User talk:Amaury

It is currently 07:16 where I am

December 2008

Discussions archived

An archive of December 2008 discussions can be found here.

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

You've been blocked

Guess what Eugene i just got admin rights and i've decided to ban you.

Not really, Happy April Fool's Day Eugene! The Pink Phink :  Text me!  00:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Ha ha ha! It's still March 31st, though. 8:25pm, to be exact. Nice joke, though. - Mr. Krabs (talk) 03:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I just wanted to say I was not experimenting, but making a good edit. User:JohnGreeneKid

Apparition11's comments

This discussion is being continued from this subject.

I went back to February this time because I had already glanced through all of your March edits. This may mean that you've already learned from any mistakes that I point out though. I'll try not to point out too much that I can recall that you've already discussed with someone, but I'm sure that I'll miss a conversation and point some stuff out again anyway. If there are any specific edits you want me to comment on, feel free to post them and I will.

• First, it's great how you and The Cool Kat have put the past aside and hold no grudges. That shows maturity on both of your parts.
• I saw a lot of good reverts in this month as well. In most of the bad reverts I saw, the other editor left a valid edit summary, so just remember what we discussed about that, and you'll do great.
• It looks like you did a nice job of placing stub templates to articles. The templates are usually put at the bottom of the article, which you've probably figured out now anyway, but that's not a big deal at all.
• I saw a few times where an editor removed warnings from their talk page, and you reverted them to restore the warnings. Per WP:BLANKING, editors are allowed to remove warnings from their talk page and should not be reverted when they do. Removing the warning is an acknowledgment of having read it.
• As I'm sure you learned, when you add main article links to character articles like you did here, there really should be an article there, not just a redirect :)
• Nice self-revert here. Linking headings is against the MOS, but you must've caught this yourself as I didn't see a message. Nice job.
• There were a couple of civility issues that I saw during the AfD, but that appears to have been stress/bad mood more than anything since it wasn't a problem before and hasn't been since, so no major worries there. Everyone has bad days :)
• Small typographical/grammar fixes are often overlooked, but very important nonetheless. I saw you make several of these fixes that were good, especially ones like its/it's. Those often get confused or overlooked, so nice job catching them. Just when doing these, try to be mindful of WP:ENGVAR and make sure that it isn't a spelling difference instead. A lot of the spelling differences deal with -OR (US) and -OUR (UK) and -IZE (US) and -ISE (UK), so if you see these, try to think twice before correcting. I didn't see you do this any more, but I noticed this move request where you had mistaken a spelling difference for a misspelling. Just try to keep this in the back of your mind.
• You should also be careful about altering other people's talk page comments, even if it is just to correct spelling or grammar. It doesn't bother me, but it is generally considered bad practice and other people might get upset if you edited their comments.

I think that's all I got. Unfortunately, I can't comment too much on a lot of your edits to Pokemon and related subjects. I'm not much of a fiction editor and don't know anything about that particular subject, but most of those edits look reasonable to me. Hope it helps. Apparition^{11 Complaints}/Mistakes 23:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

If you want a page in your userspace deleted...

Just add {{db-author}} or {{db-user}} to the page. No need to MFD or whatever. //roux   18:46, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm just testing Twinkle with my sandbox, but it's somehow taking me to other pages. I apologize. - Mr. Krabs (Contributions) (Talk) 18:50, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll take the blame on that one. I didn't explain that it would do all of the steps for you if you nominated something for deletion. When you XfD something, it will create the deletion discussion page and transclude it to the appropriate place. If you request protection, it will automatically post it and WP:RFPP, and if you use ARV, it'll automatically place it at WP:AIV. If you click unlink, it'll automatically remove all of the links on other pages to the place where you clicked it. Sorry 'bout that. Apparition^{11 Complaints}/Mistakes 18:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Apology accepted. =D - Mr. Krabs (Contributions) (Talk) 18:57, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Make_The_World_Go_Around

DB speedy removed; the bands referenced are extremely notable and popular, with numerous top 10 (and #1) hits. Please, at least check Google before going speedy. Feel free to PROD or AfD if you object. R3ap3R.inc (talk) 19:27, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

All right. - Mr. Krabs (Contributions) (Talk) 01:51, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism in the Sandbox?

Hey Eugene, just wondering, I am a little confused. You have been clearing the sandbox and giving everyone warnings for vandalism... when it is in the sandbox? The whole point of the sandbox is so that you get a little place to experiment without being warned. I made an edit to the sandbox which created a rather stupid equation with a very long sentence about cheese. Obviously this would not be acceptable anywhere else on Wikipedia, but it is in the sandbox... It is not offensive, it is just about cheese... Could you just help me out here? I am quite new here and I don't think I understand the whole "sandbox" system. Thank you 219.88.216.75 (talk) 04:25, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

User talk edits

The edits to my talk page by 76.125.7.11 are not personal attacks. He was just asking a question. I have restored the comment, and I am asking you to redact your warning on his talk page. Thank you -UIS ^{Editor Review} 04:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Now, the edits he just made to his talk page are a different story... but simply asking a question, again, is not. UIS ^{Editor Review} 04:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Y Done - Mr. Krabs (Contributions) (Talk) 04:36, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Roy Williams edits

The 2001 Red River Shootout content was in the wrong academic year. I deleted them from the sophomore year section and put them in the junior year section. Why were they undone? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nusumareta (talk • contribs) 04:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Where are your sources? - Mr. Krabs (Contributions) (Talk) 04:45, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Claims of vandalism

Are you sure that this edit is vandalism? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 05:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Please slow down

Judging by some of the comments today, it looks like you are making several mistakes rather quickly. Please slow down. Remember, bad edits does not equal vandalism. An edit should only be called vandalism when you are certain that the editor intentionally harmed Wikipedia. Apparition^{11 Complaints}/Mistakes 05:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Gil Student is not an RS

Contrary to WP policy, you restored citations to a web site that is not a reliable source. Please discuss on talk:Yeshu. Leadwind (talk) 05:54, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Reason for edit of London Buses Route 122

The first two paragraphs are out of date to the point that a newer type of vehicle will be introduced soon. Also they seem more suited to a history of either the operating garage or vehicle type than actually the route history itself. If they were to be included they would need rewritting and would it not make better sense and easier reading to make it more chronological than the back and forth mess that it is.

Cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.85.178.193 (talk) 05:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Editing Talk Page

I just need clarification, why i cant edit my own talk page? I was removing all the Speedy Deletions that were put on my page when they werent warranted. They have been removed and my article is being taking care of as we speak. --ProcupPosse (talk) 18:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Y Reverted! - Mr. Krabs (Contributions) (Talk) 18:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Concerns

Hello again. Sorry to come back with more concerns, but I'm afraid that if you continue making some of the reverts that you have been, you may lose access to Twinkle and also hurt your chances of getting rollback in the near future. I glanced through a few of your reverts over the past couple of days, and I saw a few that concerned me.

• This revert to Never Ending Tour certainly didn't look like vandalism to me. In fact, the original edit looks correct. It removed a statement that the Roundhouse issued. This isn't the place for them to be releasing statements, and as such, I went back and removed it.
• I am curious as to why you made this revert to DADIU. The original author appeared to be finished editing it for the time being and removed the tag. I don't see why you would reinsert it unless you were planning on editing it, which doesn't appear to be the case.
• I saw a few "Reverted good-faith edits by..." without any additional explanation. Just like before, anytime you revert a good faith edit, you should explain why. The default edit summary is not sufficient because it doesn't explain anything.
• These two reverts [1] [2] to Gopal Khanna also concern me. The editor appears to be making a good-faith attempt to expand the article. It's fairly obvious that they aren't extremely familiar with how to edit here. They did add a comment that doesn't belong in article space, but the editor probably deserves a nice welcome and help instead of being called a vandal.
• I also noticed that you made a few vandalism reverts to the WP:SANDBOX and issued warnings. Since the template we use for warning vandals requests them to use the sandbox, it doesn't really make sense to revert it when they do what we ask. There are some times when it may be appropriate to revert in the sandbox, but usually just extreme cases like when someone starts posting someone's personal information or such.
• Not reverts, but I want to remind you something about speedy deletions. Articles do not have to establish notability to survive A7 speedy deletion, it just has to assert it. If the article is about a song made by a big name musician, then that asserts notability. Generally, if the article provides any third party sources, then it is very unlikely to be deleted. Also, unless the page is blatant vandalism, a copyvio, or attack page, you really should give the author some time before requesting speedy deletion. I saw a lot that you tagged within a few minutes of creation. You really should give at least 15 minutes to allow the author a few minutes to work on it. This is a large problem here with a lot of New Page Patrollers (I used to be guilty of it myself).

• Patrolling pages from the back of the unpatrolled page list is the best way to avoid this&'mdash;stuff that's 30 days old that hasn't been expanded is fair game. Bongomatic 23:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

• I've seen a fairly common trend in a lot of your mistakes. A lot of these were previously reverted by someone else. Remember, the other editor who reverted may well have made a mistake. This could also get you involved in edit wars that you probably don't need to get involved in (edit wars are bad, discussion is good). Always evaluate the edit for yourself instead of just trusting the other reverting editor. If you are unable to explain why you reverted, then you probably shouldn't. One of these situations appeared to happen yesterday on Ronnie Mitchell. I don't know if you realized it, but you were one revert away from violating the three revert rule, which could potentially get you blocked. The other editor appears to have been in violation of WP:SYN, but was discussing it on the talk page, while you weren't giving any explanation via edit summary nor talk page.

Please be careful when using Twinkle. It can be taken away if misused, and too much misuse will more than likely kill any chance of your next request for rollback being successful. Mistakes happen to the best of us, none of us are perfect, but I think that this may be a few too many mistakes for this short amount of time. Besides that, calling a new and inexperienced editor a vandal might well drive off a potentially great editor. Remember, just because an edit removes content (like the edits to Never Ending Tour), doesn't mean that it should be reverted. You really should read it to make sure that it's suitable for an encyclopedia. Also, bad edits are not vandalism (like the edits to Gopal Khanna). If they are trying to help, instead of outright reverting, it is often better to fix what they do wrong and explain why. Apparition^{11 Complaints}/Mistakes 21:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

That better (see contributions), or is there anything else you want me to self-revert? - Eugene Krabs (talk) 23:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

That's fine, I was mainly stating all of that for future reference. As Kww said at your last request for rollback, it seems that you often have trouble seeing the difference between vandalism and edits that you don't agree with. I really just want to help you see where he is coming from with that. I'm sorry if seems like I'm picking on you. That really isn't my intention; my only intention here is to try to help you as much as I can. I know that mistakes are inevitable. I just figure that it's better to be hearing it from me now instead of possibly an admin later :) I just want to help make sure that you don't go through the same problems that you had at the beginning of your WP career. Apparition^{11 Complaints}/Mistakes 00:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)