User talk:Amaury: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 03:06, 24 April 2009

It is currently 00:09 where I am

January 2009

Discussions archived

An archive of January 2009 discussions can be found here.

February 2009

Discussions archived

An archive of February 2009 discussions can be found here.

March 2009

Discussions archived

An archive of March 2009 discussions can be found here.

April 2009

You've been blocked

Guess what Eugene i just got admin rights and i've decided to ban you.

Not really, Happy April Fool's Day Eugene! The Pink Phink : Text me! 00:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha ha! It's still March 31st, though. 8:25pm, to be exact. Nice joke, though. - Mr. Krabs (talk) 03:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apparition11's comments

This discussion is being continued from this subject.

I went back to February this time because I had already glanced through all of your March edits. This may mean that you've already learned from any mistakes that I point out though. I'll try not to point out too much that I can recall that you've already discussed with someone, but I'm sure that I'll miss a conversation and point some stuff out again anyway. If there are any specific edits you want me to comment on, feel free to post them and I will.

First, it's great how you and The Cool Kat have put the past aside and hold no grudges. That shows maturity on both of your parts.
I saw a lot of good reverts in this month as well. In most of the bad reverts I saw, the other editor left a valid edit summary, so just remember what we discussed about that, and you'll do great.
It looks like you did a nice job of placing stub templates to articles. The templates are usually put at the bottom of the article, which you've probably figured out now anyway, but that's not a big deal at all.
I saw a few times where an editor removed warnings from their talk page, and you reverted them to restore the warnings. Per WP:BLANKING, editors are allowed to remove warnings from their talk page and should not be reverted when they do. Removing the warning is an acknowledgment of having read it.
As I'm sure you learned, when you add main article links to character articles like you did here, there really should be an article there, not just a redirect :)
Nice self-revert here. Linking headings is against the MOS, but you must've caught this yourself as I didn't see a message. Nice job.
There were a couple of civility issues that I saw during the AfD, but that appears to have been stress/bad mood more than anything since it wasn't a problem before and hasn't been since, so no major worries there. Everyone has bad days :)
Small typographical/grammar fixes are often overlooked, but very important nonetheless. I saw you make several of these fixes that were good, especially ones like its/it's. Those often get confused or overlooked, so nice job catching them. Just when doing these, try to be mindful of WP:ENGVAR and make sure that it isn't a spelling difference instead. A lot of the spelling differences deal with -OR (US) and -OUR (UK) and -IZE (US) and -ISE (UK), so if you see these, try to think twice before correcting. I didn't see you do this any more, but I noticed this move request where you had mistaken a spelling difference for a misspelling. Just try to keep this in the back of your mind.
You should also be careful about altering other people's talk page comments, even if it is just to correct spelling or grammar. It doesn't bother me, but it is generally considered bad practice and other people might get upset if you edited their comments.

I think that's all I got. Unfortunately, I can't comment too much on a lot of your edits to Pokemon and related subjects. I'm not much of a fiction editor and don't know anything about that particular subject, but most of those edits look reasonable to me. Hope it helps. Apparition¹¹ ^Complaints/Mistakes 23:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's start a weekly check-up on my edits (good or bad). =D We'll do it every Wednesday, Thursday, or Friday (depends). We'll do it today for this week (Thursday). - Eugene Krabs (talk) 21:25, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to do that. I won't have much time for the rest of this week, but I glanced through your contibs from the last few days and didn't see anything that really concerned me. I did notice that you reverted in the sandbox a couple of times, which I wouldn't really recommend, but if you do revert because they removed the heading, instead of leaving a vandalism template on their talk page, you should leave a {{uw-sandbox}} notice. The only thing that really caught my eye were a couple of speedy deletion requests [1] [2]. One was a song by a notable musician and the other a personality on a notable game show. Claiming to be a part of something notable or being by someone notable is itself a claim to notability. This doesn't necessarily mean that the articles shouldn't be deleted, just not speedy deleted. In situations like those, if you don't feel that the article meets the appropriate notability criteria, you should try WP:PROD or WP:AfD. Apparition¹¹ ^Complaints/Mistakes 21:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Time for this week's review (technically this week. Because we did it Thursday last week (April 9th), the week technically started Friday, but since Monday is the beginning of the week, we'll start doing the reviews on Sundays, which will start this Sunday. I'd still like you to review April 10th - April 16th, though. Start at April 10th, 2009 - 2:59 (14:59) (PDT). - Eugene Krabs (talk) 03:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look when I can, but I'm not sure when I'll have much time. My schedule's pretty hectic lately. Apparition¹¹ ^Complaints/Mistakes 11:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Undent) I'll start by suggesting that you think about opening up a editor review. This would allow you to get feedback from more users than me, which could be beneficial for you because a lot of the time, editors will see things from completely different views. Looking at your recent contribs, most of your reverts looked good, though there were several that that concerned me.

I'm fairly concerned with some of your behavior at Cartoon Network Studios here and here. You told Lamborghini man that he needs to provide sources, but he is removing information. Information needs to be sourced to be included, not removed. The burden of sourcing would be upon you, not him.
- I'm changing this one, as my original glance at it didn't catch exactly what was going on. There really needs to be more discussion from both sides here. Since neither side appears to provide much sourcing, if the content is disputed, then sources needs to be provided by one side. However, this is far from vandalism, so calling it vandalism is not appropriate. This is another edit that you don't agree with, not vandalism.
I fail to see how this edit was a vandalism revert at User talk:Jojhutton. I see that there was a block, unblock, and ANI thread on the issue, so it goes a lot deeper than I've seen, but calling an established editor's edit vandalism goes too far IMHO.
I saw that you reverted a couple of editors who removed warnings from their talk pages here and here. Again, per WP:BLANKING, editors are allowed to remove warnings from their talk pages if they wish and should not be reverted.
Your external link removal here on Residual stress looks to be correct. Per WP:ELNO, links to forums should be avoided. However, he had attempted discussion and had you explained why the link shouldn't be included, then you might have avoided a headache for both of you.
The tags placed here on Ruslan Pukhov were excessive. When placing tags like that, you really should explain why on the talk page. Here, it is unclear why you think it is unclear :) It has several links for a small article, so that doesn't really look to be an issue. It's not obvious why it needs cleanup or an expert to look at it, etc.
One other note that's not an issue, but just FYI, in The Cool Kat's April Fools Joke, you said that it wasn't April Fools Day yet, when in fact it was :) Editors here come from all over the world, so in turn, many different time zones. So for things like that, we usually go by UTC, where it was 00:48, 1 April 2009 at the time of the joke.

So, in short, remember you should not ask for sources when someone is removing unsourced content, the burden is on the person adding it (EDIT:This does not appear to have been the whole issue, unfortunately, that's the problem with taking a couple of minutes to try to evaluate a subject that I'm not very familiar with); and, don't revert people when they remove warnings, they are fully allowed to do so. Apparition¹¹ ^Complaints/Mistakes 22:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want a page in your userspace deleted...

Just add {{db-author}} or {{db-user}} to the page. No need to MFD or whatever. //roux 18:46, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm just testing Twinkle with my sandbox, but it's somehow taking me to other pages. I apologize. - Mr. Krabs (Contributions) (Talk) 18:50, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take the blame on that one. I didn't explain that it would do all of the steps for you if you nominated something for deletion. When you XfD something, it will create the deletion discussion page and transclude it to the appropriate place. If you request protection, it will automatically post it and WP:RFPP, and if you use ARV, it'll automatically place it at WP:AIV. If you click unlink, it'll automatically remove all of the links on other pages to the place where you clicked it. Sorry 'bout that. Apparition¹¹ ^Complaints/Mistakes 18:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apology accepted. =D - Mr. Krabs (Contributions) (Talk) 18:57, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns

Hello again. Sorry to come back with more concerns, but I'm afraid that if you continue making some of the reverts that you have been, you may lose access to Twinkle and also hurt your chances of getting rollback in the near future. I glanced through a few of your reverts over the past couple of days, and I saw a few that concerned me.

This revert to Never Ending Tour certainly didn't look like vandalism to me. In fact, the original edit looks correct. It removed a statement that the Roundhouse issued. This isn't the place for them to be releasing statements, and as such, I went back and removed it.
I am curious as to why you made this revert to DADIU. The original author appeared to be finished editing it for the time being and removed the tag. I don't see why you would reinsert it unless you were planning on editing it, which doesn't appear to be the case.
I saw a few "Reverted good-faith edits by..." without any additional explanation. Just like before, anytime you revert a good faith edit, you should explain why. The default edit summary is not sufficient because it doesn't explain anything.
These two reverts [3] [4] to Gopal Khanna also concern me. The editor appears to be making a good-faith attempt to expand the article. It's fairly obvious that they aren't extremely familiar with how to edit here. They did add a comment that doesn't belong in article space, but the editor probably deserves a nice welcome and help instead of being called a vandal.
I also noticed that you made a few vandalism reverts to the WP:SANDBOX and issued warnings. Since the template we use for warning vandals requests them to use the sandbox, it doesn't really make sense to revert it when they do what we ask. There are some times when it may be appropriate to revert in the sandbox, but usually just extreme cases like when someone starts posting someone's personal information or such.
Not reverts, but I want to remind you something about speedy deletions. Articles do not have to establish notability to survive A7 speedy deletion, it just has to assert it. If the article is about a song made by a big name musician, then that asserts notability. Generally, if the article provides any third party sources, then it is very unlikely to be deleted. Also, unless the page is blatant vandalism, a copyvio, or attack page, you really should give the author some time before requesting speedy deletion. I saw a lot that you tagged within a few minutes of creation. You really should give at least 15 minutes to allow the author a few minutes to work on it. This is a large problem here with a lot of New Page Patrollers (I used to be guilty of it myself).

Patrolling pages from the back of the unpatrolled page list is the best way to avoid this&'mdash;stuff that's 30 days old that hasn't been expanded is fair game. Bongomatic 23:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen a fairly common trend in a lot of your mistakes. A lot of these were previously reverted by someone else. Remember, the other editor who reverted may well have made a mistake. This could also get you involved in edit wars that you probably don't need to get involved in (edit wars are bad, discussion is good). Always evaluate the edit for yourself instead of just trusting the other reverting editor. If you are unable to explain why you reverted, then you probably shouldn't. One of these situations appeared to happen yesterday on Ronnie Mitchell. I don't know if you realized it, but you were one revert away from violating the three revert rule, which could potentially get you blocked. The other editor appears to have been in violation of WP:SYN, but was discussing it on the talk page, while you weren't giving any explanation via edit summary nor talk page.

Please be careful when using Twinkle. It can be taken away if misused, and too much misuse will more than likely kill any chance of your next request for rollback being successful. Mistakes happen to the best of us, none of us are perfect, but I think that this may be a few too many mistakes for this short amount of time. Besides that, calling a new and inexperienced editor a vandal might well drive off a potentially great editor. Remember, just because an edit removes content (like the edits to Never Ending Tour), doesn't mean that it should be reverted. You really should read it to make sure that it's suitable for an encyclopedia. Also, bad edits are not vandalism (like the edits to Gopal Khanna). If they are trying to help, instead of outright reverting, it is often better to fix what they do wrong and explain why. Apparition¹¹ ^Complaints/Mistakes 21:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That better (see contributions), or is there anything else you want me to self-revert? - Eugene Krabs (talk) 23:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, I was mainly stating all of that for future reference. As Kww said at your last request for rollback, it seems that you often have trouble seeing the difference between vandalism and edits that you don't agree with. I really just want to help you see where he is coming from with that. I'm sorry if seems like I'm picking on you. That really isn't my intention; my only intention here is to try to help you as much as I can. I know that mistakes are inevitable. I just figure that it's better to be hearing it from me now instead of possibly an admin later :) I just want to help make sure that you don't go through the same problems that you had at the beginning of your WP career. Apparition¹¹ ^Complaints/Mistakes 00:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, don't worry. You're not picking on me, you're being a good friend. - Eugene Krabs (talk) 00:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

:) Thanks, I really appreciate that. I also don't want to make it sound like I think that you're the only one who makes mistakes. Just a glance at my contribs will quickly show that that isn't true :) Don't go back too early though if you do, I cringe now at seeing some of the things I did when I first started :) Apparition¹¹ ^Complaints/Mistakes 00:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Send me a friend request on MySpace and/or YouTube. See my userpage for links. - Eugene Krabs (talk) 01:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not on Youtube, but I will on Myspace. I don't get on there as often as I used to, though. Apparition¹¹ ^Complaints/Mistakes 01:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Friend request accepted! =) - Eugene Krabs (talk) 01:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Common move

many thanks for common move —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.89.54.73 (talk) 05:07, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome message

Any user with any variant of "Got Hagger" in it is either User:JarlaxleArtemis or someone referring to him, which is trolling in any case. Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 20:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I understand. I also apologize. I didn't know. - Eugene Krabs (talk) 21:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic view of anal sex

Hi there - I noticed you're keeping an eye on the above page too, could you have another look please? There's one ... "editor" who keeps reverting to the pre-cleanup. Thanks Akerbeltz (talk) 11:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruslan Pukhov

I see you slapped multiple tags on Ruslan Pukhov. Could you explain how the article is confusing to you? I don't understand what you mean. Also, why is it in need of expert opinion? What wikilinks do you mean should be added? It already has many. Offliner (talk) 14:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There you go. Click me! - Eugene Krabs (talk) 14:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What I still don't understand: what is there that needs to be wikilinked? How is the article a dead end? Why does it need to be expanded (what important info is missing)? Offliner (talk) 15:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand either. IMHO not one of the four tags he added is justified, so I'm going to remove them. Greg Grahame (talk) 16:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion of edit by a third party that was not vandalism

You reverted the following anonymous edit to 2011 Cricket World Cup as vandalism, but it was not, it was actually a correct edit based on breaking news: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2011_Cricket_World_Cup&diff=284420783&oldid=284399911

If you are using automatic software to do these reverts, it really needs to be reviewed.

Greg Grahame (talk) 16:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for 1 show that should not be there.

The show "Teen Titans" IS NOT a Cartoon Network Studios Original. So its going to be removed from the Cartoon Network Studios Article by ME. The show is Warner Brothers Animation. THE ARTICLE FOR TEEN TITANS IS ON WIKIPEDIA.

Teen Titans Article [5] Warner Brothers Animation Article [6]

Comic Book Resources. [7].Lamborghini man 1:43 April 18, 2009

I owe you an apology

Eugene, I want to apologize for the way I acted yesterday. I should have never did the changes that I did with providing reliable sources. But more importantly, I should have never acted the way I did towards you. I apologize for the way I acted, and I hope all can be forgiven and start off fresh.Lamborghini man 15:19 April 18, 2009

It's okay. No need to beat yourself up. We all make mistakes. - Eugene Krabs (talk) 15:42, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Green Wish Inc

Would you care to explain just what was going through your brain when you tagged a comment on a talk page as being an ATTACK page? Wuhwuzdat (talk) 23:33, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would CSD G1, G2, or G3 be more appropriate? - Eugene Krabs (talk) 23:32, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, not G1, 2, 3, or even G98765432211......the article is tagged for deletion, when the article is deleted, the talk page will be deleted along with it. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 23:36, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, sorry about that. - Eugene Krabs (talk) 23:37, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Stwalkerster

That was my own ip address removing the information. I sent him an email regarding the same content so that my information was not publicly displayed. Can I remove the warning from my ip addresses page? CanadianNine 15:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There you go. - Eugene Krabs (talk) 17:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Formula Libre image

Do you dislike this image? It is included on the page. It shows race vehicles of different types lined up before a race. What were you looking for with the photo request? Royalbroil 16:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not upset, just wondering what you're looking for. Does that image work? It shows cars and trucks from several series. If a better image comes along, then it can be replaced or supplemented. Royalbroil 20:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Sacred Order of Skull and Crescent

There is private information that should have never been listed, such as ebay ID's etc. Wikipedia policy states that any private information about an individual can be removed if unaccurate and pesonal in nature. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.143.239.89 (talk) 01:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Okay. I have reverted my edit. I will also remove the warning from your talk page.~~ - Eugene Krabs (talk) 01:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I would also ask you to remove those listings at the bottom of the page that is saying that real people are hoaxes. That was written by one person's unknowledgable opinion- and is now showing up on goggle searches. Thank you for your concern. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.143.239.89 (talk) 01:48, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

None of the information removed by 4.143.239.89 qualifies for removal under any Wikipedia policy that I can find. I've restored the AFD back to the condition it was when it was closed.—Kww(talk) 01:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not true, any person has a right to remove personal info, adresses, telephone numbers, Id's etc. this talk is spilling over onto google- and many of these editors are very irrespopnsible- especially with calling real people hoaxes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.143.239.89 (talk) 02:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how the vast majority of what 4.143.239.89 removed could be classified as personal information. A few quick things that were removed, though definitely just a small amount of them (just some that were easily copy and pasted):

the 'references' provided here do not add up
And I think it's a hoax too *Delete - fails WP:V, and appears to be a hoax
Delete almost certainly a hoax, but that doesn't matter: even if it's "true" (and let's face it, it ain't), it's unverifiable by encyclopedic standards.

I'll admit, I didn't read the whole thing, but at a quick glance, it looks like an attempt to re-write the discussion covering up any indication that it may have been a hoax. Apparition¹¹ ^Complaints/Mistakes 02:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Little Lyford Pond Lodge

Little Lyford Pond Camps/ and also Little Lyford Pond Lodge has had its named changed to Little Lyford Lodge/Cabins. I tried to make the appropriate redirects, and edit content of existing information from the Little Lyford Pond Camps article, and heavily edited added information from Appalachian Mountain Club. Me- CUVTIXO Total edits: 2,270 Groups: user Image uploads: 3 (3 cur, 0 old) - image gallery Distinct pages edited: 742 Edits/page (avg): 3.06 Edits/day (avg): 1.49 Deleted edits: 53 First edit: Feb 18, 2005 4:36 AM

How can this be interpreted as malicious? Cuvtixo (talk) 03:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You redirected it to a non-existent page. - Eugene Krabs (talk) 03:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please, I can only do so much at a time! My edits were being made as the updated pages were being put into place. Plus, nothing was put on discussion pages before changing. I feel my good faith efforts have been sabotaged. The maliciousness was not on my part. 71.184.105.86 (talk) 03:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 168: / Line 168: @@
 How can this be interpreted as malicious? [[User:Cuvtixo|Cuvtixo]] ([[User talk:Cuvtixo|talk]]) 03:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 :You redirected it to a non-existent page. - [[User:Eugene Krabs|Eugene Krabs]] ([[User talk:Eugene Krabs#top|talk]]) 03:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
+Please, I can only do so much at a time!  My edits were being made as the updated pages were being put into place. Plus, nothing was put on discussion pages before changing.
+I feel my good faith efforts have been sabotaged. The maliciousness was not on my part. [[Special:Contributions/71.184.105.86|71.184.105.86]] ([[User talk:71.184.105.86|talk]]) 03:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)