User talk:Amaury/2009/May
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
J.Delanoy blocked the range (72.249.64.0/18, see here for proof) for one week but the talk pages are unprotected. If you see an IP in this range vandalising, request that the page be protected since the IP range is already blocked. Thanks. Momo san Gespräch 03:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Rollback privileges
Congrats on getting Rollback! Just a reminder, remember that it's only for blatantly unconstructive edits. If there are doubts, you should use one of the methods that allow you to leave an edit summary. You've been doing this well anyways, so I don't think that you'll have any problems. Again, congrats! Keep up the good work! Apparition11 Complaints/Mistakes 14:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- Can you customize the rollback message? Because I noticed on some of the Huggle users who revert, the only think linked is the vandal's username plus the vandal's talk page link. The test I just did on my userpage was different. It had "Reverted" linked. - Amaury (talk) 14:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- There are ways to, but I've never used them. You can find about them here. The only way I've ever done it is through Huggle, which does it automatically for you. Personally, what I do is use Rollback (ie the default edit summary) just for vandalism, and use Twinkle to give an edit summary. However, if you want to play with the scripts that allow edit summaries, have fun :) Apparition11 Complaints/Mistakes 14:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I saw your application, and decided not to oppose it this time. Please be careful ... with your history, you will be watched closely by a lot of people. A small mistake that would be ignored for another editor is likely to have consequences for you. —Kww(talk) 14:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- That's very true. Plus, if you (Eugene) start using Huggle, mistakes get very easy to make, even for the most experienced editors. Try to always err on the side of caution. If there's any doubt at all, try to leave an edit summary instead of rollbacking. Apparition11 Complaints/Mistakes 15:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I see you have just been granted rollback privileges, please be mindful of how you are using it, a user you reverted and warned for vandalism [1] ended up on my talk page confused and wondering what he had done wrong. All he did was overwrite a redirect to begin a legit article, not only do I see no reason to revert him in the first place, accusing him of vandalism was entirely uncalled for. Please be careful before you pull the trigger, we do not want to drive away good editors. Equendil Talk 17:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- Eugene, how many times is this going to happen before you learn to be more cautious and stop making unfounded vandalism accusations? This is far from the first time this has happened, I implore you once again to slow down and make sure an edit was vandalism before warning. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, that one is bad. Calling someone a vandal when they are trying to build an article really goes against what Wikipedia is all about. Just guessing here, but looking at the edits, I'm guessing that you saw this edit which appears to be the cleaning out of loose references. I think that there are a few points to learn here: 1) Make sure to look at the entirety of the edits. Botanicleve made three straight edits before you reverted. Make sure to look at the overall work, not just one diff. 2) Try to figure out why someone would remove content when they do. Looking at that diff, it's pretty obvious what the editor was doing when taking into account the section that he is editing. 3) Double check your work. You gave Botanicleve a page blanking/removal of content warning. After you reverted, if you looked at your diff, you were actually the one who removed content. Apparition11 Complaints/Mistakes 18:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- That was with Twinkle, but regardless, it's the same, so I understand. - Amaury (talk) 18:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, it looks like the edit took place actually before you were granted rollback. Just do try to be careful. You have improved a lot, just learn from this mistake and keep improving. Apparition11 Complaints/Mistakes 19:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- That was with Twinkle, but regardless, it's the same, so I understand. - Amaury (talk) 18:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Please read WP:DAB on what a dab page should look like. Also, WP:CFORK about replicating material found elsewhere (ie. Talitha cumi} 76.66.202.139 (talk) 04:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
- Gotcha. - Amaury (talk) 04:54, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
- Please remove your warning from my talk page. Thanks. 76.66.202.139 (talk) 04:56, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
User Mamaji54321
When you reverse a page blanking read what you are restoring as you restored an attack page that I just speedied. Reading your talk page I can see that I'm not the only one raising concerns about the way you do VP. Please slow down and take more care. Spartaz Humbug! 18:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
- I understand completely. I just sort of skimmed through it, but I guess I should have read more. Anyway, I apologize and will be more careful in the future. - Amaury (talk) 18:42, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Editor review 5
Related discussions: Your request for rollback • Editor review 1 • Editor review 2 • Editor review 3 • Editor review 4
Finally got through. There were a lot of edits, so I just glanced through most.
- This revert was a good revert to Palisade cell. The self revert of that revert, not so much :) Reading what the IP inserted, it was a copy-and-paste job from an unrelated article (World of Warcraft).
- The edits you reverted in this revert to Talitha don't look like vandalism to me. The IP was turning it into a more proper disambig page. If you think that they removed too much, then you should discuss and perhaps reinsert what you believe should be included, but this would be a content dispute, not vandalism.
- This revert on Miley Cyrus also doesn't appear to be vandalism to me. It is probably best left out, and, according to later comments, may be a copyvio, but not really vandalism.
- It looks like you stepped into an edit war with this revert to Degrassi: The Next Generation (season 9). The article was later semi-protected so the IPs adding what you restored couldn't continue adding it. Always pay particular attention when reverting the removal of unsourced information.
- As you probably figured out with this well intentioned undo to WP:AIV, you should make sure what you think you are reverting is what you really are reverting. Here, you thought the user was reporting himself, but that template actually shows:
Content dispute. Consider dispute resolution. - Here, you reverted a page blanking of Maryland For Responsible Enforcement. When the creator of an article blanks the page, it is usually interpreted as a good-faith request for deletion. If there haven't been substantial edits by other editors, you can tag it as {{db-g7}} (author requests deletion). In this case it is likely that it would've been removed by the IP who later came to add to it though.
The main thing, when you are reverting something, make sure to read what you are reinserting. The restoration of the attack page that you were previously notified about is the perfect example. Anytime you are restoring unsourced content, use good judgment about whether it should be restored. You should always do this, but take special care not to reinsert unsourced info to a BLP, especially if it's negative. If there could be a good reason to remove content, then by reverting, you are likely entering into a content dispute, not reverting vandalism. Apparition11 Complaints/Mistakes 01:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Vandalism on your talk page
The messages below from Ace of Spades and Quantumobserver are responses to messages I left at User talk:Ace of Spades: Thanks. and User talk:Quantumobserver: Thanks.
You're very welcome. After all, with all the crazy vandals, we all have to look out for each other. (C/SGT)G2sai(talk) 22:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
No problem! I had to check the history - didn't even realize I had touched your page. It went something like this: Read diff -> Recognize stupidity -> press Q -> repeat. Suppose you've had a few of those moments... Quantumobserver (talk) 23:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- What exactly do you mean? I've never seen those on Huggle. Oh, wait! You just made that up, huh? Nice one! Ha ha! Thanks again. - Amaury (talk) 00:09, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Eugene, don't you think you went a little overboard in this diff, giving an editor a level 4 warning when all they did was (randomly, sure) say "i am not a crook" on someone else's talkpage? This seems excessive to me, and I urge you to remove the warning (or I will) and to consider starting with level 1 for such a minor offense. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 02:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, I don't know how it happened. It should have been a level 1 warning. I have my Huggle's warning system set to automatic. Anyway, I'll remove the warning. Thanks for the message. - Amaury (talk) 02:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry for butting in, but I happened to see this mentioned at AIV while I was checking up on something. I notice the user you warned had 2 other warnings that he blanked out, I am wondering if maybe Huggle "knows" this even though we don't see the warnings?(Level 4 would still be too high, but it was definitely not a first offense). Might be worth asking the people at Wikipedia:Huggle/Feedback. I use it, too, which is why I'm curious (nosy?).--Susan118 (talk) 03:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- You're not butting in. I have removed the warning and the report to be fair. :) - Amaury (talk) 03:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- he actually removed three warnings, my userpage once and talk twice, altho almost every other edit he has made to any page has been the same "not a crook" nonsense. This is quite possibly the most peculiar vandal I have come across. Nar Matteru (talk) 03:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, it is weird indeed. Nar, I think we're dealing with unexpiated guilt. Eugene, I don't use Huggle (I actually don't know what it is), all my warnings are manual, so I was not aware of this possibility--and from the sound of it, it has its drawbacks. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry for butting in, but I happened to see this mentioned at AIV while I was checking up on something. I notice the user you warned had 2 other warnings that he blanked out, I am wondering if maybe Huggle "knows" this even though we don't see the warnings?(Level 4 would still be too high, but it was definitely not a first offense). Might be worth asking the people at Wikipedia:Huggle/Feedback. I use it, too, which is why I'm curious (nosy?).--Susan118 (talk) 03:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Hey Eugene, as much as I thought I disagreed with you, after some recent stunts by this Arma user I'm quickly coming around. Those "crook" remarks were silly, and perhaps not much more than that, but see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Fairly_new_account_closing_RFAs_and_AFDs. Take care, Drmies (talk) 17:40, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for reverting vandalism on User talk:NorwegianBlue
Thanks for reverting vandalism on my talk page! --NorwegianBlue talk 16:10, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
I had inserted a small mneumonic into the definition of Ion regarding differentiating Cations and Anions, owing to my Research Chemist friend and I having genuinely used this nmeumonic since college (20 years ago when it was suggested by a fellow student to the Lecturer during a GCSE Chemistry class) to remember the difference. Hence I thought this may be a useful note. It wasn't actually a 'test edit' nor 'vandalism' by the wiki definition, however I accept if you deem my justification here does not sway your decision to revert. Thanks for your feedback. Roopreqt (talk) 09:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
User Nernst
The message below from Jeff3000 is a response to a message I left at User talk:Jeff3000: 3RR Warning
If you would like to respond to the other user, please use his talk page. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 16:31, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for reverting vandalism on User talk:Jozal
Thank you for reverting the vandalism on my talk page :) Have a cookie! Jozal (talk) 21:29, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Jozal (talk) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!
Warnings on my talk page
This is the edit that is a vandal. [2] it is genuine [3]. I ask for a clarification that I did not vandalise to avoid all this badness and it is an attack? --86.45.207.249 (talk) 21:27, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
- I have removed my warnings from your talk page. Happy editing! - Amaury (talk) 21:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
- I was nearly blocked because you and that other person ganged up on me! :( When did leaving a reply on someone's talk page become vandalism? Yet two warnings from you for doing that to someone else and then trying to explain to you? And the only reason I went to the talk page was to explain a massive misunderstanding in the first place! Would it be better to wreck everything? --86.45.207.249 (talk) 21:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
- Yes that's true but who bothers looking through the history when you can just block me? :( This isn't my first experience of this and it is VERY infuriating and unconstructive. I've actually been blocked trying to explain past cases! I was expecting the same to happen again because every time I tried to explain I was being given a warning by you. But that's what always happening if you can block someone nobody is going to bother looking into it because nobody believes such a thing could happen but it does! Agh! --86.45.207.249 (talk) 21:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
- Don't worry, I think you'll be fine. I'm not an admin, so I can't block you. Even if I were, I would give you a chance before making a decision. :) - Amaury (talk) 22:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for reverting vandalism on User talk:Ndunruh
Thank you for reverting the vandalism to my user page. Please accept this plate of brownies in appreciation! --Ndunruh (talk) 03:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
User:T'Shael/Vandalbox
hey, it's a page for vandals and the guy says we can vandalise there. why are you warning me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.255.209 (talk) 22:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
The message below from Yowuza is a response to a message I left at User talk:Yowuza: Crash TwinSanity
True, but that's the only place I've seen it listed under that title. --YOWUZA Talk 2 me! 17:35, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Your next editor review
Related discussions: Your request for rollback • Editor review 1 • Editor review 2 • Editor review 3 • Editor review 4 • Editor review 5
Hello Eugene. I hope all is well. I just wanted to let you know that I hadn't forgotten about you, I just haven't had much time. In fact, I'm planning on taking a break from editing for a while. Between work, my side business, and spending time with friends & family, I don't really have enough time to be spending on here at the moment. If I can give up my compulsion of editing here, then hopefully I can relieve some stress :) I'll still log on daily, so if you have any specific questions, I will still be around to try and answer them though. Cheers and happy editing! Apparition11 Complaints/Mistakes 20:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for reverting vandalism on User talk:Matt Deres
For the vandal revert on my talk page. Guy seems a little obsessed about the loneliest number... Matt Deres (talk) 00:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
User Mytestid1980
What do you expect me to do, Eugene? It is clear from the edits of User talk:Mytestid1980 that he is doing this deliberately, to vent out his personal frustrations and to spread rumours. Have you gone through the history of the article and seen what this user is up to? You are advising me in doing certain things but just look at what this user has done. He has again and again reverted the reverts made by me and by Hometech (talk). This user needs to be barred from editing as he is doing all possible things to spread rumours or atleast he should be given a stern warning (which will work only if he pays any heed to it). It seems that you can handle such situations, then why haven’t you yourself posted a message on the talkpage of User talk:Mytestid1980? Kesangh (talk) 16:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not familiar at all with the subject, but, from a completely oblivious view, it looks like Mytestid1980 is probably pushing a POV. His/her content is unsourced and doesn't appear neutral, but doesn't appear to be vandalism to me. I would agree with Eugene here that it seems to be WP:BITEY starting out with a level 3 warning. What I would opt to do here is to explain to the user that the content needs sources to even be considered, but, even with reliable sources, needs to be written from a neutral point of view. If attempts for discussion fail, then I would say that dispute resolution might help here. I see that a thread has been posted to ANI about this, but I doubt that an admin will be willing to intervene at this point (at least with the role of an admin, possibly as an editor). No one has really explained anything to the editor, and, at least from an oblivious view, it looks like a content dispute. Apparition11 Complaints/Mistakes 19:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
The messages from Otisjimmy1 below are responses to messages I left at User talk:Otisjimmy1: Sorry.
No Biggie. Best, OtisJimmyOne 23:55, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
24.143.226.138 has been going back and forth with another user in List of DSiWare games and applications in violation of the Wikipedia:NOTBROKEN guidelines, and I reverted his/her edits myself twice today with summaries asking him to check the article's talk page for an explanation. I also tried to explain to him/her on User_talk:24.143.226.138 what we are trying to do... Imagine my surprise to see that as a reply. :/ Thanks for catching it. :) -- Khisanth (talk) 01:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm not vandalizing, have you even read the history section for Sullivan, Indiana? ITS HORRIBLE!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.223.158.102 (talk) 03:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for reverting vandalism on User talk:Doniago
Doniago has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Doniago (talk • contribs) 16:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)