User talk:Amorymeltzer: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Tag: MassMessage delivery
Line 165: Line 165:
[[User:Pumkin Ding|Pumkin Ding]] ([[User talk:Pumkin Ding|talk]]) 13:29, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
[[User:Pumkin Ding|Pumkin Ding]] ([[User talk:Pumkin Ding|talk]]) 13:29, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
:I believe the [[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 March 3|DRV]] is indeed the place to discuss this, thank you for the note. ~ <span style="color:#DF00A0">Amory</span><small style="color:#555"> ''([[User:Amorymeltzer|u]] • [[User talk:Amorymeltzer|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Amorymeltzer|c]])''</small> 15:47, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
:I believe the [[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 March 3|DRV]] is indeed the place to discuss this, thank you for the note. ~ <span style="color:#DF00A0">Amory</span><small style="color:#555"> ''([[User:Amorymeltzer|u]] • [[User talk:Amorymeltzer|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Amorymeltzer|c]])''</small> 15:47, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

*:{{reply to|Amorymeltzer}} Greeting! Have you reviewed the proposed new content for this page? Waiting for your comments and hope this draft could be removed from protection, thanks a lot. [[User:Pumkin Ding|Pumkin Ding]] ([[User talk:Pumkin Ding|talk]]) 03:48, 5 March 2019 (UTC)


== [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Tech/News/2019/10|Tech News: 2019-10]] ==
== [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Tech/News/2019/10|Tech News: 2019-10]] ==

Revision as of 03:48, 5 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]

@Souravdas1998: I granted February 2nd and you used it a bit then and the 3rd, but you've basically not edited for the entire month, as far as I can see. I'll grant you another one-month period, but you've got to use it for me to see evidence. ~ Amory (utc) 15:46, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, @Amorymeltzer: for giving me another chance. It is true that from the last few days I have been very much busy (due to my extra physics practical classes). Now, I will try my best to squeeze out some time for contributing to Wikipedia. I hope that I will meet your expectations. SouravDas1998t@lk to me? 16:14, 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]

I believe the DRV is indeed the place to discuss this, thank you for the note. ~ Amory (utc) 15:47, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Amorymeltzer: Greeting! Have you reviewed the proposed new content for this page? Waiting for your comments and hope this draft could be removed from protection, thanks a lot. Pumkin Ding (talk) 03:48, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

16:38, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

0.99 = 1 et al

Thank you for the good closing summary you've left with these RfDs. Although I disagree there was no consensus on all of them, they're still around to provide utility for those that use them and your closing summaries should hopefully discourage anyone from a quick renomination, which would almost certainly be a waste of time. Thryduulf (talk) 19:59, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! May I ask which you might take issue with? As noted, I considered closing one of them as keep, but I think taking the whole series of discussions into consideration, no consensus seemed the better reflection of the participants' arguments. Somewhat relatedly, I've lately found myself considering the law of diminishing returns a lot. Not applying it, per se, but it's something that has been coming to mind when I evaluate some discussions or when weighing arguments and their implications toward policy. No consensus closes always make me think too much about my thought process! ~ Amory (utc) 20:35, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – March 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2019).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • A new tool is available to help determine if a given IP is an open proxy/VPN/webhost/compromised host.

Arbitration

  • The Arbitration Committee announced two new OTRS queues. Both are meant solely for cases involving private information; other cases will continue to be handled at the appropriate venues (e.g., WP:COIN or WP:SPI).
    • paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org has been set up to receive private evidence related to abusive paid editing.
    • checkuser-en-wp@wikipedia.org has been set up to receive private requests for CheckUser. For instance, requests for IP block exemption for anonymous proxy editing should now be sent to this address instead of the functionaries-en list.

Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:12, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]