User talk:Amaury/2010/August
 | 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. |
IP 98.67.170.4
Regarding your AIV report, I don't think these contributions are vandalism. Problematic, perhaps, but not vandalism. Frank | talk 17:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
This was actually an attempt to make things neater; it's much shorter. Frank | talk 17:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, okay. It only shows when one is editing, though, so it makes no difference when viewing the actual talk page. - Amaury (talk) 17:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- Not quite true; check out the difference between this and this. The first (with the little arrow icon) usually indicates either an external site or a diff. Frank | talk 17:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- They're both the same link. - Amaury (talk) 17:58, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- Yes they are, but they look different on-screen. Users expect the first one, with the arrow, to point to a diff or an external site; the second one, with no arrow, is clearly meant to be an intra-wiki link. Again - it's subtle. No big deal. (And personally, I always try to type fewer characters if I can!) Frank | talk 18:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- Well, I've still got no idea what you're referring to, but if you really want to help, be my guest. :)
- Yes they are, but they look different on-screen. Users expect the first one, with the arrow, to point to a diff or an external site; the second one, with no arrow, is clearly meant to be an intra-wiki link. Again - it's subtle. No big deal. (And personally, I always try to type fewer characters if I can!) Frank | talk 18:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- They're both the same link. - Amaury (talk) 17:58, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- Not quite true; check out the difference between this and this. The first (with the little arrow icon) usually indicates either an external site or a diff. Frank | talk 17:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- Here's a clearer example, hopefully:
- If you look on screen at what is printed below "external" and "internal" in the table above, the two pieces of text look different. The first one (external) has an arrow to the right of it, that usually indicates an external link or a diff. The second one is a "regular" link to an internal page on Wikipedia. There's another difference: if you hold your mouse over the two links, they behave differently. For example, the second one pops up a balloon right under the link when you hover over it; the first one doesn't. It is true that both go to exactly the same place, and that if you look in the status bar of your browser, the link will show the exact same for both, but the visual cue to the user is different between the two.
- Does that explain it any better? Frank | talk 18:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, it does. Go ahead and feel free to fix all that up for me. :) - Amaury (talk) 18:57, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- It doesn't necessarily need "fixing" but you now know another way which may be easier. Frank | talk 21:21, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, it does. Go ahead and feel free to fix all that up for me. :) - Amaury (talk) 18:57, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- Does that explain it any better? Frank | talk 18:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Could you please check to see if you meant to purposefully rollback this? NW (Talk) 19:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Hello. As you are undoubtedly aware, Kerela (or Kerala) as a word is foreign to the Latin alphabet, being written in Malayalam script originally. Therefore, the word can be romanised in different ways. The spelling Kerela is used by many people and companies; so it is justified to make this page a disambugation page. (Please see: [5][6][7]; many more examples available..) Infact, the "Kerela" in Mali does not even feature on the first five pages of Google Search! I hope you understand my stance; that it is only right for a disambugation page to be added. Indeed, it doesn't cause any harm at all.. --92.8.198.159 (talk) 20:17, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for watching my talkpage, but this probably isn't necessary, since I think this editor is contributing in good faith. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
- You're welcome. However, that was a slip-up on my part. Sorry about that. - Amaury (talk) 19:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
- No problem, keep up the good work. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:04, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
User Original Red Boyz
How is adding a db-spam tag considered an attack? 69.181.249.92 (talk) 01:33, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
- Still waiting for a response... 69.181.249.92 (talk) 01:32, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- And still waiting... 69.181.249.92 (talk) 19:47, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Minor edits
Hi there. Please remember to mark your edits as "minor" only if they truly are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes, or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Thanks, 117Avenue (talk) 14:48, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Miniature Mentor
Regarding your revert of Miniature Mentor and warning issued to the editor User:Taskmaster101, instead of reverting him for blanking the page, you should re-tag the article as {{db-author}} since he is the only author. Warning him about blanking his own page is also unnecessary. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 20:27, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
A new editor blanking a new article they've created is not a reason to issue a warning. Instead tag it with {{db-author}}. Kindly rescind the warning you left the editor. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 22:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
- I'm beginning to wonder if you ever admit to and/or correct mistakes you've made in warning editors. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 19:47, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
- I've reverted myself. - Amaury (talk) 04:39, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
A 'final warning' for a dispute over content? 90.207.105.117 (talk) 21:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
- I see, perhaps you could explain why other editors removing content to do with this song did not receive 'final warnings' as well? Thanks, 90.207.105.117 (talk) 21:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry to butt in, but I just gave a 3RR warning to the other editor in the edit war (Monkeymanman (talk · contribs)) at The Best (song). —C.Fred (talk) 21:39, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Good evening, I wrote her a replica of the English as I can. So it complies with the rules? Mistery Spectre (talk) 21:51, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
- It's fine. If English isn't your best language to work with, then just do the best that you can. - Amaury (talk) 21:53, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
RJ murray
How did my page attack an entity at all and if so what did it attack.(Mcmaster108 (talk) 03:22, 6 August 2010 (UTC))
those were accidents —Preceding unsigned comment added by MetalShark (talk • contribs) 00:11, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
You said: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3aLow-alcohol_beer?diff=378447582 was vandalising? How is it vandalising? I consider it relevant and would like contributers to explain to me how it isn't. 71.51.50.38 (talk) 23:35, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- Please see WP:PN. - Amaury (talk) 23:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- I didn't post random characters (like asdfghjkl) and I'm pretty sure what I posted was fairly staightforward. But I'm glad (sarcasm) that my contributions have been called Patent Nonsense by another contributer. That didn't answer my question. I seriously want someone to answer why it is that people think religious people can't drink alcohol. It was a question that I had hoped would be answered by a quick link to a section of the article, but I wasn't. My english isn't the best so maybe that's why people think it's nonsense. But I guess I'm not welcome in an english encyclopedia. 71.51.50.38 (talk) 23:46, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi, the MSTA article is one I have on my watchlist, and I noticed your recent reversions of massive inappropriate material by User:Moorishscience7. I totally agree that the info needs to remain out of the article, but I don't think the templated Huggle messages to the user are helping. I can completely understand why a new user would be trying to add this information, because I'm sure that it seems to them to be important information that the world "needs to know." Of course, the problem is that WP isn't the place for soapboxing, or however we want to describe these edits. But I think someone needs to explain this to him/her (in non-templated form). I would be happy to do so myself, but I don't want to go to his page and make it sound like I'm just contradicting you. Do you think you might be willing to make some sort of explanation, or, if you prefer, let me do it? Qwyrxian (talk) 23:43, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- Sure, go for it. - Amaury (talk) 23:45, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Computer 2000
Please feel free to delete this page. I blanked it as my comment was posted there in error. Fiedorczuk (talk) 17:07, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Hey, why did you revert a change I made to the talk page in correspondence to Wikipedia guidelines when requesting to usurp a user? I will add the notification ({subst:usurpation requested}) again otherwise I will not be even considered for the usurpation. --Hellahulla (talk) 13:26, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
The article was renamed without vandalising intends. A proposal to rename it was on the article's discussion page for more than a year. Please revert your reversion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.49.163.21 (talk) 06:35, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
I understand that I have made the mistake of incorporating links that are promotional. When I try to fix it, you say I am vandalizing... What am I doing wrong exactly —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drobbere (talk • contribs) 15:51, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
I had re-instated previous facts removed about John Edwards II. I assumed they were factual and needed to be re-added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.214.85.60 (talk) 20:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Cross Plains Famiglia Gang
Hello! It seems you reverted an edit at WP:AfC using Huggle. First off, Huggle is a very powerful tool, and you should use it carefuly. You reverted this edit as blanking page content with no reason. The original creator of this page, is the person who blanked the content. I have reverted your edit, and marked the page as {{db-blanked}}, showing the author requested deletion by blanking the page. Please don't revert blanks in AfC, as we do blank articles from time to time, and so do the original authors! Thanks! ANowlin talk 05:39, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Please don't treat me like I'm stupid. I've used Huggle for a long time. - Amaury (talk) 05:53, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- And it looks like you've been abusing it. I very strongly suggest you participate at WP:ANI#User:Donald Duck behavior which you were alerted to earlier, you should have a say in your possible future at Wikipedia. -- Atama頭 16:27, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- I have not been abusing it. Everyone, including myself, make mistakes sometimes when using Huggle. Please don't accuse me of such things. - Amaury (talk) 17:02, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- And it looks like you've been abusing it. I very strongly suggest you participate at WP:ANI#User:Donald Duck behavior which you were alerted to earlier, you should have a say in your possible future at Wikipedia. -- Atama頭 16:27, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
I have declined your G7 speedy on this - the user who blanked it was not its creator, or even the creator of the article. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 15:56, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry about that. This doesn't happen all the time, but some people get after me for reverting and giving said person a "huggleblank" warning instead of tagging said page with G7, while others, like you, get after me for tagging it with G7. - Amaury (talk) 16:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not familiar with Huggle, but with a blanked page it really is necessary to look at the history to know what to do. Certainly it goes wrong the other way, too; I had to apologise yesterday to an unfortunate newbie who submitted an un-notable article, saw it tagged A7, blanked it, and then was reverted three times by one bot and two humans, ending up with a #3 warning and threat of block - about as BITEy as one could get. Not surprisingly the newbie has not edited since. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 17:08, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- I usually do that, but I will do it even more in the future. Thanks for the message. - Amaury (talk) 17:10, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not familiar with Huggle, but with a blanked page it really is necessary to look at the history to know what to do. Certainly it goes wrong the other way, too; I had to apologise yesterday to an unfortunate newbie who submitted an un-notable article, saw it tagged A7, blanked it, and then was reverted three times by one bot and two humans, ending up with a #3 warning and threat of block - about as BITEy as one could get. Not surprisingly the newbie has not edited since. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 17:08, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Hello Donald Duck. Please be careful when using Huggle; this edit you recently reverted as vandalism was not vandalism and there was no justification for thinking it was. At worst it was a factual mistake; as it happens it was not a mistake and you reinserted a falsehood - as can be plainly seen from the BBC source provided. Thanks for patrolling recent changes but remember that it is not permitted to use Huggle for this kind of disputed content. CIreland (talk) 16:42, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Hello. You posted that a link I placed on the Sherman Theater page was inappropriate. How so? It was a newspaper article that featured Footloose the Musical at the Theater. I am in no way employed by the newspaper, I was not involved in the musical show as an actor or crewmember, I merely placed the link there to verify that the musical had, in actuality, taken place at the theater. I consider it an extremely valid reference. Please explain why you flagged it. Timandjean (talk) 21:11, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- I've reverted myself. - Amaury (talk) 21:29, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
You should attempt to understand what vandalism is and is not. The edit you reverted was a simple rephrasing.[8] Also your level 3 vandalism warning [9] was incorrect as this was not vandalism. Your response to a question on your talk page was uncivil and uncalled for.[10] Posting a query on an editor's talk page is standard Wikipedia practice. Might I suggest that you read the five pillars and act in a more civil and collaborative way in future. I note that your behaviour is currently being discussed at WP:ANI#User:Donald Duck behavior. I have added further comments about your behaviour there. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:03, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
- Your actions have also been raised at WP:EAR#Threats from Editor. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:26, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
- Might I also suggest that you act in accordance with the civility message at the top of your own talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:30, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
- This happened August 12; there's no reason to bring it up now. - Amaury (talk) 14:31, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
- There is every reason. Your warnings were spurious and should be struck through. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:53, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
- There you go. - Amaury (talk) 14:55, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you, please be careful with future use of Huggle or perhaps try using Twinkle instead. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:45, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
- There you go. - Amaury (talk) 14:55, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
- There is every reason. Your warnings were spurious and should be struck through. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:53, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
- This happened August 12; there's no reason to bring it up now. - Amaury (talk) 14:31, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Liliuokalani's music console was designed around Aloha Oe and displays the earliest known depiciton of the song. The ebay page is for research. It has had a unobatainable purchase price (21mil) and has been up for almost 3 years. It's discovery is rewriting history and I would like to add it to other Wikipedia sites such as Shapland & Petter furniture, The Overthrow, etc. Jfaycook (talk) 01:28, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- E-Bay is an inappropriate website according to WP:EL. - Amaury (talk) 01:36, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- Should I start a wikipedia page titled "Queen Liliuokalani's music console" and just transfer all the stuff from Ebay (execpt a sale price) to wikipedia? Jfaycook (talk) 01:41, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- I suggest reading what WP:EL says. If you still can't figure it out, I suggest that you seek assistance from a more experienced external link editor. - Amaury (talk) 01:46, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- Should I start a wikipedia page titled "Queen Liliuokalani's music console" and just transfer all the stuff from Ebay (execpt a sale price) to wikipedia? Jfaycook (talk) 01:41, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
And how am I posting inappropriate links? Here is what currently exists on the page and see my notes after each:
Business
- Red-Tail Books your local bookstore (ADVERTISING A BOOKSTORE)
- Francisco Grande Hotel & Golf Resort (ADVERTISING A HOTEL)
- Round Trip Bike Shop (ADVERTISING A BIKE SHOP)
- Church of Christ (ADVERTISING RELIGION)
- Grace Church (ADVERTISING RELIGION)
- North Trekell Southern Baptist Church (ADVERTISING RELIGION)
If you don't want businesses under BUSINESS - why does the category exist? You also deleted my post for KCAB-LP under news - yet there is a wikipage for the television station. If the local newspaper (Dispatch) can be linked under News, why can't the television station?
News
- Casa Grande Dispatch- Casa Grande's source for news and advertising since 1913
- CG Times aka Central AZ Times- Casa Grande's Hometown News and Writer's Forum
- Casa Grande is the home of the first Jehovah's Witness Assembly Hall
The deletions of my entries seem to indicate selective following of the rules. Either add the two entries I made or delete all the others for violating the rules I supposedly violated. 65.118.188.113 (talk) 06:13, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- I reverted your edits per WP:EL. - Amaury (talk) 06:39, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Any particular reason to delete my comment here. OK it wasn't substantive and is no great loss, but still ....--Snowded TALK 20:35, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- It was due to a weird edit conflict thing. - Amaury (talk) 21:01, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- Fair enough - just checking it wasn't purposeful! --Snowded TALK 21:05, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Indian Society for Orthomolecular Medicine
Thank you Donald Duck. I am new to wiki - so pardon my errors for they are not intentional. INSOM is about the Organization and Orthomolecular Medical Practices. I will do many edits to comply with all wiki rules. DrJaganVaman (talk) 22:19, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- Hey, no problem. If you want, I can create a sandbox for you so you can do testing. - Amaury (talk) 22:37, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi. You reverted my edit to Dump Truck with the edit summary "Page does not exist." so I thought you should know the fact that a page does not exist is not a good reason to delete links to the page. See Wikipedia:Red link. 68.167.224.215 (talk) 22:20, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
I saw that you created the page, so I have no further objections. Happy editing! - Amaury (talk) 22:23, 22 August 2010 (UTC)- I understand. I apologize for the revert and will be more careful in the future. Happy editing! - Amaury (talk) 03:09, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
I have removed your use of huggle for 6 months, for reasons discussed at the AN/I. If after that you wish to use it, please be very careful, because, if you misuse it again, I shall remove it permanently. DGG ( talk ) 03:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- The issue was resolved. I haven't made any bad reverts / edits today, except for a couple, but I manually reverted those with "undo" instead of using Huggle. I've brought up concerns of your unfair decision here. - Amaury (talk) 03:24, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- I pointed to a downright bad use of Huggle on the 22nd. In your message to Atama you said "Excepts for a couple of mistakes today, which I corrected in a timely manner (not really disruptive), I've improved," In my view, & it seems his, 2 careless mistakes a day is reason to refrain from using automated methods. I consider what I did the minimum appropriate response, in reply to a proposal to block you totally for an indefinite period, which I thought excessive, as did Atama. What you now need to do is to show that you can edit properly manually. Myself, I do almost all my work manually; I did not even consider automation for a year or two after I joined. DGG ( talk ) 16:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- Another administrator suggested that after making good reverts for a month to come back to you and see if you'd be willing to re-enable Huggle, which I plan on doing with Twinkle. I do think, however, that six months is a bit much. This is only the second time Huggle's been removed from me, so I think probably two or three months would have been more fair. I would say 48 hours, but I'm not sure if removing a tool from somebody falls under the same category as blocking IP addresses (Ex: 24 hours, then 48 hours, then 72 hours, etc.) I'm a little upset, though, that in your last reply at AN/I you accused me of misusing Huggle on Frankie Muniz. You must have taken a look at the next edit, because, if you did, you would have seen that I reverted the wrong article, resulting in me reverting my revert. Sure, it was a mistake (it probably wasn't a good time to make mistakes considering the situation), but you accused me of misusing Huggle there. - Amaury (talk) 17:09, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- I pointed to a downright bad use of Huggle on the 22nd. In your message to Atama you said "Excepts for a couple of mistakes today, which I corrected in a timely manner (not really disruptive), I've improved," In my view, & it seems his, 2 careless mistakes a day is reason to refrain from using automated methods. I consider what I did the minimum appropriate response, in reply to a proposal to block you totally for an indefinite period, which I thought excessive, as did Atama. What you now need to do is to show that you can edit properly manually. Myself, I do almost all my work manually; I did not even consider automation for a year or two after I joined. DGG ( talk ) 16:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Something to consider
Hi Donald Duck
I have followed your career on Wikipedia, as well as the latest brouhaha at AN/I. Here are a couple of observations and a piece of unsolicited advice.
- Editors don't have "rights" per se. Editors, rather, have obligations to follow policies and guidelines (including behavioral ones). When editors' conduct is deemed by the community to be more of a net cost than benefit, the community removes various privileges (for various time periods) from those editors. The community (through an administrator) has made a determination in your case in the manner.
- You seem to complain a lot about other editors conduct without considering your own. In particular, you act as though WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND, WP:CIVIL and WP:DICK don't apply to you, while treating anything close to an infraction by another editor towards you as a capital offense.
- You might consider what your objectives are in Wikipedia. People who strive to improve the project do well here. People who want to get recognition, prove a point, exercise their rights, etc. tend to either burn out or be sanctioned by the community.
Regards, Bongomatic 04:48, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the advice. It's greatly appreciated. I was actually worried when I saw the new message tag that this was a block notice. I don't believe I've ever thought Wikipedia's rules didn't apply to me here. I do think that DGG removing my Huggle "obligations" was unfair. Other editors, mostly unregistered, accused me of continuing my disruptive behavior when, in fact, I didn't, and that's why DGG removed my Huggle usage, which doesn't make sense. If you happen to decide to take a look at it, that'd be great, but I don't expect you to. If I can't get them back, six months will be a long and tough time. I have Twinkle, but I have to use Mozilla for that, which I don't really like. I'm more fond of Internet Explorer 8. However, the good side to Twinkle is that one can study edits more closely when thinking of reverting. Anyway, thanks for the message. I actually feel like most of the people from my discussion hate me. Also, sorry if I'm even a burden to you. - Amaury (talk) 04:56, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- Twinkle works great with Google Chrome. I don't imagine editors here hate you. Rather, I think they find it unbelievably frustrating that you have such a warped view of your behavior versus that of other editors, and keep espousing double standards of editor conduct. By acknowledging in a more forthright manner your own mistakes, and not always trying to justify them by reference to other people's behavior--either the substance of their edits or the manner in which they address you--you would probably generate much less ill will. Bongomatic 05:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- I actually tried that, but I couldn't figure out how to get multiple homepage tabs to work -- unless it's like Internet Explorer 6 where only one website could be visited on each separate window. - Amaury (talk) 05:09, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- I intended my restriction to apply to any automated tools, including Twinkle, and I will say so at AN/I. When you do start again, I agree with you it would be much better to use Twinkle than Huggle. It works fine in Safari, which, along with Chrome, are the two fastest browsers for Wikipedia DGG ( talk ) 17:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- Okay, now that really is unfair. I didn't misuse Twinkle. Last time I got Huggle taken away, I was still allowed to use Twinkle so I could improve and the administrator didn't want to take any more priviledges away. - Amaury (talk) 17:13, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- there is nothing that can be done at Wikipedia that requires either, so there is nothing you are being restricted from except working too fast. You will show your improvement by not making errors in manual editing. That a previous restriction did not have any result would seem evidence why a stronger one is needed. If there are people more generally opposed to some of what you are doing here, or your manner in doing it, using any automated method gives them ammunition. It is for your own benefit, as well as the benefit of the encyclopedia , for you to be as careful as possible. DGG ( talk ) 17:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- Okay, now that really is unfair. I didn't misuse Twinkle. Last time I got Huggle taken away, I was still allowed to use Twinkle so I could improve and the administrator didn't want to take any more priviledges away. - Amaury (talk) 17:13, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- I intended my restriction to apply to any automated tools, including Twinkle, and I will say so at AN/I. When you do start again, I agree with you it would be much better to use Twinkle than Huggle. It works fine in Safari, which, along with Chrome, are the two fastest browsers for Wikipedia DGG ( talk ) 17:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- I actually tried that, but I couldn't figure out how to get multiple homepage tabs to work -- unless it's like Internet Explorer 6 where only one website could be visited on each separate window. - Amaury (talk) 05:09, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- Twinkle works great with Google Chrome. I don't imagine editors here hate you. Rather, I think they find it unbelievably frustrating that you have such a warped view of your behavior versus that of other editors, and keep espousing double standards of editor conduct. By acknowledging in a more forthright manner your own mistakes, and not always trying to justify them by reference to other people's behavior--either the substance of their edits or the manner in which they address you--you would probably generate much less ill will. Bongomatic 05:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Maybe it is for good to have automation rights removed, you know. The best thing to do in Wikipedia is apply your own knowledge and add some new content to the articles on your favourite topic. You might even learn something and your respect in the community will eventually top :) Artem Karimov (talk | edits) 21:09, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Suggestions
The first message below from ErrantX is a response to a message I left at User talk:ErrantX: Thanks.
So, you requested some suggestions - based on what I recommended before this may be of use:
- Revise what constitutes vandalism. The guidelines are quite explicit in saying that any attempt to improve the wiki - even if it is detrimental is not vandalism. Clear vandalism is usually pretty obvious, as I am sure you know, but it is always best to err on the side of caution. If it is not obvious vandalism I always assume it is a good faith edit. In such a case there is the undo button which will work well (or I use Twinkle AGF rollback, obviously that is not an option at the moment)
- Huggle has a rollback w/o vandalism feature; I'm not sure if you were aware of that. It is the plain red circle to the right of the blue arrow.
- When an edit is not clear vandalism I always do two things; firstly I make a quick check of the article edit history to get context, then I look at the user's edit history - if there is no evidence of article or user vandalism I'd usually treat it simply as a misguided effort.
- Based on the complaints I saw on AN/I - remember that a blank edit summary is not an automatic indicator of vandalism. Though perhaps it is worth dropping the user/IP a note about using edit summaries if you see them doing it a few times in a row
- Another pointer is to take it slow - especially when you get back on the automated tools.
- I also recommend considering a legitimate alternate account for using the automated tools on (e.g. I use User:Autoerrant for all Huggle and AWB actions). It's not for everyone but it can help to separate your vandal fighting from your main account (I'd recommend waiting till you get the tools back before setting one up).
In terms of general recommendations - I would spend time on new page patrol and really take time to check each rollback. It's tedious - but I suppose DGG's point is to make this a learning exercise. From a personal perspective I recommend trying to go the extra mile to help editors - especially new or IP editors. Reverting borderline additions as vandalism is quicker - but the templates may only alienate a potentially good editor. An undo with a good edit summary explaining why you did it plus a helpful talk page message can help avoid edit disputes and prompt new users to read policy. The short version: assume edits are not vandalism as much as possible, avoid templating everything but clear vandalism, make efforts to talk to new users. Hope that is of use :) --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 22:00, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- Great advice. By the way, could you take a look here? I reverted them once, but I'd rather keep things very short and minimum right now. - Amaury (talk) 22:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- Well; I'd probably have let that edit stand & maybe go in and edit some of the wording. A lot of the cut content is good work - removing weasel wording and not-that-great uncited content. There is some content at the top that has been removed that I would query. What I might have done is dropped a note of their talk page saying a) thanks for the edit, b) do you have access any sources to help the rest of the section? and c) what about those first few lines - why were they removed. --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 22:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what to do here. The comment appears like it's an automated spam message, but I'm not sure. - Amaury (talk) 22:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- A strange one for sure - I checked the users talk page & there is a note about canvassing on there with a mention of an ANI thread in June. Reading it is seems the user got the OK to carry on with this. Taking a look back over their edits they are personalising the messages and taking their time over it - so it seems fine. This one would have made me do a double take :P --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 23:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what to do here. The comment appears like it's an automated spam message, but I'm not sure. - Amaury (talk) 22:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- Well; I'd probably have let that edit stand & maybe go in and edit some of the wording. A lot of the cut content is good work - removing weasel wording and not-that-great uncited content. There is some content at the top that has been removed that I would query. What I might have done is dropped a note of their talk page saying a) thanks for the edit, b) do you have access any sources to help the rest of the section? and c) what about those first few lines - why were they removed. --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 22:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- One word of advice: Better safe than sorry. If you cannot tell if an edit is constructive or not, don't revert it. Assume good faith and continue. By the way, you could try using popups reverting, if that isn't disallowed. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 02:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- DGG deleted my Huggle CSS pages, so that's how he took away my Huggle access. My monobook pages, which control Twinkle, are still there, but I'd rather not use Twinkle if I shouldn't be. Also, what is "pop-ups"? - Amaury (talk) 03:22, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Why not try editing some content for a bit instead, as a break. I did notice a lot of your work here is vandalism reversion. Which rocks - but it might be an idea to take a shot at working on some articles for a while instead and forget anti-vandalism for a while. It's easy to "burn out" sometimes without a change :) Your user page suggests you might be a Phantasy Star fan. That's a C class article that might need some work (sources, copyedit, expand etc.) and your experience could really help. The added bonus is that editing content directly might help you with your vandalism efforts.
As always; if you need a hand with that, give me a shout :) --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 12:42, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- I'd rather not. Every time I try to make improvements there, Bread Ninja gets in my way and reverts me, as seen here. If you'd take a look at that link, you'll see disputes from January 2010 to February 2010, in March 2010, and from April 2010 to May 2010. - Amaury (talk) 15:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- Make some DYKS! They're surprisingly easy (as long as you have a new article to write about!) Tommy! [message] 22:48, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- DYKS? - Amaury (talk) 23:04, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- WP:DYK did you know Tommy! [message] 23:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- DYKS? - Amaury (talk) 23:04, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- Disputes can be solved but you have to be willing to talk it over. and to be clear no i do not have a grudge against you. but really, it is frustrating when we can't talk without any incivility. Bread Ninja (talk) 00:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- That's unfortunate... I won't ask why but I'm hoping we can all move on Tommy! [message] 00:51, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, I don't mind talking about it. Just check out the history of Phantasy Star Universe for the months I listed five comments up. - Amaury (talk) 01:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- We cannot discuss things through are edits of the articles due to it becoming edit wars. we have to do in discussion pages or like i've tried before in one of the one discussing's talk page. Bread Ninja (talk) 01:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- That's unfortunate... I won't ask why but I'm hoping we can all move on Tommy! [message] 00:51, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- Make some DYKS! They're surprisingly easy (as long as you have a new article to write about!) Tommy! [message] 22:48, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi, why did you make this edit ? Are you connected to the accounts in any way? Off2riorob (talk) 21:00, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
- No, just being helpful. - Amaury (talk) 22:05, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
- Ah OK, it's not really correct to correct the spelling mistakes of other users as some don't like it and for other issues. I know how you feel though and did at one point get the permission of one user to spell check his comments as they were so bad as to be almost unreadable, anyways it is better avoided, why I am telling you this when you have been here almost two years is beyond me, is it something you do regularly at multiple pages? Off2riorob (talk) 22:30, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
- I correct errors on articles sometimes, but it's occasional (almost rare) on others' comments. - Amaury (talk) 22:45, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
- Better, my advice would be not to bother, thanks for your comments. Off2riorob (talk) 22:48, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
- I correct errors on articles sometimes, but it's occasional (almost rare) on others' comments. - Amaury (talk) 22:45, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
- Ah OK, it's not really correct to correct the spelling mistakes of other users as some don't like it and for other issues. I know how you feel though and did at one point get the permission of one user to spell check his comments as they were so bad as to be almost unreadable, anyways it is better avoided, why I am telling you this when you have been here almost two years is beyond me, is it something you do regularly at multiple pages? Off2riorob (talk) 22:30, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
since you know a lot about the phantasy star universe, i was wondering if you could make the character section expanded to brief descriptions on the characters. such as notable personality traits along with brief story plot relevance. Also i see there is a long list, maybe splitting it to "protagonist-antagonist-other" style would be easier to read. If you see a character that doesn't have a large role in the series, i suggest we remove them. i allready have an idea on who to remove, but since you know more than i do, i'm sure you can pinpoint the lesser characters better than me. so what do you think? you want to try? Bread Ninja (talk) 20:09, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
- I'll start on it tomorrow. - Amaury (talk) 04:04, 30 August 2010 (UTC)