User talk:Amcrius
 | Please read my stance on criticism, right here. In a nutshell, any criticism is absolutely welcomed, and extremely wanted here. If you have any slightest thing you're considering posting concerning a suggestion/improvement for me, go ahead and post it! Don't worry about offending me, I would much rather be offended and have bettered ability than to be in happy spirits and not the best I could be. Thanks! |
Welcome
[edit]  A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10... 100... 200
Hello, ChaseAm, and welcome to Wikipedia! I am GB fan and I would like to thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
And here are several pages on what to avoid:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (
Please feel free to reply to this message.
This welcome message was sent by GB fan at 00:37, 2 April 2013 (UTC) |
GB fan 00:37, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
You are welcome
[edit]I am glad you understand. If you have any questions that I can answer let me know. Again welcome and keep up the good work. GB fan 00:40, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
ChaseAm, you are invited to the Teahouse
[edit]
|
Hi ChaseAm! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. |
A barnstar for you!
[edit]
|
The Photographer's Barnstar |
| I've no idea how or why you decided to update the images on the ClueBot false positive page, but the new pictures are a great improvement. Thank you! Yunshui 雲水 06:52, 5 April 2013 (UTC) |
Review
[edit]Hello. Overall I still agree with what I said when I first saw your request at WP:RFP/C, you are doing a very good job. For the most part your edits and warning are appropriate. There are some that warnings that probably weren't appropriate.
You gave 130.185.155.130 an only warning for [this edit. While the edit was inappropriate, it probably didn't rise to the level of an only warning. Also you reported them to WP:AIV for vandalism after a final warning. The only problem is that the final warning was in January. After a few days most warnings of IPs can be disregarded because there is a strong possibility that it was a different person.
Here, you reverted an IP on their talkpage. The comments they made were inappropriate ad should have been removed then warned for it, but you should not have readded the information they removed. Users, even IPs, can remove most items from their talk page. The list of things that can not be removed is very short. Prior to this you were correct when you restored content to an IPs talk page that they removed.
Nothing technically wrong with this, but after you moved Wikipedia:Hope Castle to Hope Castle you could have requested the redirect be deleted as it was not needed. (I have deleted the redirect)
When you edited Brooke Candy you added {{citation needed}} tags to a couple of unsourced statements. While that is correct in most instances, when we are talking about living people and have something that could be considered negative, the first step should be to remove the the information until a reliable source is found.
You use edits summaries which is very important for others to be able to see what you have done. There are a few things you can improve on, but that is the same for all of us. Overall you are progressing very nicely. Keep up the good work. GB fan 01:13, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- Alright, certainly! Thank you so much for the suggestions; it's nice to have some outside ideas on where to work on and place focus. Once again, thanks a bunch! ChaseAm (talk) 19:51, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Suggestions
[edit]ChaseAm, you can shorten your edit summaries. Like with this [1], you said "Doesn't appear to be a valid change (it appears dubious and vandalous); if it is, an edit summary or reference should be provided, or it should..." You could just say rvv(?), no RS, unexplained. Or any combo of those terms. See Glossary and WP:ES (especially the link in the SA section) for more hints. Also, your AfD on Stephen Liddle has sparked a lively discussion. I've enjoyed it and learned a few things. Keep up the good work. – S. Rich (talk) 00:25, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Oh, excellent - a wonderful surprise! Thank you, I'm guessing you see that I rather enjoy and appreciate suggestions! Okay, I will definitely take that into account when reverting. However, I've been "on the fence", so to speak, about edit summaries. For the new people, I'd like the person who was reverted to be able to clearly see as to why they were reverted. Though, I also think if they're editing should they not have knowledge of these codes/shortenings, or look into them if not? I especially try not to bite newcomers (or anybody, really). Hmm, I suppose if that's reallly a concern I could just post a personal message on their page if it hasn't already been done, seeing as that's more of a function of messages rather than edit summaries. What would you think as for that? Also, for the AfD on Stephen Liddle has certainly taught me many things as well. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! ChaseAm (talk) 00:33, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Ok chase. Thank you very much. I know Euronymous and Dead are best firneds, so I shall put in personal life. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.69.162.127 (talk) 23:58, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi Dear Friend
[edit]Hi. I see you reverted Euronymous. These men are best friends. I have cited source for best friend. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.69.162.127 (talk) 04:05, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
- Hello! That isn't particularly something that should go in the caption, if you really would like to put that in the article, it will need to go into a section, most likely personal life. Be sure to cite that source. Thanks for your contributions ChaseAm (talk) 11:55, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Regarding Jros83
[edit]As of now, I'd like to wait a bit. I've been meaning to compile a list of all the non-constructive posts he's made to all users on various article and user talk pages since last year, but keep getting sidetracked. I'm going to wait to see if he makes any more stupid comments, especially as they venture into blatant banworthy territory, just to make things a bit easier. He has been doing this for a long time, and I"m slowly getting fed up. I believe that he is not here to build an encyclopedia, and is merely using talk pages to pick fights with other people. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 07:20, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
- You both need to stop and let this go. You are both being as unconstructive and petty as I have ever been. Chase I have a feeling youre sensible enough but please be aware that Benli is simply having fun creating more drama and it would be a shame if one such as you were dragged into it. As far as I am concerned this issue is over with. Chase I have made clear my personal position towards you and I hope you see it is genuine and as for you Benli I'll stay away from you, you stay away from me. That is the BEST course of action, and if you insist on keeping this crap going then it can only be construed as you being malicious. This is done and over with. Regards to all. Jersey John (talk) 14:44, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
- Okay Benlisquare, agreed. And Jros83, as far as that, I simply cannot observe you being rude to people. If you would just stop, I'd have no problem working with you and forgetting about it, as I'm sure the rest of the Wikipedians would say, but the problem is that you don't stop. Frankly, I would rather get scolded, or even have administrative action taken against me, for standing up for a Wikipedia editor that was a victim of these unconstructive comments. Also, I don't think that it's unconstructive or petty for me to stand up for somebody, perhaps it's just due to a huge slant on my part, but that's what I think as of now, and it seems to be the most... ethical I suppose you could call it... thing to do, maybe not towards you, but for the people who assumed good faith and you took bad faith against them. I was planning on letting this go until I saw that it just keeps on persisting, it never goes away (or at least it's yet to). I'm sorry for saying this again, but it's truly not a personal thing, if you would just stop it would be completely indifferent to me. Thank you, and Jros, you still have a chance, I hope you, as well as all of us, decide to forget all of this and continue making constructive edits and comments to Wikipedia. We're all people here, we all make mistakes, and it's understandable to get upset or frustrated with somebody, as you can see by my comments towards you right now (I'm trying to keep these as in good faith as possible, not sure how successful I was) and in the past. ChaseAm (talk) 19:53, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
- Also: I just went to your talkpage to add a TB and saw the diffs for what you said about witchhunting. I wouldn't consider what I did to be witchhunting, what you're saying & doing is a blatant and continuing thing. It literally requires a 5-10 second skim of active additions to see it's not in good faith. It affects other editors, it's continuing: something needs to be done here, whether it be a change in your/our behavior or something beyond that. From WP:WITCHHUNT "A witchhunt is an action taken by a Wikipedia editor to find fault or violations in another editor when it is not already obvious that such has occurred.... may become so obsessed with that possibility that they go to the extremes of studying the edit histories of others very deeply as if they were detectives". While I may match possibly one of those descriptions, I don't believe it's bad to stand up for editors. ChaseAm (talk) 20:03, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
- How difficult is it for you to accept that this is over? I'm not fighting your position. You're perfectly right about it. It's DONE. Ok? It doesn't need further discussion. Jersey John (talk) 20:23, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
- Okay, I hope that's proven to me. You're off to a good start by saying so, with making constructive comments ChaseAm (talk) 20:46, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
- How difficult is it for you to accept that this is over? I'm not fighting your position. You're perfectly right about it. It's DONE. Ok? It doesn't need further discussion. Jersey John (talk) 20:23, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
- Also: I just went to your talkpage to add a TB and saw the diffs for what you said about witchhunting. I wouldn't consider what I did to be witchhunting, what you're saying & doing is a blatant and continuing thing. It literally requires a 5-10 second skim of active additions to see it's not in good faith. It affects other editors, it's continuing: something needs to be done here, whether it be a change in your/our behavior or something beyond that. From WP:WITCHHUNT "A witchhunt is an action taken by a Wikipedia editor to find fault or violations in another editor when it is not already obvious that such has occurred.... may become so obsessed with that possibility that they go to the extremes of studying the edit histories of others very deeply as if they were detectives". While I may match possibly one of those descriptions, I don't believe it's bad to stand up for editors. ChaseAm (talk) 20:03, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Anonymous editor concerns
[edit]I thought Rocket Power came out in August 7, 1999 not August 16, 1999. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.198.168.195 (talk) 02:06, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- @98.198.168.195: Hello! It's absolutely not a problem. You may want to bring it up the talk page of Rocket Power, or provide a reference that shows this. Take a look at WP:CITE. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me right here! The only reason I was sending you warnings was because you weren't providing any reasons, so it appeared to be vandalism to me. I would also strongly recommend creating an account so you can control the entirety of your edits. Thank you, and welcome to Wikipedia! ChaseAm (talk) 02:31, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Your report on anonymous 113.197.9.146
[edit]You mentioned to Luk3 about reporting this person. Where do I report him/her about attempt to squeeze in a name in lieu of a much more notable namesake. He/she tried 3 times. See History of page for Edward Ng. Apparently they're not able to get their namesake into Wiki and tried this below-the-belt method. This is serious offense. If it's more convenient, can you report him/her please. Much obliged. --QES girl (talk) 23:40, 26 November 2013 (UTC)QES_girl
- Hello QES girl! You can report the anonymous editor at WP:AIV, if you feel it is necessary. However, these are somewhat unrecent edits, (they also have not edited in over a month and a half, as well) and the user has since been blocked from editing userspace and registering an account. I believe that if it occurs again, then it would be appropriate to report him for further action at WP:AIV. If you have any further questions, concerns, differing views, etc. about this issue or anything else, I urge you to go ahead and voice them on my talkpage. Warm regards, ChaseAm (talk) 15:20, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
- OK, thanx. No, I have no further concern. Was just shocked at such attempted vandalism. That's all. I'm not frequent editor, thus have not seen it all.--QES girl (talk) 17:01, 27 November 2013 (UTC)QES_girl
Hi ChaseAm. Because you participated in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 June 19#Jacob Barnett, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacob Barnett (2nd nomination). Cunard (talk) 16:49, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Sodium Nitrate
[edit]Hi ChaseAm, I've edited what I think is an old contribution by you to take out intermediates between sodium nitrate and nitric acid (it actually distils off directly). Just to let you know. Cheers. Ambix (talk) 13:18, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
RE: What you may see in history
[edit]Yes, I deleted something I posted. I made a massive error in reading the dates on something you posted in 2013 and it caused me to leave a comment based on false information. So I removed it, since it would have been inflammatory being that the context was all wrong. Jersey John (talk) 09:01, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
[edit]
Hello, Amcrius. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
[edit]Hello, Amcrius. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)