User talk:Amaury/2010/January

2010 Archive Index: January • February • March • April • May • June • July • August • September • October • December

Ishik university

Hey there!!! It might not be a mistake but you tagged this article with CSD G7 whereas I do not think that the author request deletion. If possible look into this. Ciao!!! Hitro talk 07:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

It was already tagged that, but it was vandalized, so I reverted it to a cleaner version, but I reverted too far, so I re-tagged it. - Amaury (talk) 15:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

User Pinkmefe

Thank you for helping with CSD tagging, but the tagging of this editor's user page as vandalism was incorrect. User pages are given a certain amount of leeway. It is just an excitable girl making her first edits on Wikipedia, not vandalism. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 08:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I thought it was an article. My apologies. - Amaury (talk) 15:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Fred Figglehorn

I appreciate your catching my typo here. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. - Amaury (talk) 23:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bwilkins 2

Read before reverting and accusing. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 17:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Check your talk page. - Amaury (talk) 17:38, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Apology accepted. I was swearing. But your reversions and accusations of vandalism helped me realize what I had thought at first, Bwilkins' words were grossly inappropriate for anywhere and anytime on wikipedia. Thanks. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 17:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

What was this revert for? IP69.226.103.13 is an established contributor. Sure his username can be... confusing, but that wasn't vandalism. The Thing _{Vandalize me} 17:33, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, now that I go back on it, I realize I was wrong. I misunderstood the edits and thought he was the one swearing. It was never his name, though. My apologies. - Amaury (talk) 17:38, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism on your user page

The message below from CambridgeBayWeather is a response to a message I left at User talk:CambridgeBayWeather: It's late, but thanks.

NP. I do the same thing. I noticed someone reverting. Look at my user page and see that they were the third person in a week. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 17:42, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting vandalism on User:Ajh16

Though I did kind of like the "Stop undoing my edits" badge of honor... Must be doing something right. ;) Ajh16 (talk) 17:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. - Amaury (talk) 17:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Telangana

This isn't really vandalism. The IP is trying to change some content and doesn't know how to add references. He's at 3RR right now so hopefully he'll stop and ask for help. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting vandalism on User:Oscroft

Hi. Thanks for your speedy reversion of vandalism to my user page. Oscroft (talk) 19:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. - Amaury (talk) 19:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Editor review 9

Related discussions: Your request for rollback • Editor review 1 • Editor review 2 • Editor review 3 • Editor review 4 • Editor review 5  • Your next editor review • Editor review 6 • Editor review 7 • Editor review 8

I looked through you edits as you requested. I saw a few curious edits that I'll cover in the first part. The bigger concern for me though is your handling of disputes, which I'll cover in the second part.

• This revert was faulty, though understandable. The IP did insert a profanity, but the song does actually say that.
• These reverts ([1] [2] [3]) removed sourced information... Why?
• What was the reason for reverting this edit? The new user incorrectly formatted the refs, but helping would be more beneficial than reverting. That is unless there was a reason to remove them, but you gave no explanation so there is no way to know.
• Regarding these date "fixes" ([4] [5]), you should avoid changing date formats per MOS:DATE#Retaining_the_existing_format.
• Saying that you need to use a spell checker as an editor did here is is no way a personal attack as you claimed here. It may have been said in a snarky and unnecessary tone, but there is nothing personal about it.

Here is where my main concern lies. We have to work collaboratively to accomplish our goals, and, at least in this month, it seems that in all of your disputes, you are not being very collaborative. I really believe that you need to give these pages a read-through: Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot, Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in edit wars, and Wikipedia:Etiquette.

• Here the editor who removed the external links gave a reason. When you reverted with an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument and proclaimed "Do not remove again". What exactly does "Do not remove again" accomplish? It really just makes you look bossy and certainly doesn't help your cause.
• Here you are starting out a discussion in a heated matter. This is not helpful at all. You have to learn to stay calm. Calling people stubborn could be considered a personal attack (albeit not a severe one, but regardless, it accomplishes nothing but to enflame the situation). And also, you seem to claim in that post as well as here that the consensus was to merge, which was not true, the consensus was to redirect ([6]).

• Also regarding this sitution, looking at how it transpired, it seems that you were WP:BOLD, which is great. Then you were reverted which is also fine. However, then you reverted back and asked the other editor to take it to the talk page. Instead, you really should've followed the bold, revert, discuss cycle. Instead of edit warring, take it to the talk page.
• During the entire discussion, you were heated (though the other editor remained calm) and your only arguments were WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:MOREX. I'm not saying whether or not it belonged, but frankly, instead of proclaiming that you know more about the rules, you should show and not brag about it.

• This "warning" is in bad form. You shouldn't "warn" good-faith editors who are abiding policy because you disagree with them. The removal seemed to be an explained and justifiable removal of inappropriate external links per WP:EL. That doesn't seem like a warnable offense to me. WP:ELPOINTS #2 clearly says External links should not normally be used in the body of an article. Instead, include appropriate external links in an "External links" section at the end of the article, and in the appropriate location within an infobox, if applicable. The link itself may be applicable to WP:ELNO #12, Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors. Mirrors or forks of Wikipedia should not be linked. Although the link may be acceptable, in no way is removing them a warn-able offense (unless against consensus, which was not the case).

• Further, throughout this discussion, despite the other editor giving reasons for the removal, the only points I've really seen you give are it's useful, I'll warn you, I've been here longer, you're being stubborn, and you're trying to get on my bad side. You did argue that it was reliable, though really, the argument was about WP:EL, not WP:RS, so that section really doesn't matter either way. For the record though, Wiki's, including WP, are not reliable sources. See Wikipedia:Reliable_source_examples#Are_wikis_reliable_sources.3F.

When in disputes, you need to focus on your points, not the other editor. Proclaiming that being here longer means you know more and are correct; calling others stubborn; claiming they are trying to get on your bad side; and issuing inappropriate warnings really doesn't reflect well on you. Instead, show where your edits are appropriate per our guidelines and policy and/or how it improves the article (if it really helps and others agree, guidelines can always be ignored). In order to gain a consensus, you need to help convince others what you are doing is best for the encyclopedia, which is rather difficult if you just berate editors with opposing views. I'm afraid that if you keep up this sort of "discussion", it won't be long before, at best, a WP:WQA thread gets started. Apparition^{11 Complaints}/Mistakes 21:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Minor edits

Would you please stop marking all your edits as minor edits. See Help:Minor edit. Is there something about this that you don't understand? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

You could be more detailed as to what you're talking about. I understand what it is that you're talking about, but you need to be more detailed. - Amaury (talk) 04:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

All your edits are marked as minor. Do you have "Mark all edits minor by default" checked on by accident in the Editing tab of your preferences? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. I checked the box sometime last year because I was tired of clicking the This is a minor edit box every time I made a minor edit. I used to make a lot of small edits. - Amaury (talk) 05:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, you may want to review Help:Minor_edit#When_not_to_mark_an_edit_as_a_minor_edit --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Please un-check the box—you are making huge numbers of non-minor edits as minor. Many editors do not display minor edits in their watchlists, or tend not to view minor edits, so you are disrupting all pages on which you are marking non-minor changes as minor. ^Bongo_matic 00:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

There is no need to be rude. I will change it, but I don't see what the big deal is about a non-minor edit being marked as minor. Also, do not accuse me, because I am not disrupting anything. - Amaury (talk) 01:03, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify, if you mark all your edits as minor, it means that they don't appear on recent changes. This is considered disruptive. That is why you have been asked to stop marking all edits as minor. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 01:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:40, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. :) Small issue, though. I keep having to uncheck "Reverts" in the "Mark as minor" section of the "Editing" tab in the options menu every time I open Huggle. Is there a way to save it so I don't have to uncheck it every time I open Huggle? - Amaury (talk) 05:45, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Toddst1

I am also an administrator. Perhaps you should not interfere, that editor has accused me of edit and wheel warring, they have also been very rude on my own talk page. I am asking for an apology, this is not unreasonable. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 00:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I am merely giving my opinion on my friend's talk page. Anyway, I am going to have to agree with them. Looking through your talk page, it looks like there have been multiple concerns regarding your actions. As others have said, you need to take it slow because you were inactive for a long time, so you should not be questioning higher administrators than you, such as Toddst. Also looking through your talk page, I see that there are no personal attacks, so you were wrong there. You also accused someone of harassing you, which was also a false accusation. - Amaury (talk) 00:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

You may think that, but unless you are more specific about your concerns, I am afraid we will have to agree to disagree. That "someone else", incidentally, was Hipocrite, who was told by a number of admins not to ask admins for their recall procedure unless he was going to invoke the recall. He was told that his behaviour was seen as harassment. As you seem to put a great weight on what administrators say, even when it's not really appropriate, perhaps you would like to rereview that comment? If not, then that's your right, but it will also mean that it will colour any comments you make about my own judgement. Thank you. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 01:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll agree with you there, so it's striked out. - Amaury (talk) 01:18, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. What's this silliness about "higher admins" than myself? What criteria are you using? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 01:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)