User talk:Amaury/2009/November
 | 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. |
Editor review 8
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
I began to go through your contribs like I said I would, and one thing quickly came to my eye (besides the CSDs). It was the revert of this request for help and this "editing test" warning. It appears that we have a BLP who is being disparaged on Wikipedia and was trying to get help to stop it. Please understand, Wikipedia can have real-life consequences and do damage to living people who are subjects of articles. In a Google search for his name, 2 of the top 6 hits are to Wikipedia, so, people looking for him are very likely to see the articles. Anytime a BLP requests help like that, we should do our best to, not accuse them of testing (which he obviously wasn't doing). If you look at Thejpmshow 's contribs, it's pretty obvious that User:Ron Travolta has a point. I'd encourage you not to turn away someone requesting help, especially in cases like that. Apparition11 Complaints/Mistakes 23:09, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
I think the anon edit you reverted as vandalism on that page was made by User:IP69.226.103.13 himself. He seems to have decided to return to editing by IP. Cheers, Crafty (talk) 06:51, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
- Gotcha. - Amaury (talk) 06:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Hey, it's not vandalism. The article has been submitted for creation and is posted at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Chaetopterus where it is being worked on. Go ahead and move it to mainspace, that would be most useful. --69.225.9.98 (talk) 06:52, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
- Crafty has cleared it up. Sorry for the trouble. - Amaury (talk) 06:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
- You weren't acting out of bad faith, so no apology necessary. But thanks. --69.225.9.98 (talk) 07:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Rick oules
You tagged this as "patent nonsense" which it was not. Bad formatting and poor writing do not make an article nonsense. Looking through your talk archives it is clear this is an ongoing problem. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion carefully if you plan to continue tagging articles. Beeblebrox (talk) 08:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- Did you not look at the original version? - Amaury (talk) 09:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- Yes I did [1], that is exactly what I am referring to. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:48, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- To one of your other comments: I am getting tired of people judging me based on old discussion. I take judging like that as an insult, so please do not judge me based on old discussions. Thanks! - Amaury (talk) 17:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- You are missing the point, sir. You have had many previous notices posted here indicating that speedy deletion nominations made by you are faulty, and yet apparently have not learned from these mistakes. I urge you again to familiarize yourself with the criteria for speedy deletion to avoid such errors in the future. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- And that's fine if you want me to familiarize myself with criteria for speedy deletion, but all I'm asking is to not be judged based on past discussions. - Amaury (talk) 18:00, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- You are talking in circles. You have demonstrated a pattern of a long term problem of misunderstanding CSD. If it was only one bad tagging I wouldn't be so concerned about it, but even as we've had this conversation yet another obviously flawed CSD nom of yours has been brought up below, so it not just your past actions, it's them combined with your actions right now that demonstrate that you do not understand how to properly interpret csd. You seemed more concerned with formatting your talk page (including a light refactor of my initial remark) and with getting rollback, like it's a prize to be earned. You need to focus more on the reasons behind the policies instead of just blindly attempting to revert or delete anything that does not satisfy your personal standards. If we could just delete anything that we, as individuals, think does not belong here, I would wipe out half of Wikipedia myself, but that's just not how it works. We have specific standards for what may and may not be speedy deleted, and continuing to apply the tags improperly wastes the time of administrators and other users who patrol speedy deletion nominations. You may want to consider adoption so that you can receive one-on-one mentoring from a more experienced user. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- Another administrator already informed me of that, and they were nicer about it. Would you mind just leaving me alone for now? I need some time to cool off before I end up yelling at you or something and end up getting blocked. - Amaury (talk) 18:22, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- You are talking in circles. You have demonstrated a pattern of a long term problem of misunderstanding CSD. If it was only one bad tagging I wouldn't be so concerned about it, but even as we've had this conversation yet another obviously flawed CSD nom of yours has been brought up below, so it not just your past actions, it's them combined with your actions right now that demonstrate that you do not understand how to properly interpret csd. You seemed more concerned with formatting your talk page (including a light refactor of my initial remark) and with getting rollback, like it's a prize to be earned. You need to focus more on the reasons behind the policies instead of just blindly attempting to revert or delete anything that does not satisfy your personal standards. If we could just delete anything that we, as individuals, think does not belong here, I would wipe out half of Wikipedia myself, but that's just not how it works. We have specific standards for what may and may not be speedy deleted, and continuing to apply the tags improperly wastes the time of administrators and other users who patrol speedy deletion nominations. You may want to consider adoption so that you can receive one-on-one mentoring from a more experienced user. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- And that's fine if you want me to familiarize myself with criteria for speedy deletion, but all I'm asking is to not be judged based on past discussions. - Amaury (talk) 18:00, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- You are missing the point, sir. You have had many previous notices posted here indicating that speedy deletion nominations made by you are faulty, and yet apparently have not learned from these mistakes. I urge you again to familiarize yourself with the criteria for speedy deletion to avoid such errors in the future. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- To one of your other comments: I am getting tired of people judging me based on old discussion. I take judging like that as an insult, so please do not judge me based on old discussions. Thanks! - Amaury (talk) 17:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- Yes I did [1], that is exactly what I am referring to. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:48, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
The article isn't vandalism. There just aren't any sources listed as has been tagged for cleanup. ArcAngel (talk) 17:23, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- Looked like it to me, but I'll let you deal with it. Good luck, and thanks for the message! - Amaury (talk) 17:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- A helpful tip is to use Google to do searches on articles. The above brought about some 800,000 hits. ArcAngel (talk) 20:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Review of your contributions
Last time you reviewed my contributions was October 21. How have my edits been since October 22? You can reply either here or on my talk page, but if you reply on my talk page please make a new section instead of editing the "About your rollback" section from October, as it's been archived along with the rest of the October 2009 discussions. - Amaury (talk) 00:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- Not very well, considering the number of comments on this page ;) I'm certainly not giving your rollback yet, and could you please stop asking me? I'll look in from time to time. You have been advised to stop new page patrol because you seem to have so much trouble interpreting the speedy deletion criteria. I think I would agree with this. The criteria are very strict and you need to be sure that you understand them before tagging new pages. Perhaps you should try something else, and come back to it in a few months? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- But I've improved, haven't I? - Amaury (talk) 23:54, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- You continue to abuse the Minor edit flag. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- And I feel that you still have trouble determining what is vandalism and what isn't, as evidenced by your response above on Japan Dance Delight. ArcAngel (talk) 16:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- But I've improved, haven't I? - Amaury (talk) 23:54, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for reverting disruption on User talk:Ace of Spades
|
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar | |
| Long story... I saw this edit by that anon guy again, more ranting here and there, you come to take it out, I go to your userpage, and I'm thinking, "Hey, wait a minute, this is Eugene Krabs!" Apparently we're both "formerly-known-as" guys. I remember you, last time I saw you was back when I was G2sai. Your anti-vandal work has increased and improved tenfold. Best of luck and good fortune to you always, ♠The Ace of Spades(talk) 02:27, 7 November 2009 (UTC) |
- Wow, I'm honored. You're very welcome. Currently, I'm trying to get rollback rights back. See the September archive if you would like to know more. - Amaury (talk) 02:29, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Happy birthday from Apparition11
Apparition11 has given you a WikiCake! WikiCakes promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cake, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Bon appetit!
Spread the tastiness of cakes by adding {{subst:GiveCake}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
A cake seemed appropriate. Have a happy birthday! Apparition11 Complaints/Mistakes 08:57, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you. - Amaury (talk) 20:42, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Happy birthday from Vatsan34
|
Hey, Amaury. Just stopping by to wish you a Happy Birthday from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day!-- Vatsan34 (talk) 11:01, 8 November 2009 (UTC) |
|
- Thank you. - Amaury (talk) 20:42, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
If you read the intro of this article, it would be clear why your redirect was in error: The holiday is commonly printed as Veteran's Day or Veterans' Day in calendars and advertisements. While these spellings are grammatically acceptable, the United States government has declared that the attributive (no apostrophe) rather than the possessive case is the official spelling. Please don't go moving pages on a hunch without actually verifying it first. --ShadowRangerRIT (talk) 02:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- You're wrong. Then I guess you're saying it should be Your friends cars instead of Your friends' cars. End of discussion. - Amaury (talk) 02:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- As explanation, consider the distinction to be a question of emphasis. Using the possessive, it is a day that *belongs* to veterans. Without it, it is a day *for* veterans (in this case, honoring them). Much like you would call it "Earth Day" instead of "Earth's Day". --ShadowRangerRIT (talk) 02:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- The nature of your reply illustrates the problem. You assume it is intended to be a possessive when it is not. --ShadowRangerRIT (talk) 02:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- You're not making any sense at all. If you're honoring veterans, then yes, it should be Veterans' day. You agree that Your friends' cars is correct over Your friends cars, yes? - Amaury (talk) 02:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- Did you read my analogy to Earth Day? I agree 100% with your example on the use of the possessive, but only when the possessive is appropriate. Again, try thinking about it like Earth Day. Earth Day, despite "honoring" the Earth, doesn't have a possessive because it doesn't belong to the Earth, it's to celebrate the Earth. Rewritten in a more verbose form, "Earth Day" would be rendered as "Day to Honor/Celebrate the Earth". Similarly, Veterans Day doesn't belong to veterans, it honors them. The long form would be "Day to Honor/Celebrate the Veterans". In the long form (which has identical meaning), it's clear that you don't need an apostrophe, correct? Although less obvious, the same rule is being applied in the short form. It's a very fine distinction in this case, and it's easy to see how you would be confused. I'm not blaming you for misunderstanding, please don't take this as a personal attack. --ShadowRangerRIT (talk) 02:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- I guess I get it somewhat. So I guess the reason Your friends' cars, The boys' locker room, The girls' locker room, etc are correct is because it belongs to them? - Amaury (talk) 02:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- Exactly. Those are all cases where you are indicating ownership. In the case of the holiday, it's not "owned", so it shouldn't have an apostrophe. Of course, this is all a moot point since the holiday's name was assigned by the U.S. government, but at least I can explain why they weren't being complete morons when they gave it that name. --ShadowRangerRIT (talk) 02:39, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- Kind of strange considering it's Valentine's Day instead of Valentines Day. - Amaury (talk) 02:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- A different rule, and a different mindset, is being applied there. The Roman Catholic church "gives" days to each saint, so from the church's perspective, the day belongs to Saint Valentine. And in practice, most people celebrating the day aren't honoring Saint Valentine, they are trying to gain the blessing of his day (I know, really subtle distinction there). That said, there are a number of other idiosyncrasies that you'll see in other holidays. "Administrative Professionals' Day" is referred to with or without the apostrophe, depending on where you read it (on Wikipedia, it currently has an apostrophe, but most of the other top hits on Google don't have it). Yet its original name "Secretary's Day" is almost always rendered with an apostrophe, and more confusingly, it usually doesn't use the plural "Secretaries' Day". Unlike Veterans Day, which is a U.S. Government federal holiday enacted by law, "Secretary's Day" is an unofficial holiday, so there is no one authoritative source that can say what the correct spelling should be. The English language was constructed from several other languages that have inconsistent approaches to word order, and holiday names suffer from it. --ShadowRangerRIT (talk) 03:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- Looks like Valentine's Day and St. Patrick's Day are the same in that context, then. - Amaury (talk) 03:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- Yup. Valentine's Day is shorthand for St. Valentine's Day. Everything clear now, or at least only mildly murky? :-) --ShadowRangerRIT (talk) 03:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- I guess. :) I have a question, though. Why is one Valentine's Day and one St. Patrick's Day instead of St. Valentine's Day and St. Patrick's Day or Valentine's Day and Patrick's Day? - Amaury (talk) 03:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- I believe from the Catholic church's perspective, they should both have "St." at the beginning. But Valentine's Day was co-opted by Hallmark, and at this point is known more for the way Hallmark treats it than for the religious association. While I can't be sure, I have two, equally valid theories for why the "St." is dropped:
- Hallmark (or other companies marketing the holiday) ditched it because they wanted to shed the religious association
- Valentine is a *really* uncommon name. When you say Valentine's Day, there's no chance of being misconstrued. On the other hand Patrick is an incredibly common name, particularly in Ireland where the holiday's celebration started. Saying Patrick's Day might mean Patrick the fireman, or Patrick the bartender, or Patrick the basketball player, and you might be abbreviating something like "It's Patrick's (birth)day". So they say Saint to make it clear.
- Again, the above is speculation. I haven't bothered to actually read the article. :-) --ShadowRangerRIT (talk) 03:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- I believe from the Catholic church's perspective, they should both have "St." at the beginning. But Valentine's Day was co-opted by Hallmark, and at this point is known more for the way Hallmark treats it than for the religious association. While I can't be sure, I have two, equally valid theories for why the "St." is dropped:
- I guess. :) I have a question, though. Why is one Valentine's Day and one St. Patrick's Day instead of St. Valentine's Day and St. Patrick's Day or Valentine's Day and Patrick's Day? - Amaury (talk) 03:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- Yup. Valentine's Day is shorthand for St. Valentine's Day. Everything clear now, or at least only mildly murky? :-) --ShadowRangerRIT (talk) 03:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- Looks like Valentine's Day and St. Patrick's Day are the same in that context, then. - Amaury (talk) 03:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- A different rule, and a different mindset, is being applied there. The Roman Catholic church "gives" days to each saint, so from the church's perspective, the day belongs to Saint Valentine. And in practice, most people celebrating the day aren't honoring Saint Valentine, they are trying to gain the blessing of his day (I know, really subtle distinction there). That said, there are a number of other idiosyncrasies that you'll see in other holidays. "Administrative Professionals' Day" is referred to with or without the apostrophe, depending on where you read it (on Wikipedia, it currently has an apostrophe, but most of the other top hits on Google don't have it). Yet its original name "Secretary's Day" is almost always rendered with an apostrophe, and more confusingly, it usually doesn't use the plural "Secretaries' Day". Unlike Veterans Day, which is a U.S. Government federal holiday enacted by law, "Secretary's Day" is an unofficial holiday, so there is no one authoritative source that can say what the correct spelling should be. The English language was constructed from several other languages that have inconsistent approaches to word order, and holiday names suffer from it. --ShadowRangerRIT (talk) 03:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- Kind of strange considering it's Valentine's Day instead of Valentines Day. - Amaury (talk) 02:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- Exactly. Those are all cases where you are indicating ownership. In the case of the holiday, it's not "owned", so it shouldn't have an apostrophe. Of course, this is all a moot point since the holiday's name was assigned by the U.S. government, but at least I can explain why they weren't being complete morons when they gave it that name. --ShadowRangerRIT (talk) 02:39, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- I guess I get it somewhat. So I guess the reason Your friends' cars, The boys' locker room, The girls' locker room, etc are correct is because it belongs to them? - Amaury (talk) 02:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- Did you read my analogy to Earth Day? I agree 100% with your example on the use of the possessive, but only when the possessive is appropriate. Again, try thinking about it like Earth Day. Earth Day, despite "honoring" the Earth, doesn't have a possessive because it doesn't belong to the Earth, it's to celebrate the Earth. Rewritten in a more verbose form, "Earth Day" would be rendered as "Day to Honor/Celebrate the Earth". Similarly, Veterans Day doesn't belong to veterans, it honors them. The long form would be "Day to Honor/Celebrate the Veterans". In the long form (which has identical meaning), it's clear that you don't need an apostrophe, correct? Although less obvious, the same rule is being applied in the short form. It's a very fine distinction in this case, and it's easy to see how you would be confused. I'm not blaming you for misunderstanding, please don't take this as a personal attack. --ShadowRangerRIT (talk) 02:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- You're not making any sense at all. If you're honoring veterans, then yes, it should be Veterans' day. You agree that Your friends' cars is correct over Your friends cars, yes? - Amaury (talk) 02:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi Zhang He. I declinded your tagging of Grady (band) with A2, as it only applies to articles that are copied from a foreign-language Wikipedia. In this case, there was no article on the Spanish Wikipedia for this subject. I've noticed from some of your other messages that you might be over-tagging with speedy deletion. Please remember they have a very narrow scope, and PROD or AfD should be used for articles outside of their scope. Singularity42 (talk) 05:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- By the way, here is the diff with your tag: [2]. The mistake I made above was it should have been Glay (banda), not Grady (band) - my bad! Singularity42 (talk) 05:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- All right. Thank you for informing me. Also, no problem. We all make mistakes. It wouldn't be human if no mistakes were ever made. :) - Amaury (talk) 05:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- Very true! Singularity42 (talk) 05:19, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- All right. Thank you for informing me. Also, no problem. We all make mistakes. It wouldn't be human if no mistakes were ever made. :) - Amaury (talk) 05:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Rollback privileges reapplied
Zhang He, I've applied rollback to your account as you requested. I was glad to find no inappropriate reversions recently, and I also note that you are responding to queries on your talk page in a positive manner. I shall continue to monitor your contributions and will reassess this if necessary. But keep up the good work, — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you very much, Martin. I will do my best to not make you regret this! - Amaury (talk) 18:45, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- Congrats! Have fun Huggling, just use it responsibly :) Apparition11 Complaints/Mistakes 18:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- To tell you the truth, I don't think that was the main problem. I think it was mostly because of the edit war I got into with it. - Amaury (talk) 18:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- I still think that recent changes and new page patrol might not be your greatest strength to Wikipedia, and I encourage you to continue looking for other areas where your skills might be of benefit. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:38, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- To tell you the truth, I don't think that was the main problem. I think it was mostly because of the edit war I got into with it. - Amaury (talk) 18:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)