User talk:Amorymeltzer: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
started new string on talk page of Amorymeltzer
Line 157: Line 157:
== Related to User Rights ==
== Related to User Rights ==
Hi {{reply to|Amorymeltzer}}, about a month ago, you provided me temporary permission as a '''Rollbacker''' [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=881414806#User:Souravdas1998 here]. I acted according to the policies of Wikipedia and used Rollback only in clear-cut vandalism cases, and I assure you that I will do the same in future. I expect that you have now enough trust on me to grant me the Rollback permission. [[User:Souravdas1998|<b style="font-family:Lucida;color:red">SouravDas''1998''</b>]]<sup>[[User talk:Souravdas1998|<span style="font-family:arial;color:green"><i>''t@lk'' to me?</i></span>]]</sup> 12:16, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi {{reply to|Amorymeltzer}}, about a month ago, you provided me temporary permission as a '''Rollbacker''' [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=881414806#User:Souravdas1998 here]. I acted according to the policies of Wikipedia and used Rollback only in clear-cut vandalism cases, and I assure you that I will do the same in future. I expect that you have now enough trust on me to grant me the Rollback permission. [[User:Souravdas1998|<b style="font-family:Lucida;color:red">SouravDas''1998''</b>]]<sup>[[User talk:Souravdas1998|<span style="font-family:arial;color:green"><i>''t@lk'' to me?</i></span>]]</sup> 12:16, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

== Deletion review for itel Mobile ==

Hi Amory, please help to review proposed new content for the page itel Mobile (now in my sandbox: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pumkin_Ding/sandbox here]) which you have protected. And I also invite you to participant in the deletion review of this article. I think it could be published, thank you so much.
[[User:Pumkin Ding|Pumkin Ding]] ([[User talk:Pumkin Ding|talk]]) 13:29, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Revision as of 13:29, 3 March 2019

I use the Modern skin — if anything doesn't look right to you, upgrade!
Amory prefers to receive notifications. Please use {{ping}} or {{reply to}} when you reply to this user on other pages. No talkback messages are needed.

23:13, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Rollback request

Amorymeltzer: I will follow your advice ¿When can i re-request? Seby1541 (talk) 04:09, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's no time limit, but you need to prove you have the judgment. As I suggested to you, I think the best thing for you to do is to slow down and carefully take your time to only revert clear-cut cases of blatant vandalism. Do that without error for a month and then we can talk. ~ Amory (utc) 11:43, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks Have a good day

) Seby1541 (talk) 18:35, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Talk to us about talking

Trizek (WMF) 15:08, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Heart pain

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Heart pain. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Hildeoc (talk) 20:08, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hildeoc: I'll reply there if you like, but I would urge you to reconsider this nomination and read WP:DRVPURPOSE. DRV is not meant to be a continuation of the discussion, it is a place to review whether closes were made appropriately. You may not like how the RfD closed, but you've offered only the same argument you made in your nomination at RfD so it looks like the DRV discussion runs afoul of WP:DRVPURPOSE. If you think you can point to one or more of the five reasons to use DRV listed at WP:DRVPURPOSE then please continue, but otherwise I think this won't be productive. ~ Amory (utc) 20:14, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi and thanks for commenting. In fact, I do see your point. What else can I do in order to bring this issue up to further discussion?--Hildeoc (talk) 20:18, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I think that was a good idea, as noted by the other user's comment. The short answer is not much: the discussion was had and closed, so the status quo stands, and it's usually not a good idea to renominate something soon after. The longer answer is that, well, no consensus means there was no decision made. As I alluded to in my closing statement, yours was the only !vote for deletion, so that certainly won't be happening, but you could consider drafting a disambiguation page such as Thryduulf suggested, or look to find another target that might be better. It's probably best to just let it be for a bit, and maybe revisit it in the future. Just my $0.02. ~ Amory (utc) 20:32, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I looked at closing it, didn't think there was enough consensus either way, and decided to stick my opinion into the debate instead. I'm pretty sure Ad Orientem did the same. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:09, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:21, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Thanks for the note, both of you. Am I right in reading this as in response to my "Editor's note" and not as disagreeing with my close? I thought it'd be too self-serving to go into detail on my timeline there, but to clarify a bit, upon review this morning (before your comment, Ritchie) I was pretty sure I saw a consensus, but sat on it a bit before doing a full close (also having tea and reading through my watchlist). I saw your comment when I returned, and continued forward with my close. Right before closing, I refreshed and saw the two additional comments, which did not change my read of the consensus but prompted the note about potentially cutting off ongoing participation. ~ Amory (utc) 14:25, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree with your close, but of course I voted to Delete. That said, I think the keep arguments were pretty anemic. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:24, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And I'm the same as AO. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:05, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

21:16, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

RFA

Hi Amory, can you please nominate Robert McClenon for adminship as he is a very experienced editor and will be one of our best admins ever. 2402:3A80:A7C:1BD7:0:5E:A6B:FF01 (talk) 03:19, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Amorymeltzer - I don't know who this editor is or why they think that I will unblock them. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:47, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If an editor with a known record wants to explain that the times or the sentiments of the community have changed, I will consider that. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:47, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Robert McClenon I am not blocked and I haven't told you to unblock me.2402:3A80:A7C:1BD7:0:5E:A6B:FF01 (talk) 07:34, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wat ~ Amory (utc) 20:12, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Amorymeltzer: I don't understand what you are talking about. Will you nominate Robert for adminship.2402:3A80:A7C:1BD7:0:5E:A6B:FF01 (talk) 03:23, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aaaaaand blocked. ~ Amory (utc) 12:18, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, well. When an IP acts like an experienced editor, some of us assume that they are an experienced disruptive editor. It also appears that you don't know who they are, but that they were being a disruptive IP editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:18, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't be likely to pay attention to knowledgeable unregistered editors if I were an admin anyway, because I assume that they are experienced disruptive editors who are blocked. I wouldn't be the sort to unblock them. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:18, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, could you please move this deleted.article to my draft space? I am finding additional coverage since the close. Thank you. FloridaArmy (talk) 11:14, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done ~ Amory (utc) 11:29, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 28 February 2019

A barnstar for you!

The Technical Barnstar
For your contributions to Twinkle, including doing the majority of code reviews and going through that endless backlog of issues. For years it was fairly quiet over there on GitHub. All of a sudden PRs are coming in left and right (many from yourself), and there was no way I could keep up. I'm very grateful we have you as a maintainer!

Also for your many other technical contributions, and just being an awesome admin in general. And for granting me rollback and PCR years ago :) MusikAnimal talk 02:39, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gracias! And thanks for bringing me on board, it's been fun, albeit a bit distracting. 😀 I dunno about "awesome admin" (although Amory appreciates alliteration) but I can at least say that I showed excellent judgment lo those many years ago. You've done Herculean work yourself! ~ Amory (utc) 12:41, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail!

Hello, Amorymeltzer. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 08:07, 1 March 2019 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

DannyS712 (talk) 08:07, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Read, reacted, and responded. ~ Amory (utc) 12:42, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RB Issues

Hi,

Check this: [5]- this is not a vandalism. He just ignore my massage. Xain36 {talk} 20:07, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Related to User Rights

Hi @Amorymeltzer:, about a month ago, you provided me temporary permission as a Rollbacker here. I acted according to the policies of Wikipedia and used Rollback only in clear-cut vandalism cases, and I assure you that I will do the same in future. I expect that you have now enough trust on me to grant me the Rollback permission. SouravDas1998t@lk to me? 12:16, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for itel Mobile

Hi Amory, please help to review proposed new content for the page itel Mobile (now in my sandbox: here) which you have protected. And I also invite you to participant in the deletion review of this article. I think it could be published, thank you so much. Pumkin Ding (talk) 13:29, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]