User talk:Amorymeltzer: Difference between revisions
started new string on talk page of Amorymeltzer |
Pumkin Ding (talk | contribs) →Deletion review for itel Mobile: new section |
||
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
Amory has a very distracting family and will likely be editing erratically until the kids stop being cute. |
This is Amorymeltzer's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments. |
Article policies
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30Auto-archiving period: 11 days |
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
- When you thank someone on the mobile web you will now have two seconds to cancel the thank. This is in case you clicked on the thank button by accident. [1]
Changes later this week
- The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 19 February. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 20 February. It will be on all wikis from 21 February (calendar).
Meetings
- You can join the technical advice meeting on IRC. During the meeting, volunteer developers can ask for advice. The meeting will be on 20 February at 16:00 (UTC). See how to join.
Future changes
- There is a proposal to add a red link to mobile search results if there is no page with that name. This is how it works on desktop. You can leave feedback. [2]
Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.
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)
- 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 (u • t • c) 11:43, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Ok, thanks Have a good day
Talk to us about talking
The Wikimedia Foundation is planning a global consultation about communication. The goal is to bring Wikimedians and wiki-minded people together to improve tools for communication.
We want all contributors to be able to talk to each other on the wikis, whatever their experience, their skills or their devices.
We are looking for input from as many different parts of the Wikimedia community as possible. It will come from multiple projects, in multiple languages, and with multiple perspectives.
We are currently planning the consultation. We need your help.
We need volunteers to help talk to their communities or user groups.
You can help by hosting a discussion at your wiki. Here's what to do:
- First, sign up your group here.
- Next, create a page (or a section on a Village pump, or an e-mail thread – whatever is natural for your group) to collect information from other people in your group. This is not a vote or decision-making discussion: we are just collecting feedback.
- Then ask people what they think about communication processes. We want to hear stories and other information about how people communicate with each other on and off wiki. Please consider asking these five questions:
- When you want to discuss a topic with your community, what tools work for you, and what problems block you?
- What about talk pages works for newcomers, and what blocks them?
- What do others struggle with in your community about talk pages?
- What do you wish you could do on talk pages, but can't due to the technical limitations?
- What are the important aspects of a "wiki discussion"?
- Finally, please go to Talk pages consultation 2019 on Mediawiki.org and report what you learned from your group. Please include links if the discussion is available to the public.
You can also help build the list of the many different ways people talk to each other.
Not all groups active on wikis or around wikis use the same way to discuss things: it can happen on wiki, on social networks, through external tools... Tell us how your group communicates.
You can read more about the overall process on mediawiki.org. If you have questions or ideas, you can leave feedback about the consultation process in the language you prefer.
Thank you! We're looking forward to talking with you.
Trizek (WMF) 15:08, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
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)
- @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 (u • t • c) 20:14, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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 (u • t • c) 20:32, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
- 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)
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)
- Yes. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:21, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
- (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 (u • t • c) 14:25, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
- 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)
- And I'm the same as AO. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:05, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
- 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)
- (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 (u • t • c) 14:25, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
- There is a new version of the iOS Wikipedia app. It has for example syntax highlighting and new toolbars to make it easier to write wikitext. It also has night mode, a find-on-page function and other things. You can give feedback and suggestions. [3]
Changes later this week
- When you look at your watchlist or the recent changes page you can use the new filters for edit review. There you can choose tags to filter different edits. Empty tags will no longer be shown. [4]
- The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 26 February. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 27 February. It will be on all wikis from 28 February (calendar).
Meetings
- You can join the technical advice meeting on IRC. During the meeting, volunteer developers can ask for advice. The meeting will be on 27 February at 16:00 (UTC). See how to join.
Future changes
- The Wikipedia app for Android will invite users to add Wikidata descriptions to Wikidata objects that have Wikipedia articles but no Wikidata descriptions. It will only invite users who have added a number of Wikidata descriptions in the app without being reverted. This is to avoid spam and bad edits. You can read more and leave feedback.
Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Wat ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:12, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
@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)
- Aaaaaand blocked. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 12:18, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
The Signpost: 28 February 2019
- From the editors: Help wanted (still)
- News and notes: Front-page issues for the community
- Discussion report: Talking about talk pages
- Featured content: Conquest, War, Famine, Death, and more!
- Arbitration report: A quiet month for Arbitration Committee
- Traffic report: Binge-watching
- Technology report: Tool labs casters-up
- Gallery: Signed with pride
- From the archives: New group aims to promote Wiki-Love
- Humour: Pesky Pronouns
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) |
- 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 (u • t • c) 12:41, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
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 {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. at any time by removing the
DannyS712 (talk) 08:07, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
RB Issues
Hi,
Check this: [5]- this is not a vandalism. He just ignore my massage. Xain36 {talk} 20:07, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)