User talk:Amaury

It is currently 11:01 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]

As a heads-up: I have declined the vandalism report, since there was obviously no malice on the part of KypDurron1. I will also ask Zhang He to please exercise more care in making vandalism reports. I would also recommend trying to communicate directly with editors rather than relying on templates -- you can get better results that way. Thank you. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Likely attack page

What makes you say this [1] is nonsense? It looks to me like the user page probably is an attack. The user's only contributions to Wikipedia is this user page, which certainly makes me think this is probably an attack against the individual, not the real Chris Ryan's user page. -- AvatarMN (talk) 09:51, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't sure; that's why I didn't revert the IP address' edit on my talk page with Huggle, just manually. - Zhang He (talk) 15:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why revert at all if you're not sure? And when the user comes to your talk page to alert you, why remove that and edit comment so surely that it's nonsense? Not only is it likely that the user page is an attack becuase the user has only edited the page, but the page contained a line about how the subject "identifies as conservative even though his girlfriend (then it names her!) had to get an abortion twice in the seventh grade".[2] That's not something someone writes about themself. You seem to be very careless at reverting, with Huggle or not. -- AvatarMN (talk) 18:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say that. I've improved a lot since December 2008. Just ask Apparition11. - Zhang He (talk) 01:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have improved a lot, but I agree with AvatarMN here. The original revert wasn't vandalism. Then removing his note on your talk page was in poor form. He appears to be concerned for the subject of this "article". Giving him a little help and explaining why you reverted would have helped more than removing the post as "nonsense". For the past couple of weeks, it does seem that you have been making quite a few of mistakes. You really do need to be more careful. If you can't explain why you reverted when the editor asks, then you shouldn't have reverted to begin with. Apparition¹¹ ^Complaints/Mistakes 01:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll also note that I sent it to MfD here. Apparition¹¹ ^Complaints/Mistakes 02:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This edit was poor form. You should not be reverting without more care. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Removing {{db-g10}} {{db-attack}}[3] as a Minor Edit was not good. Please don't do such thing again. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:53, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be performing all edits as minor edits, and frequently the editos are not minor. Please take more care. Perhaps you should adjust your preferences to make all edits not minor by default. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedian of the Day

Congratulations, Zhang He! For your kindness to others, your hard work around the wiki, and for being a great user, you have been awarded the "Wikipedian of the Day" award for today, August 20, 2009! Keep up the great work!
Note: You could also receive the "Wikipedian of the Week award for this week!
If you wish, you can add {{User:Midnight Comet/WOTD/UBX|August 20, 2009}} to your userpage.

Happy editing!

[midnight comet] [talk] 00:00, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah So

So Solly bunden