User talk:Amaury/2022/January
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Amaury. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Happy New Year, Amaury!
Amaury,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
— YoungForever(talk) 08:11, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.
May need back up here. Just keep an eye on it for a day or two for me? Thanks. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:20, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
- OK, now I definitely need back up here – WP:DE IP violating WP:&, etc. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:32, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for that. If they do it again, if you could get the next revert, I will then report them to WP:ANEW, as they will be past WP:3RR at that point. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
- Note that this recent edit from the IP is OK – you can leave that one. But we'll need to see if they do any followup edits from there... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:57, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
Blocked for 48 hours due to edit warring
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. 331dot (talk) 10:51, 8 January 2022 (UTC)- @331dot: We both made exactly three reverts. The user in question has a history of disruptive edits—not all of them, but a lot of them—and it's not just me. Even that aside, though, they almost never use edit summaries to explain their edits and then seem to get upset when they're reverted by someone. We can't be expected to read their minds. The onus was on them, per the status quo; however, before they even reported me, I stopped as it was pointless, and I had/have no intention to continue. They also have a language barrier, which is fine—not everyone knows English or knows English well—but they should do their best to at least explain. I don't appreciate being accused of vandalism, overall and as their reason to have me blocked, which isn't your fault and I know wasn't the reason used in the log, but it's not a wise idea to do that. While I don't wish for them to be blocked, either, I don't feel this was the best decision. Amaury • 19:41, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
- I will remove the block. Please keep in mind that edit warring is not acceptable even if you are correct, and that one can be determined to be edit warring with fewer than 3 reverts. 331dot (talk) 20:17, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
- @331dot: Thank you. I completely understand that one can be edit warring even without breaking 3RR, outside of the obvious vandalism and other exemptions, of course. And while I still stand by that I didn't want the other user blocked, I was just confused as to why it was only me and not them as well, especially when they were outright accusing me of vandalism and didn't even go the correct venue. In any case, I appreciate the chance very much. Hope you have a good day. Amaury • 20:25, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
- You say, i haven't explained my changes. I explained them as well. Only characters appeared in main titles must be in my cast. You didn't explained your revert. And you never use to discuss anything on talk page. This is what you wrote on talk page - "I'm not going to discuss anything with you". You don't want to explain your changes, don't want to discuss anything. And you didn't have reaction when another user edited page in november and added recurring cast members in main cast. You speak about my history of edits, see you history of blocks, yo have a very very long history of disruptive edits. Lado85 (talk) 12:18, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- Amaury's edits were not "vandalism" – do not accuse good faith editors of "vandalism". You're doing that threw fuel on the fire – if you hadn't done that, it is likely this mess could have been avoided. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:22, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- I will remove the block. Please keep in mind that edit warring is not acceptable even if you are correct, and that one can be determined to be edit warring with fewer than 3 reverts. 331dot (talk) 20:17, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello. Can you show me where in the MOS your claim is supported? Thanks. HandsomeFella (talk) 21:41, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
- Not everything has to be in a guideline to the nth degree, nor are guidelines top-down binding rules that we must follow like mindless robots. Use common sense. You have no consensus for your change and need to discuss the issue on the article's talk page. Amaury • 08:34, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
- There is certainly consensus for this. It doesn't have to be on the talkpage for each article. You have been asked to provide an example in the WP:MOS, and failed, so please stop your disruptive edits. The onus is on you. HandsomeFella (talk) 08:41, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
- As I told you, not everything has to be in a guideline. You need to discuss the issue on the talk page, as per WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO, so the onus is on you. And please do not make false accusations toward other editors. Amaury • 08:43, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
- As I told you, there is a guideline. Are you suggesting that it has to be replicated on every single article talkpage? And now that I have shown you it, your edits are indeed disruptive – and the onus is thus on you as to explain why we shouldn't follow the guideline, which makes no sense whatseoever, despite your reference to "common sense". HandsomeFella (talk) 09:30, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
- You need to discuss this on the article's talk page and gain consensus. See WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. Amaury • 09:36, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
- As I told you, there is a guideline. Are you suggesting that it has to be replicated on every single article talkpage? And now that I have shown you it, your edits are indeed disruptive – and the onus is thus on you as to explain why we shouldn't follow the guideline, which makes no sense whatseoever, despite your reference to "common sense". HandsomeFella (talk) 09:30, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
- As I told you, not everything has to be in a guideline. You need to discuss the issue on the talk page, as per WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO, so the onus is on you. And please do not make false accusations toward other editors. Amaury • 08:43, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
- There is certainly consensus for this. It doesn't have to be on the talkpage for each article. You have been asked to provide an example in the WP:MOS, and failed, so please stop your disruptive edits. The onus is on you. HandsomeFella (talk) 08:41, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
I'm pretty tempted to take this IP to AIV immediately. They were just recently released from a six-month block (their block log), and have already disrupted List of Jessie episodes and List of Girl Meets World episodes on several occasions today. Pinging IJBall and Geraldo Perez about this as well. MPFitz1968 (talk) 18:22, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Dangerverse
Hi. I just wanted to let you know that they started referring to the continuity that Henry Danger, The Adventures of Kid Danger, and Danger Force as the "Dangerverse". Even the fandom website is called Dangerverse Fandom following the merger of the two Fandom websites. I just wanted to consult with you on if there can be a way to do things like merging any character information from those shows which would also do the combined total of supporting characters and villains. What is your opinion on this proposal? --Rtkat3 (talk) 17:51, 31 January 2022 (UTC)