This user is a member of the Wikimedia volunteer response team.
This user has account creator rights on the English Wikipedia.
This user has page mover rights on the English Wikipedia.
This user has pending changes reviewer rights on the English Wikipedia.
This user has rollback rights on the English Wikipedia.

User talk:Amortias

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Fairytale folder home.png
Nuvola apps chat.png
Nuvola apps kate.png
Crystal Clear app file-manager.png
Barnstar brown.svg
Admin mop.svg
Crystal Clear filesystem folder html.png
Home                 Talk Page                 Contributions                 Archives                 Barn                 Mopping station                 Subpages


Hello, Amortias! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! DThomsen8 (talk) 14:38, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines

The Community
Things to do

CatchPhrase celebrity section.[edit]

Hi I just had a question about the CatchPhrase Wikipedia page. Recently, SolomanMckenzie added in a section about the celebrity episodes being broadcast and the winnings. and the like. There recently has been a crackdown on game shows like The Chase UK or Tipping Point Lucky Stars, where certain other uses have deemed episode guides and lists of celebrities to be fancruft and NOTSTATS (you can check the edit histories of both programmes). Even after this has been mentioned on both programmes, users like Soloman McKenzie likes to add in lists of Celebrities or episode guides which do get reverted. Would this section that this user has added be considered fancruft as well? This is an article for Deletion discussion that occured for a similar game show discussing it. any advice would be appreciated. (talk)samusek2~

Batch file[edit]

Please explain how I can properly add the link to to the batch file page. My compiler is my lives work. It started a software category in 2003 and it adds many useful commands to batch files that cannot be found elseware.

It also allows users to hide their batch file code and add an icon. They can raise code to ADMIN level execution status and embed their company name and copyright/version information in the file properties.

I was also trying to remove the part of the article that contains malicious batch file code in order to prevent ignoarant people sharing malicious code to hard working people. This can cost time and money to thousands of people if it is not removed. Someone could potentionally lose their job or even worst. Why was I blocked from making these changes.

I am new to editing wiki articles but I feel my changes are necessary. Please help me make these changes.

Always here to help.

semir osmanagich[edit]

What I really put are FACTS, which are always OBJECTIVE, because they are true and what is subjective is somebody's opinion... I am open to different opinions and I also included some of negative or critical opinions in a text! I have no problems with that... But, if Your whole text is based on negative opinions or few years old information INSTEAD of facts, maybe because facts include for example this person's success in some area or rewards or so then I wish to ask You: does it mean that "objectivity" in case of Mr Osmanagich for You or for the wiki? is that HAVE to be given exclusively NEGATIVE "information" and opinions about that person? Because it is obvious that ANY positive FACT, not to talk about opinion is not tolerating at all... Or?


Reverted edits[edit]

Hi Amortias,

I didnt know that edit was even real, haha! Thanks for getting rid of it, I was just trying to experiment my powers on wikipedia; Please dont delete any of my other edits though as they were all supposed to be their and they are all factual.

Kind Regards


Reverted Edits[edit]

Hi Amortias -- My edits that you reverted were intentional. The article in question was a sort of odd amalgam of unrelated content, and I was also attempting to add balanced content on both sides of the debate. Thanks for your vigilance, though!

Furious 7 External Links section[edit]

Something your team may be interested in adding as a link in the External Links section of Furious 7

A 10-piece editorial montage using pop culture snippets along with a film review piece

Fantastic Four reverted edit[edit]

You reverted one of my edits on the fantastic four movie page because I did not have a proper edit summary, I don't really know how to do an edit summary but there is false information on that page, the fault in our stars trailer surpasses xmen days of future past and the fantastic four teaser and official trailer in view count, whatever article they referenced was wrong. But since I don know how to properly edit I was wondering if you could do it, thanks.


Hi. I do a lot of scouting for potential admin candidates. I couldn't help noticing you've got one of thos 'I want to be an admin' userboxes on your user page. You may wish to read WP:RFAADVICE in its entirety including the footnotes. The page has become the main venue for those seeking advice and as I wrote it, if you have any questions you are welcome to contact me. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:31, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I'll give it a good look. Not 4 hours ago I asked WormThatTurned for a review of my contributions with an aim of running (subject to someone nominating me).Amortias (T)(C) 12:34, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Kudpung Read, I have a feeling I've read this before but i read so much stuff on here memory passes. Amortias (T)(C) 14:37, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
And can I get your opinion on admins who arent content creators. I fit in this category quite heavily apart forma spate of copyediting in my infancy before I moved onto primarily anti-vandalism work. Amortias (T)(C) 14:38, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
After reading WP:RFAADVICE, the next step is to read user:Kudpung/RfA criteria. It will tell you all you need to know about why and how I vote and how my RfA votes can somtimes have an important impact on an RfA. If you can check all the boxes there you would probably have a 99.9% chance of passing, especially if you were nominated by people like Worm. Candidates who are weak on providing content are sometimes given a hard time, but they might pass, particularly if they have been around for a few years. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:58, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Collapsed to save page length

The maturity level of a responsible adult (18+) - evaluation of maturity is highly critical, but subjective, and I believe that minors who are admins should demonstrate an exceptional level of maturity that is beyond average for their real age.

I hope so. This is something others will have to judge though.

The ability to communicate in proper standard English, understanding that WP is not built by teenagers for teenagers.

As far as I'm aware.

12 months autoconfirmed user or at least 6,000 edits non automated edits in the preceding 6 months


>30% edits to Talk and Wikipedia space

last time i checked.

At least 4 created articles of at least 500 words, perfectly sourced and formatted - no outstanding maintenance tags on any creations where the candidate is still the major contributor. FA, GA, or DYK are not prerequisites, but a very minimum of article creation and/or an equivalent amount of new content should demonstrate that we are here first and foremost to build an encyclopedia and not a WP:MMORPG.

No direct content creation but i have added to some articles copyedited others (copyediting is where i started out and was quite keen on it till i realised vandal hnunting was

No mass creation of very short stubs


>100 New Page Patrols

Probably but unsure without goign and checkign.

No warnings or comment about wrong NPP tagging in the preceding 6 months

Not that I'm aware of. I may have forgotten to mark as patrolled on a couple of occassions though.

<5% declined CSD at New Page Patrolling

Again not sure but think my numbers are good on this, some have been recreated since such as bad userpages so not sure how much this is throwing my counts.

>10 advice edits to a help desk that demonstrate knowledge of the policies/guidelines

Have given quite a lot of advice at ANI, AN, and through OTRS system.

>50 edits to AfD with adequate rationale that demonstrate knowledge of the policies (hit rate over 75% on Scottywong's tool)

cant recall without checking but I've nominated a fair few and commented on others.

>10 edits to RfA with adequate rationale that demonstrate knowledge of the process (hit rate over 75% on Scottywong's tool)

I think this is below that. I have commented at CU and Oversight permission however that im sure of.

99% edit summaries in the main space

Honestly I have no idea.

No warnings for vandalism

Got reported to WP:AIV by obvious sock who was promptley blocked and the report cancelled but thats it.

No warnings for spam


No sockpuppetry (unauthorised use of multiple accounts)


No L3, L4, or single issue warnings

Think I had one by a sockpuppet who was vandalising my page but I dont think this counts.

A clean block log of at least 12 months, but this could be longer depending on the severity of the issue and the length of the block(s)


No confirmed personal attacks reported to a notice board.

None I'm aware of

Users have very different opinions as to what constitutes incivility - I judge this for myself and I'm not very tolerant.

Think I'm clear on this one.

Only 1 3rr warning, and older than 6 months

I forget how old this one was but I have one.

No warnings of any kind 3 months preceding RfA


No CSD, PROD, or AfD notices for own creations 6 months preceding RfA, .


No reverted non-admin closures of any debate types

None that im aware of.

No unnecessary 'clerking' of admin areas.

Some work at AN and ANI where obiously wrong place or the questions have been answered. Dont think this constitutes unnessecary.

2nd or subsequent RfA not sooner than 3 months


2nd or subsequent RfA not less than 1,500 new manual, major edits.


No possible signs that the candidate has joined Wikipedia with the express intention of working towards adminship (includes hat-collecting and over-enthusiastic participation on admin boards).

Will have to take my word on this but no it wasn't.

No canvassing on- or off-Wiki (off-Wiki discussion with your nominator is OK).

Kudpung Statements above in table. Amortias (T)(C) 18:51, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
I'll be having a look soon Amortias (Some of the tools I use are down, making things difficult). WormTT(talk) 08:41, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Appreciated. Take your time if the bits something that I should have to use it'll come when its ready not before. Amortias (T)(C) 21:08, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Amortias. I dug through your contribs and talk pages for another reason but I'll weigh in here. I often participate in RfA with a different set of criteria. I vet candidates pretty thoroughly before I participate in discussions. For me, biting newcomers with overly strict interpretation of policy and guidelines can lead to an oppose. Extremely quick tagging or assuming malice rather than ignorance may earn the same. I found none of that in a quick review your history. I like to see helpfulness and found some. Work at the help desk, Teahouse and such improves my opinion of candidates for the mop.
Specific observations from my quick review:
  • Some regulars at RfA dislike hat collectors and Kudpung mentions it in his criteria. Why do you have the autopatrolled right if you haven't created an article? The standard for getting that right is creation of 50 or more quality articles. I saw no request at WP:PERM or on Gilliam's or your talk pages so I'm not sure how or why you have that hat. Automatically marking talk pages you create with automated vandal fighting tools as patrolled is not the purpose of the permission. Seeing the autopatrolled permission prominently displayed on a userpage implies that the editor is a prolific article creator. If still there, expect questions in your RfA about the permission and its display. Something that simple can derail the RfA of a pretty good candidate.
  • Many RfA regulars do their own review (and more should) and may grumble and possibly oppose when they find shortcomings like the 'Archives' button in your page headers that only shows 2014. Fix it to show 2015 archives (perhaps even add a blank 2016 to show you plan to stick around). Look around your userpages for other problems and fix 'em before you transclude your RfA because people will look and judge your competence and attention-to-detail and maybe even trustworthyness based on what they find.
  • Lack of content creation is a killer these days. I'm among those who judge that work on articles is essential. I won't oppose unless I see a lack of clue because the candidate doesn't understand what it takes to write and improve articles. But I won't support a candidate with no content creation.
A challenge: Delete the old stuff and move User:Doctree/sandbox/Science_cheerleaders into your sandbox or a subpage. I'm unlikely to ever find time to work on it. Demonstrate clue by not doing a cut-and-paste. Lots of reliable sources are provided in the project's website to establish notability (the coordinator lists media coverage of events and participants). Google it to find the controversy. Many criticize them saying their physical beauty and booty shorts detract from the science goals. Get the balance right, no WP:UNDUE or other problems. Move the article to main_space once it's fleshed out and well sourced. Wait for it to be patrolled and deal with any tags. (You did give up autopatrolled, didn't you?) Many professional cheerleaders have Wikipedia articles; Wikilink back from those also in the Science cheerleader program to get rid of an orphan tag. Upload the logo and write a WP:FAIRUSE rationale (the Wizard helps). List relevant Wikiprojects on your new article's talk page. Wait for an independent editor to rate the quality of your article and give it low importance. Write a hook for DYK and go through that process. Alternatively, choose your own topic(s) and write one or two solid, well referenced articles and get one through DYK. Then you can honestly say in your RfA that you aren't and likely will never be a content creator but you did that/those article(s) specifically to understand the challenges of those who do create content. Your honesty and that work in the area that's not your preferred activity will earn respect and trust and likely my support. I hope you find this helpful, DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) WER 03:54, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Archives - Yes check.svg Done,
Autopatrolled - requested a while back just due to the sheer number of new pages I was creating with new page patrolling. Request was denied for reasons mentioned above (no article creation and not purely for the new page patrolling stuff), got a notification a while back that I had been granted the right. Assumed was a policy change as such but didn't think about it again just updated my topboxes and carried on as before. Certainly wont cause me any problems if its gone.
Amortias (T)(C) 11:53, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Challenge Crystal Clear app clock-orange.svg In progress. Amortias (T)(C) 17:58, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Potential admin[edit]

Hi, I notice you're on Wikipedia:List of administrator hopefuls. Wikipedia would benefit from more admins. If you have been editing for more than 12 months (preferably 24+ months), and have been editing fairly consistently for the past 6 months (preferably 12+ months) with at least 100 edits a month (this tool will help) - or an explanation for any gaps, and haven't been blocked in the past three years - or a good explanation for a recent block, don't have a recent history of edit warring or arguing with other editors, feel you can explain why you wish to be an admin, can demonstrate some understanding of Wikipedia's procedures and processes, or know where to go for guidance, and are confident enough to go through a RfA, please get in touch with me. We can talk about it some more, and if all looks OK, I'll nominate you. SilkTork ✔Tea time 01:57, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

SilkTork Yes I'd be interested I have a bit of an editing gap at present due to change in work but should be back to normal levels in a week or two.Amortias (T)(C) 21:10, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for responding, and sorry for delay getting back to you (I turned off alerts for when my name is used in discussions shortly after that function was introduced, as people kept dropping my name into conversations in the assumption I would then get involved - my own assumption is that if people really do want to speak to me - rather than simply drag me into a conflict, they will leave me a note on my talkpage! ;-)). Your contributions count seems OK - it meets my minimum standard for us starting a conversation. Your AfD contributions may be more of a problem, as you mostly vote for delete, and are concerningly out of step with consensus. There may be reasons for that which we can talk about. Would you like to talk a little bit more about your potential for being an admin, and let me look more closely at your contributions? If so, drop a note on my talkpage and I can set up a page for us to chat, or email me (some folks have preferred that approach). Regards SilkTork ✔Tea time 17:00, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
And I'm now finally back on WP. Feel free to converse here now as its so much easier and save me repeating e-mails in RFA's. Amortias (T)(C) 17:27, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm setting up a page at User:SilkTork/Chicha/Potential admin chat/Amortias. We can chat there. I'm a little busy elsewhere at the moment so chatting may be a little slow, but I have the page watchlisted and will get around to responding, even if it takes a while sometimes. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:08, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of my User Profile:Sharique Manazir[edit]

As per message that I have received my user page has been deleted specifically because"This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be blatant advertising which only promotes or publicises a company, product, group or service, and which is a violation of our policies regarding acceptable use of user page".

I would like to share very clearly that there was "limited autobiographical and personal content" and there was no such intentional or unintentional advertisement of company, product, group or service on my page.Worth mentioning page was created by me to test the content creation features of Wikipedia back in 2010 when I joined it.

And as per User page guidelines allows " limited autobiographical and personal content".

I would request you to re.publish the content.

Murat Koprulu Wikepedia page[edit]

Hi Amortias,

I work for Mr. Murat Koprulu. The changes I made on his Wikepedia account are information I gathered thru working for him. I am the reliable source!

Thank you,

Beth Roa

Saoirse Ronan[edit]

The edit I made was to remove the jacked up formatting that the previous editor made. Go look at it. Their sources are dubious at best as well. Blogs as a source? Perhaps you can examine their half-baked edits with the same critical eye.

My Delete Page[edit]

Why May Page is Going To delete again and again. i am filling here true story of the people.

reply Fast.


Hello, Amortias. Please check your email; you've got mail!
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.

Nova Science[edit]

Dear Amortias, I am an independent research, I realized though I have provided robust evidence that Nova Science pubs is a well reputed journal, librarians in this article did their best to boycott my changes. I need senior librarians review the actions of these pseudo librarians (which is documented in Talk section). Otherwise, I will talk directly with WIKIPEDIA TOP MANAGEMENT. My claim is that the site of NOVA SCIENCE PUBLISHERS is being edited to damage the reputation of this publisher, withtou any scientific basis, unless some blogs. I have provided a lot of ranking, evaluations (from well known universities) and all my interventions were deleted, even in all moments, librarian said Nova was the lowest rank in citation impact, for god sake, this is not true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:25, 1 September 2016‎ (UTC)

Please comment on MediaWiki talk:Common.css[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on MediaWiki talk:Common.css. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Stephen Bannon[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Stephen Bannon. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Logan (film)[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Logan (film). Legobot (talk) 04:35, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Tinderbox (Siouxsie and the Banshees album)[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Tinderbox (Siouxsie and the Banshees album). Legobot (talk) 04:27, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on MediaWiki talk:Sidebar[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on MediaWiki talk:Sidebar. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Family of Barack Obama[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Family of Barack Obama. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Scarlett Johansson[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Scarlett Johansson. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Issues of the Evolution v.s. Creation Debate[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Issues of the Evolution v.s. Creation Debate. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

BBC 12-hour Editathon - large influx of new pages & drafts expected[edit]

New Page Reviewers are asked to be especially on the look out 08:00-20:00 UTC (that's local London time - check your USA and AUS times) on Thursday 8 December for new pages. The BBC together with Wikimedia UK is holding a large 12-hour editathon. Many new articles and drafts are expected. See BBC 100 Women 2016: How to join our edit-a-thon. Follow also on #100womenwiki, and please, don't bite the newbies :) (user:Kudpung for NPR. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC))

Guild of Copy Editors December 2016 News[edit]

Guild of Copy Editors December 2016 News
Writing Magnifying.PNG

Copyeditors progress.png

Hello everyone, and welcome to the December 2016 GOCE newsletter. We had an October newsletter all set to go, but it looks like we never pushed the button to deliver it, so this one contains a few months of updates. We have been busy and successful!

Coordinator elections for the first half of 2017: Nominations are open for election of Coordinators for the first half of 2017. Please visit the election page to nominate yourself or another editor, and then return after December 15 to vote. Thanks for participating!

September Drive: The September drive was fruitful. We set out to remove July through October 2015 from our backlog (an ambitious 269 articles), and by the end of the month, we had cut that pile of oldest articles to just 83. We reduced our overall backlog by 97 articles, even with new copyedit tags being added to articles every day. We also handled 75% of the remaining Requests from August 2016. Overall, 19 editors recorded copy edits to 233 articles (over 378,000 words).

October Blitz: this one-week copy-editing blitz ran from 16 through 22 October; the theme was Requests, since the backlog was getting a bit long. Of the 16 editors who signed up, 10 editors completed 29 requests. Barnstars and rollover totals are located here. Thanks to all editors who took part.

November Drive: The November drive was a record-breaker! We set out to remove September through December 2015 from our backlog (239 articles), and by the end of the month, we had cut that pile of old articles to just 66, eliminating the two oldest months! We reduced our overall backlog by 523 articles, to a new record low of 1,414 articles, even with new tags being added to articles every day, which means we removed copy-editing tags from over 800 articles. We also handled all of the remaining Requests from October 2016. Officially, 14 editors recorded copy edits to 200 articles (over 312,000 words), but over 600 articles, usually quick fixes and short articles, were not recorded on the drive page.

Housekeeping note: we do not send a newsletter before every drive or blitz. To have a better chance of knowing when the next event will start, add the GOCE's message box to your Watchlist.

Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators: Jonesey95, Corinne and Tdslk.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

RC Patrol-related Proposals in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey[edit]

Magic Wand Icon 229981 Color Flipped.svg

Greetings Recent Changes Patrollers!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about technical proposals related to Recent Changes Patrol in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

  1. Adjust number of entries and days at Last unpatrolled
  2. Editor-focused central editing dashboard
  3. "Hide trusted users" checkbox option on watchlists and related/recent changes (RC) pages
  4. Real-Time Recent Changes App for Android
  5. Shortcut for patrollers to last changes list

Further, there are more than 20 proposals related to Watchlists in general that you may be interested in reviewing. (and over 260 proposals in all, across many aspects of wikis)

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Note: You received this message because you have transcluded {{User wikipedia/RC Patrol}} (user box) on your user page. Since this message is "one-time-only" there is no opt out for future mailings.

Best regards, SteviethemanDelivered: 01:10, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Bot policy[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Bot policy. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Steve Bannon[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Steve Bannon. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 9 December 2016 (UTC)