't saying that the reverts were wrong. Most likely a valid argument could've been made both ways, just that it was a content dispute and not vandalism, so an explanation was warranted. Everyone makes these mistakes, so don't let it bother you. Just keep learning from these mistakes, and you'll do fine. Happy editing! Apparition11 Complaints/Mistakes 01:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- If it's not too much trouble, could you, like you did with my sort of bad edits, point out links to my good/significant improvement edits? ^^ - Amaury (talk) 02:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Sure. One thing that I noticed was that you made a few self reverts after you were contacted by the reverted editor. I believe last month, there was a similar situation where you kept on reverting despite receiving a message. You also undid the warnings, which I think is an extremely important thing to do, but unfortunately, often overlooked by many. Overall, your reverting seems to be much better. There were a lot of good vandalism reverts. Whereas before, it seemed that there were several episodes where you jumped in the middle of an edit war and called one side vandalism, I don't see near as much of that. You seem to be figuring out the difference between "bad edits" or "edits that you don't agree with" and vandalism. There are also edits like this that you made just a little while ago. Just adding that small edit summary explains why you reverted and should let the other editor know why they were reverted. The same with this one. The edit looks to be obviously incorrect, and while edits like that are often rolled back, that little note is much more informative. Your latest contributions also look to be much more inline with our manual of style than your earlier ones. You've also been discussing edits on talk pages a lot more than before, which is great. One of the bad things about Wikipedia, of which I am just as guilty as the next person, is that the better job you do, often times, the less feedback you get. People, myself included, are generally very quick to jump on mistakes, but far less inclined to acknowledge good edits. Often, the less you hear from people, the better the job you're doing. That doesn't mean that the good edits aren't noticed though. Apparition11 Complaints/Mistakes 03:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- More! More! Point out a lot more good AND bad edits! :) - Amaury (talk) 19:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- lol I'll do that, I promise. I probably won't be able to get to it today, I have a lot of paperwork to finish and I want to see what I can do to Wittenberg University. I will in the next day or two though, you've been making too many edits to go through in just a few minutes (not a bad thing) :) Apparition11 Complaints/Mistakes 19:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- More! More! Point out a lot more good AND bad edits! :) - Amaury (talk) 19:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Sure. One thing that I noticed was that you made a few self reverts after you were contacted by the reverted editor. I believe last month, there was a similar situation where you kept on reverting despite receiving a message. You also undid the warnings, which I think is an extremely important thing to do, but unfortunately, often overlooked by many. Overall, your reverting seems to be much better. There were a lot of good vandalism reverts. Whereas before, it seemed that there were several episodes where you jumped in the middle of an edit war and called one side vandalism, I don't see near as much of that. You seem to be figuring out the difference between "bad edits" or "edits that you don't agree with" and vandalism. There are also edits like this that you made just a little while ago. Just adding that small edit summary explains why you reverted and should let the other editor know why they were reverted. The same with this one. The edit looks to be obviously incorrect, and while edits like that are often rolled back, that little note is much more informative. Your latest contributions also look to be much more inline with our manual of style than your earlier ones. You've also been discussing edits on talk pages a lot more than before, which is great. One of the bad things about Wikipedia, of which I am just as guilty as the next person, is that the better job you do, often times, the less feedback you get. People, myself included, are generally very quick to jump on mistakes, but far less inclined to acknowledge good edits. Often, the less you hear from people, the better the job you're doing. That doesn't mean that the good edits aren't noticed though. Apparition11 Complaints/Mistakes 03:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- If it's not too much trouble, could you, like you did with my sort of bad edits, point out links to my good/significant improvement edits? ^^ - Amaury (talk) 02:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- I must've opened 6 & 7 two different ways since it was the same diff, but different URL. Sorry about that, I've stricken one of the duplicates. I also want to reiterate that I wasn't saying that the reverts were wrong. Most likely a valid argument could've been made both ways, just that it was a content dispute and not vandalism, so an explanation was warranted. Everyone makes these mistakes, so don't let it bother you. Just keep learning from these mistakes, and you'll do fine. Happy editing! Apparition11 Complaints/Mistakes 01:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Blocked due to April Fools' Day
Guess what Eugene i just got admin rights and i've decided to ban you. Not really, Happy April Fool's Day Eugene! The Pink Phink : Text me! 00:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- Ha ha ha! It's still March 31, though. 8:25 PM, to be exact. Nice joke, though. - Amaury (talk) 03:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)