User talk:Amaury/2017/February

2017 Archive Index: January • February • March • April • May • June • July • August • September • October • November • December

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Explanation for this edit? Kindly note that WP:ROLLBACK is intended for reverting vandalism only. 103.6.159.68 (talk) 15:34, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Reading the edit Amaury reverted, I don't see that as a comment you need to be wasting admin's time with. Is there a point to reporting the CSD category is empty to admins? MPFitz1968 (talk) 15:40, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism

Hi there, just a very quick question - would you have reverted this edit if it was made by a logged in editor with more than, say, 10k edits? 79.75.202.210 (talk) 17:37, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Does it matter? There is no need to mention the administrators as they regularly keep an eye on that and block editors. Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:41, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Ride (TV series)

Your recent editing history at Ride (TV series) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. The edits you are reverting don't fall into any of the exceptions to the three-revert rule; they are largely stylistic. Take the disputes on these and other articles to the respective talk pages. Julietdeltalima (talk) 17:40, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

@Julietdeltalima: See User:Amaury/List of accounts and IPs used by Orchomen and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Orchomen. This is a long-term abuse case, and reverting socks is exempt from WP:3RR. Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:59, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

You need to mention the exemption in the edit summary when you rely on it per WP:3RRNO, last paragraph. #3 is the applicable one. Can't presume other editors will know what is going on. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:39, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

@Geraldo Perez:  Noted Amaury (talk | contribs) 20:52, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

You should also note which socker you're reverting in the edit summary, IMO. Whenever I revert an Orchomen sock, I usually put something like a "reverting sock of blocked User:Orchomen" message in the edit summary. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:50, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Star Wars Rebels

Hey, I don't know if you watch this one, but I've recently read some piece from a website which strongly implied that Star Wars Rebels is done and won't be renewed for a fourth season. I'm letting you know this because you can expect edits moving the show to the "Cancelled" pile at places like Template:Disney XD Original Series any time now, so you'll want to be on the look out for that, as there's been no official announcement yet. FWIW. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:21, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

@IJBall: Engage turbo thrusts! Turbo thrusts on standby and awaiting disruptive edits! Amaury (talk | contribs) 04:30, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

User Orchomen

A bunch of that sock's edits were constructive typo fixes. Please remember, you have to take responsibility when you mass rollback. I just reverted several of your edits, hope you don't mind. Sro23 (talk) 05:59, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

@Sro23: That is totally fine. You've taken responsibility for the edits. One note, though, is that whether or not they are constructive, it's supported by WP:3RRNO to revert obvious sock edits. But if other users want to claim responsibility for edits made by socks, such as what you did here and IJBall has done in the past, by all means. Thanks for the message! It's appreciated. Amaury (talk | contribs) 06:04, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

@Sro23: I'd urge you to look carefully at any Orchomen edits – while some of them are actual improvements (and I have restored a few of those types of edits in the recent past), other edits when you look at them closer really are not improvements (or, are at best a "wash" with the previous version). A number of the "grammar edits" Orchomen makes are in fact not correct (or are debatable). Other times, the edits are riddled with typos, etc. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:08, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I get what you mean, but with edits like this one, there's nothing subjective about it, he was literally just fixing a typo, and reinstating that typo in the name of WP:BANREVERT is more disruptive in my opinion. Sro23 (talk) 06:12, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. And some of Orchomen's edits are like that (and ones like that I do tend to restore). I'm just saying – be careful, because other edits look like improvements at first glance, but really aren't when you look at them more closely... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:17, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If it's a case of them—or any sock, really, not just Orchomen—fixing an obvious typo, and that is their only change, I can maybe see letting it go. Otherwise, whatever their edits are, they definitely get reverted, such as in the cases where they were insistent and wrong on making a singular word plural in a US article. Perhaps in the UK it's different, but the article is for a series in the US. Also, +1 to IJBall. Amaury (talk | contribs) 06:25, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

List of Henry Danger episodes

Still needs a verifiable reference for a future episode. I checked and from the info provided couldn't find support for that info. Commercials are transient but an official snapshot of the ad would be a good reference. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:32, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

@Geraldo Perez: This is the commercial, but it's not from Nickelodeons's official channel, though I can confirm that's what's been airing since "Double Date Danger" ended. I don't know if that still counts, though, and could perhaps be tagged with needing a better citation. I can check Nickelodeon's other outlets like Twitter. It will be the lead-in to Kids' Choice Awards 2017 which Nickelodeon's channel does have a video for here. Amaury (talk | contribs) 15:49, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

@Geraldo Perez: I can't find anything on their official Twitter: [1]. I also can't find anything on the official Twitter for Henry Danger: [2]. @MPFitz1968: Would you like to see if you can find anything? Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:02, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

That site here claims fair-use for their postings of copyrighted promotional material and that claim of fair-use looks valid to me but I am not a lawyer. Probably OK as a reference, still would like to see something better that might not get mired in a debate of whether or not it is prohibited linking to a copyright violation. I might be best to just wait a bit for one of the scheduling guides to list it before adding it to the article. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:11, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

@Geraldo Perez: Entry removed. It didn't seem to be a problem when I did it with K.C. Undercover with its episode for November 6, 2016 (diff)—you even left it when you reverted another user who inserted an unsourced title here—but I guess it's a different case here. LOL! Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:19, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Since I trust your knowledge and competence here on Wiki I don't generally give your edits much more than a casual look as I assume you are doing things correctly. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:58, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

@Geraldo Perez: Well, that's definitely appreciated, my friend. Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:59, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

@Geraldo Perez: Now has a source (diff)! Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:24, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Capitalization of page names

Just an FYI. Just noticed your changing initial caps on template names used. Basically same as a null edit as wikimedia software uppercases page initial letter. See WP:Naming conventions (capitalization) § Software characteristics. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:14, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

@Geraldo Perez: Sorry, just saw this. Thanks for the note. I was just going by their examples, where it was {{Reflist}} (capitalized) and {{main article}} (not capitalized), for example. Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:28, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Blocked users

You don't need to bold the blocked names. Preferences --> Gadgets --> "Strike out usernames that have been blocked" works just as well and automatically. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 08:47, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Access date

While I'm thinking of it, "access-date" is actually what we're supposed to use with {{cite web}}, etc. now – "accessdate" is now just a virtual 'redirect'. So if you see "access-date" being used in a reference, you can just leave it as is. Just so you know! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:39, 27 February 2017 (UTC)