User talk:Amaury

It is currently 08:46 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

Discussions archived

An archive of April 2009 discussions can be found here.

May 2009

Discussions archived

An archive of May 2009 discussions can be found here.

June 2009

Discussions archived

An archive of June 2009 discussions can be found here.

July 2009

Discussions archived

An archive of July 2009 discussions can be found here.

August 2009

Syed9090 now Pk7311

There is a new user Pk7311 now doing the same things that Syed9090 did before he got banned. Can it be somehow confirmed that these two accounts belong to the same person?Hamza ^{[ talk ]} 07:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am referring to edits on MQM and Altaf Hussain —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muhammad Hamza (talk • contribs) 07:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Huggle

If this and this are representative of how you use Huggle, it might be wise that you stop doing so. Blindly reverting other editors and slapping them with warnings when they are attempting to raise a concern, even if they are doing so in a misguided manner, only adds fuel to the fire. Please be more careful. --auburnpilot talk 02:04, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. My apologies. Thank you for the message. - Zhang He (talk) 02:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting talk

What the hell is with you reverting concerned talk by the subject of a BLP, Jay Brannan? BLP is very serious, and censoring the subject of one who has concerns about it is quite astounding. -- AvatarMN (talk) 09:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't take this the wrong way, but I must agree. This was not a good use of rollback. Why is it, exactly, that you did that? →javért ^stargaze 09:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I already got called upon for it. See above discussion. - Zhang He (talk) 14:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I don't know what Huggle is, and didn't click the diff links. Well, between what you did, and Beeblebrox stepping on an edit by accident and then not reverting it on purpose, Jay Brannan thinks he's not even allowed to discuss the article and has gone away mad. -- AvatarMN (talk) 18:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reverting user page vandalism

A lot can happen when a guy leaves his desk for lunch.DCmacnut <> 18:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. - Zhang He (talk) 18:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Supposed vandalism

Why do people keep reverting me for supposed vandalism such as this? KypDurron1 (talk) 00:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Users and IP addresses are allowed to add or remove content from their user page and/or talk page unless it's inappropriate. - Zhang He (talk) 00:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so removing test edits is considered vandalism. Thanks for letting me know, I'll quit cleaning up Wikipedia now. KypDurron1 (talk) 00:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because they're allowed to test edit on their own pages. - Zhang He (talk) 00:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zhang He is right that the editors (IP or registered) are allowed to test on their own pages; however, KypDurron1's edit was far from vandalism. It is obvious that his intentions were good, so the warning really was inappropriate. A note explaining why you reverted would be great, but not a {{uw-vand4}}. Remember vandalism is only for bad-faith edits, not incorrect good-faith edits. Apparition¹¹ ^Complaints/Mistakes 01:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question as to why removing invisible text placed underneath a redirect like this is considered vandalism. I would also like to know why this is considered vandalism, which you also reported in the vandalism report. KypDurron1 (talk) 01:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]