Jump to content

User talk:Amaury/2009/October

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
2009 Archive Index: January • February • March • April • May • June • July • August • September • October • November • December


User talk:Chadbailey

In August you thought I was making unconstructive edits to a page. This was my own former talk page. I had just undergone a name change moving away from my real name and was ensuring that the page was deleted. Thanks for ensuring that future edits are actually unconstructive before marking them as such. Naipicnirp (talk) 15:02, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

There's no need to bring it back up if it was back in August. Forget about the past and move on. - Amaury (talk) 18:15, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
I was not "bringing it back up"- I had just noticed your false accusation and wanted to politely inform you of your error. Perhaps an apology or just viewing it as a reminder would have been more appropriate versus dismissing it as you did. Thanks again for ensuring you are well informed before making edits\accusations. Naipicnirp (talk) 20:25, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

How to get your rollback privileges back

The first and third messages below from MSGJ are responses to messages I left at User talk:MSGJ: Hello. and Ideas.

Hi Zhang He, in response to your comments on my talk page. If you'd like to get rollback back I'd like to see two weeks of work on Recent Changes patrol using the undo button. If this is the work you are most interested in doing, then this shouldn't be too much to ask. It is only one extra step after all, and most reverts will require an informative edit summary anyway. I have been checking your contributions lately, and in the past two weeks you have done very little except making edits to your user space. This doesn't give me much to go on. I'd like to point out that there are dozens of other areas in which you could help Wikipedia, and you may find some of these more rewarding than just reverting vandalism. Let me know if you want any ideas! If you are not happy with my decision regarding the rollback, you are of course free to make a request at WP:RFR. Best wishes, — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I'd like to hear your ideas. - Amaury (talk) 16:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi Zhang, I've been looking at your contributions and I admire your hard work and enthusiasm. That said, there have still been a fair few mistakes and this is reflected in the comments on your talk page. I wouldn't feel comfortable about handing back rollback just yet, but you're free to carry on using twinkle and continuing to improve your experience. Don't worry, no one is perfect and it seems you are ready to learn from your mistakes and take criticism constructively. I do have a few other ideas you might be interested in:
These are just a few suggestions, let me know what you think. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Aw, looks like I need improve even more. Thank you for the ideas. They're highly appreciated. - Amaury (talk) 22:48, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Star Trek: The Original Series: "Spectre of the Gun"

Hi Zhang, I'm following Wikipedia guidelines. Guidelines states that any trivia sections must be removed. Any useful info can be put under a different title. (For example, production). So please don't mark any correct edits as "vandalism" Live long and prosper. Bart-16 (talk) 15:30, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

If you look at the warning I gave you, it's a "Page blanking, removal of content" warning, not a "Vandalism" warning. However, I understand. Thank you for contacting me. - Amaury (talk) 15:55, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage and the family

If you look here, I think you'll find that this paragraph was flagged as needing citation, because otherwise it's just WP:SYNTHESIS. User:Schrandit couldn't find a citation, so he changed the specific reference to WP:WEASEL words. However, it's still WP:SYNTHESIS, as there are no citations for any groups using these arguments. In short, I think you may well have made a mistake in reverting my clean-up, and I urge you to revert yourself. Thank you. 69.121.221.174 (talk) 06:51, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Varun Gandhi

Hi, you reverted my recent edits to the Varun Gandhi page, and marked them as vandalism. I'd like to assure you they're anything but vandalism. I'm new to editing pages, so didn't leave comments. Basically, I had removed some out of date content and some redundant stuff. Moreover, I had also removed content who's sources seemed very weak - youtube, and op-ed columns from newspapers. One real news story that cited unnamed unconfirmed stories (seemed more of a rumor being printed) was also removed, as was the content it was being cited for. All rumors, no substantiation. I'm happy to discuss these in detail, or re-submit changes with comments. What's the best way? Thank you. 122.162.0.161 (talk) 10:04, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

How to edit Wikipedia

hey i need help posting stuff on wikipedia --Famous36 (talk) 18:18, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Just do what the welcome message on your talk page says to do if you need help. - Zhang He (talk) 18:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Ethical aspects of abortion

Its clear that you do not know how to use the tools you have been given I suggest that you review how and when to use them before you again erroneously revert GF edits as vandalism and have those tools removed. 172.162.117.13 (talk) 18:53, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

And you clearly don't check the history of articles to see if it was a mistake. - Amaury (talk) 19:01, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
You corrected your mistake while I was messaging you, I would suggest that you take more time and care in your edits - then you and others would have less opportunity to make mistakes. Take care. 172.162.117.13 (talk) 20:28, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
A mistake quickly corrected is not misuse of tools. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:34, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for stating the obvious. I understand that it was a mistake, corrected after I had already seen the edit and came to this page, its one that could have been avoided with more diligence. Hardyplants (talk) 20:42, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
If you acknowledge it's a mistake, why bother with the "take more time and care with your edits"? That's completely unnecessary. Everyone makes mistakes. This is Wikipedia, not a neurosurgical procedure. OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:29, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
"take more time and care with your edits"? That's completely unnecessary." The point seems clear to me, I apoligize if I am not communication my point well. If he takes more time and pays more attention to what he is reverting and calling vandalism (diligence), he would most likely not make those types of edit mistakes. Also if he had made a simlpe staement like "I messed up and corrected it, sorry" - instead of "you clearly don't check the history of articles to see if it was a mistake" this specific incident would have been resolved. Every one makes mistakes, hopefully we learn from them and make any corrections were we can. Hardyplants (talk) 21:49, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

As the Bell Rings (Australian TV series)

you should update the page as a lot of people are missing from the cast list sorry deleting was a mistake —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.30.17.85 (talk) 05:18, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Laurel academy

I recently removed a speedy delete tag that you had placed on Laurel academy. I do not think that Laurel academy fits any of the speedy deletion criteria because CSD A7 does not apply to schools. I request that you consider not re-tagging Laurel academy for speedy deletion without discussing the matter on the appropriate talk page. You are, of course, free to tag the article with {{prod}} or nominate it at WP:AFD. Favonian (talk) 19:16, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Understood. - Amaury (talk) 19:26, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Mission accomplished then :) You are quite right about this article not deserving to live (witness the fact that I've PRODed it), but like Homer Simpson said about an organization somewhat bigger that Wikipedia: "You guys have more crazy rules than Blockbuster Video." Favonian (talk) 19:32, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Editor review 7

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

I finally finished going through them. I saw a few that I think were questionable, but most of your reverts looked fine to me.

  • This revert to 2009 ATP World Tour Finals wasn't very good. You didn't mark it as vandalism, so no huge deal, but the edit that you reverted fixed duplication of sources and made it more efficient, it didn't remove content.
  • This revert to Random-access memory was a mistake, though an easy one to make. The reason the IP removed the section was because the section was duplicated, which was not possible to see using just the diff.
  • This revert to Same-sex marriage and the family wasn't very good IMHO. Usually when an editor quotes policies, it's a good-faith edit, and at a quick glance, it appears that the reasoning was sound.
  • This revert to America Ferrera actually reintroduced vandalism. The IP didn't get it all, but did try. The edit claimed that America was in a relationship in 1962, when she wasn't born until 1984. Really, if unsourced content is removed from a BLP, there should be a very good reason to reintroduce it without adding a source.

That's all that I saw. Cheers! Apparition11 Complaints/Mistakes 00:25, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Flyoffacliff

I have reverted this edit; the tag is wrong for a user page, and blanking ones own talk page (without losing the history) is allowable and common practice. I42 (talk) 22:17, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I understand. - Amaury (talk) 22:19, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Sir Thomas Picton School-Year 10 Portal

Hello, I recently had an article deleted, and I don't think it was fair to delete it, as it met all of the terms and conditions. The article was Sir Thomas Picton School-Year 10 Portal. I was told to contact you if it was deleted. Thanks. TGLewis (talk) 19:09, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, it must not have. An administrator would have declined the speedy deletion if it were notable, but the administrator that deleted it obviously didn't think it was notable, so it was deleted. - Amaury (talk) 19:35, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Languages of the United States

I was intending to move that text but saw the organization of the article did not allow me to do so. Afterward, I moved it back to where it was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Working for Him (talk • contribs) 00:08, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

All right, no harm done. That's what "level 1 warnings" are for. :) They're not really warnings, actually, they're more of a "just letting you know" thing. :) - Amaury (talk) 00:14, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Eric Ervin

thanks for the info was the page i was creating really deleated that fast, i wasn't even finished creating it? --Oldramon1 (talk) 00:16, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. - Amaury (talk) 15:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Low pressure receptors

thanks for the info --Tahmmo (talk) 00:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. - Amaury (talk) 00:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Santarém Airport

Hi Zhang He. The nominated article was a clumsy redirect created by a new user. In my opinion, the article Maestro Wilson Fonseca Airport should be renamed to Santarém Airport, however, it is valid and meets our notability criteria. The {{db-company}} tag was incorrect. Have a nice day. --Vejvančický (talk) 07:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, actually, it was a {{db-corp}} tag, but whatever. I'll let it go. :) - Amaury (talk) 07:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Wale mark

I'm going to ignore your recent spate of idiocy directed at me and give you some sage advice:

  1. Articles made by administrators are rarely vandalism. Do not tag them. The edit I made to Wale mark is a common gastroenterologic aphorism that I was using in order to guide making an article.
  2. Rolling back edits made by administrators to your talk page as vandalism [1] is decidedly poor judgment.
  3. Do not tag articles for speedy deletion within 5 seconds of creation when you do not understand the content, particularly when the page you tagged was made by the person who deleted the previous three CSD's!
  4. Templating administrators with automated vandalism warnings is a bad idea, particularly since the person you are templating can easily remove your TWINKLE access.
  5. And please use care when using TWINKLE.

Thanks -- Samir 07:14, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

And how was I supposed to know you were an administrator (if you really are one)? There was no indication that you were one. Real administrators never have red names and don't create articles with gibberish. - Amaury (talk) 07:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AListUsers&username=Samir&group=sysop&limit=50 . Also, popups. –Katerenka ☆ 07:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Come on now. Don't just tag articles seconds after they are made and look at the contribution history of the users who made articles before you tag the article. Don't rollback messages to your talk page and accuse the person who wrote it of vandalism. If you template the regulars, they get upset. It's pretty simple. -- Samir 08:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
A few observations from an impartial editor:
  • Zhang He's tagging was too quick, but your first version of this article did meet speedy deletion criteria. (Although perhaps {{db-nocontext}} would have been preferable to {{db-vandalism}}.)
  • I think it is unreasonable to expect new page patrollers to examine the contributions history of the authors of articles they review. As a long-time editor, you should know better than to create articles such as this. A new editor who created this article would receive the same treatment. Why should the rules be different for yourself?
  • Regardless of whether the tagging was appropriate or not, you should not have removed the tag from your own article. This is written in stone and you especially should know this. Therefore I find that the warning for this was appropriate.
  • I am disappointed that you have tried to use your administator status to pull rank on this editor. In this situation, you are both editors and your status gives you no additional authority. Please try to avoid this in future.
  • Yes, it was unwise to remove talk page comments as "vandalism" (but I see that Samir has also reverted the warnings from Zhang He without response as well).
Overall, I think that although Zhang He is inexperienced and still learning, this episode reflects worse on Samir who, as an experienced editor, should have handled it better and could also assumed a little more good faith towards this editor. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
New page patrollers should not be putting incorrect tags ones on articles, especially on articles that are made within seconds (note that this was incorrectly tagged as G3). The article was made and seconds later, a CSD tag comes up when I'm trying to edit. Then I'm hit with a test template. Then I come to this talk page to talk about it, and my edits are inappropriately reverted as vandalism (see the edit summaries -- note there is a difference between TWINKLE reverting an edit as vandalism, and removing read notes). The behaviour was ridiculous to anyone, be they IP, registered editor, administrator, whatever, and you can understand why I'm angry about it. This needs to be addressed (take a look at the slough of warnings of inappropriate taggings on this page from this month alone)
It is absolutely expected that new page patrollers should review both the content, and the contributor of articles that are tagged -- period. This behaviour of strolling by and tagging articles in a second without appropriate review is practiced willy-nilly across the wiki, and good faith contributors without the familiarity to know how to deal with it go by the wayside because of these supposedly well-meaning new page patrollers. Even if the article looks junky, let it go for a little bit in any circumstance to see if further edits are being made (I was edit conflicted and was adding more to the article). And anyone can remove CSD tags from any article with justification; that is certainly not set in stone as you claim. -- Samir 12:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Wrong, wrong, wrong! This assertion about removing CSD tags is alarming coming from an admin! Look at WP:SPEEDY: the text "The creator of a page may not remove a Speedy Delete tag from it" is even emphasised in bold. I42 (talk) 12:29, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for welcoming me

hi thanks for the greeting i am new at this and i am trying to create this page i have it started but it looks nothing like a regular wikipedia page please help — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ldogfire (talk • contribs) 15:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

oops sorry i forgot to sign that last one but um how do i make the little side bar thing with the picture and quick information — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ldogfire (talk • contribs) 15:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

sorry i dd not do it the first time — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ldogfire (talk • contribs) 15:29, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

No harm done. To answer your question, do you mean something like this? Also, if you want to get help from someone else besides me to get other points of view, simply follow what your welcome message says to do if you need help, which is to place a {{helpme}} template on your talk page. - Amaury (talk) 15:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
um i have sent u a couple messages i dont kow if ur busy but i was hoping for a response — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ldogfire (talk • contribs) 15:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
If SineBot is still signing for you, you're not doing it properly. Also, I did respond. See the previous message on here. - Amaury (talk) 15:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Vattapalli Matom

Hello Zhang He, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I have changed a page you tagged (Vattapalli Matom) from being tagged for speedy deletion to being tagged for proposed deletion. The speedy deletion criteria are very narrow to protect the encyclopedia, and do not fit the page in question. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. Thanks again! NW (Talk) 04:50, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. - Amaury (talk) 04:51, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Talk:2009 swine flu pandemic by country

Dear Zhang He. Your words 'Unsourced' and 'adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to Talk:2009 flu pandemic by country' - are mistake. There was citing and citing of reliable source (Russian Information Agency). You deleted info. Then I wrote at yours page and you deleted my question. I think it is not constructive. Wikipedia administrators helped me to inform article writers and information about swine flu in Russia was added to article with the same link. Please be calm and polite by your own principles next time. And do really 'If you post here, I'll reply here and leave you a message informing you of my reply'. And please give some time to edit before deleting. Thanks for understanding. Good luck! Andrey from RuWiki. --213.79.89.74 (talk) 12:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, what was the rationale behind this edit? The word "unsourced" hardly seems justified. Gabbe (talk) 12:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

By, the way, 213.79.89.74 has taken this to WP:ANI#Small incident about swine flu information. Gabbe (talk) 12:46, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
I am also concerned about the way you reverted a message to your talk page without bothering to reply to it and with a bizarre edit summary. You must take responsibility for your actions and that includes answering queries about your edits. With the number of comments building up here, I suggest that it might be time to give vandalism patrol and twinkle a rest for the moment and try something else. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Time in Argentina

You reverted an edit and dismissed as vandalism where I corrected the Time in Argentina article. Prior to quickly dismissing edits as vandalism, in the future, I suggest you show good faith and contact the editor should you have any doubts. In any case, I have corrected your revert to reflect that Argentina no longer observes DST. The paragraph that states which provinces observe DST has been removed since it is no longer relevant (as all provinces no longer observe DST). 68.199.153.220 (talk) 13:19, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

In response to a comment you left on my talk page, correcting something that is false (which I did) is NOT vandalism. However, placing false information (like you did) IS vandalism. A simple Google search would have shown that my edit was correct. Look at the comments on your page. Think carefully before you revert and make edits, and before threatening editors with blocks (for making accurate corrections, no less), reflect on your own actions. You may be the one that may be facing a block shortly. 68.199.153.220 (talk) 14:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, link to that reliable Google source in the article, then. As I previously stated, my edits are not vandalism, and, actually, neither are yours. Look at the warning I gave you October 17th. Does it say anything about vandalism? No, it doesn't. That's because it's a Page blanking, removal of content warning, not a Vandalism warning. Anyway, like I was saying, neither of us are vandals. We're both of editing that article out of good faith, so please think before accusing someone of vandalism. Have I accused you? No. So don't accuse me. - Amaury (talk) 16:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
I think the best step here would be for everyone to just calm down and have some WP:TEA. It seems that vandalism was accused from both sides, seen here and here, but that's really not important. We're all here to improve WP, so let's do so. Instead of arguing, let's find a solution. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. That means that we report what reliable sources say, not necessarily what is true, which at times may sound stupid, but really is an important aspect to Wikipedia. So, we need a reliable source to confirm this, so here one is. Hopefully, this will solve the problem. As far for advice for the future:
  • I would encourage Zhang He to do a quick Google search in cases like this to see if it's true, or, instead of using a template, politely ask if they can provide a source. Multi-level templates generally do at least insinuate vandalism, even if they do not come out and say it.
  • To 68.199.153.220, I know it's it frustrating when you know what you put is true but you get reverted, but please try to remain calm. When someone replaces sourced information with unsourced that contradicts the original, it can look suspicious. This would be true for anyone doing it, be it you, me, or User:Example. So, when replacing sourced content, you really should offer a new source to replace the outdated source.
Anyway, I hope I helped the situation a bit and some good can come from all of this. Let's get back to building an encyclopedia! Cheers! Apparition11 Complaints/Mistakes 21:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
First of all, thank you to Apparition. If you noticed, I had already sourced the article prior to these comments. In any case, the issue here is that there is a pervasive problem on Wikipedia, which I am set to point out, that a hostile environment has been created for anonymous editors. Many editors simply revert edits from anonymous users without actually looking at the content, a basic violation of the good faith principle on which Wikipedia is built. In Zhang He's case, looking at his comment page, it seems that Zhang He is having issues with both anonymous and registered editors, and I encourage him to reflect on his own actions. I also agree with one of the comments above that Zhang He maybe should consider giving Twinkle and revert editing a break. With regards to your comment about Googling and posting notes on the users talk page, that is exactly the suggestion I have to all revert editors.
Regarding your comment about Verifiability (and I admit that Zhang He's talk page is not necessarily the best place to discuss this), it is correct up to a point. I can find sources that say that the Earth is flat, the Sun rises in the South, and 1 + 1 = 3. Wikipedia already recognizes that sources that reflect fringe theories and/or opinions do not hold up to the Verifiability standard, in part because they are not generally held beliefs but most importantly, in the examples I showed, because they are so blatantly false. The purpose of the Verifiability standard and where it works best is when an absolute truth does not exist or is unknown and in cases where legitimate debate exists. In cases where a truth standard would be too rigid and would therefore prohibit inclusion of important but not necessarily proven details (such as an article about a historical event where not all the facts are necessarily known but legitimate beliefs exist), the Verifiability standard is correct. However, when an issue is virtually uncontroversial and rises to a level of true/false, I believe the Verifiability standard begins to fall apart. The Earth is a sphere, the Sun rises in the East, 1 + 1 = 2, and Argentina does not observe DST, no matter what other sources someone may find to the contrary. 68.199.153.220 (talk) 13:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
I do agree that many recent change patrollers do not do enough due diligence when reverting. As far as I'm concerned, calling someone a vandal is the worst thing anyone can call a good-faith editor. I try to always do a quick search for anything that I'm not 100% sure is false before reverting (unless it's to a BLP), but I'm sure that in my time, I have probably made mistakes like this too. I disagree wholeheartedly with many editors' method of "see a change that s/he is not sure of, revert, and warn" instead of my preferred "see a change that s/he is not sure of, research it, then if not confirmed a) leave a personal message via talk page or at least edit summary or b) revert, and warn if necessary". With that being said, without our recent change patrollers, Wikipedia would be in a world of hurt without them as they all do a vital service. So, educating them in better methods is what we really need to do. Im my experience, if I yell at someone and chastise them, then they usually just get defensive and angry and, no matter how good of points I made, they don't listen or retain any of it. That's why I think that you'd be a lot more successful if you left calmer and more polite messages. I think it'd be easier to stop the hostility with kindness that it would be with hostility in return :)
I didn't notice that you had added a source, I apologize about that. I gotta say, I would be interested in seeing reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that claim that the Earth is flat, the Sun rises in the South, and 1 + 1 = 3 :) Despite that, the WP:REDFLAG and WP:FRINGE should easily dismiss them. If something is absolutely true, then finding sources to back it up should not be a problem. It would not take long at all to find overwhelming sources that state the Earth is a sphere, the Sun rises in the East, 1 + 1 = 2, just as it took me about 30 seconds to find a source for this instance. I agree that things that are fact or are widely accepted as fact and are uncontroversial do not often need a source. However, here, despite it being true, the material apparently was somewhat controversial since a couple of people challenged it. Per WP:BURDEN, any material challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. WP:V is a policy and not a guideline, so unless there is a very good reason to ignore it, we really should stand by it. It is derived from the first part of our 5 pillars, so it is just as important to follow as any rule we have. Cheers! Apparition11 Complaints/Mistakes 21:40, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Wizards of Waverly Place

Hi, you have reverted two edits in Wizards of Waverly Place: (Reverted 2 edits by 77.58.193.10 identified as vandalism to last revision by CNGLITCHINFO. (TW)). May I ask you why? User 77.58.193.10 has actually corrected the "release table" correctly. FFall1986 (talk) 20:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Happy Halloween

The message below from Apparition11 is a response to a message I left at User talk:Apparition11: HAPPY HALLOWEEN!

lol Thank you! And a happy Halloween to you, too! Apparition11 Complaints/Mistakes 17:50, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

User talk:75.189.248.126

Not sure why you reverted my November edit at User talk:75.189.248.126. Maybe you're in a different time zone, but I'd imagine the revision history of Richard Feynman is the same the world over. Either way, it was pretty unnecessary and everyone's time could be better spent reverting vandal edits and/or constructive editing. --Technopat (talk) 02:56, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, you really shouldn't be changing other people's headings like that. Some could get upset over it, especially since it actually is November by UTC, which is what we use (look at date in the signatures). If you get confused with the time zone differences (like I do sometimes), if you go to "my preferences", then to "Gadgets", under "User interface gadgets", the 2nd option is to put a small clock in the top right-hand corner that shows what the UTC time currently is. I have this turned on (I have my time zone set to Central), so I know when the new Wikipedia day/month begins :) Cheers! Apparition11 Complaints/Mistakes 03:56, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Amaury/2009/October&oldid=1145979786"