User talk:Amaury/2009/September

2009 Archive Index: January • February • March • April • May • June • July • August • September • October • November • December

User CDrive655

Hi there.  :) If you ever see edits on juvenile-themed films like the ones that "CD Drive" character tried to perpetuate, it's likely this idiot right here. He's a hard-banned user on a dynamic IP and one of the biggest pains I've ever dealt with in nearly seven years of off-and-on editing. The latest sock is permanently blocked. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

If I ever see any edits from that person, I'll be sure to revert them. - Amaury (talk) 01:05, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Need all the help we can get regarding this guy. I can't think of any single vandal who has sucked up so much valuable volunteer time as he. He's pretty easy to spot now that you know what to look for. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

User Marwa83

Hi, yeah I actually forgot to explain that in the Edit Summary... the User is a colleague of mine, we're translating this content into Arabic Language, and they put this content in their User Page following Instructions I wrote in my home wiki because they're new to wikipedia,, and I have put the content I removed in here, because that's the pleace where they were meant to be at.. and I have emailed them with these changes.. I'll revert it back to my edit, Please Leave it, The User Knows of it.. Sorry for the misunderstanding.. Koraiem (talk) 02:28, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

User Pungimaster

Now where socks. Hey, nice new name, I never realized that. Abce2|From the top!Arg! 05:50, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. They are annoying. And thanks. - Amaury (talk) 05:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting vandalism on User:Killervogel5

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For thwarting IP vandalism upon my userspace. Cheers! KV5 (Talk • Phils) 03:13, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring on Wikipedia:Files for upload

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

You have been temporarily blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I have disabled your access to the rollback tool. This was a blatantly inappropriate way to use it. Note that there are no exceptions to WP:3RR (even if you think you are right, which I think in this instance is not necessarily the case). You are free to reapply for it at later date when you have reread the appropriate guidelines for its usage. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Not wishing to pile on here, but could you also read WP:BLANKING. As Abce2 says below, editors are perfectly entitled to remove comments and warnings from their talk pages, and they should not be restored. Regards, — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll post another reply regarding this later today. It's 3:15 AM, and I'm tired. - Amaury (talk) 10:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, sounds like you need sleep :) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant to reply earlier a little after I woke up around 8:00 AM. Anyway, I was reverting the IP address because it appeared to me that it was vandalizing pages, which might be true or partly true, but looking at the history of Category:X1, it looks like they were also being reverted by another user; that's when I stepped in and figured that if they were vandalizing that page, then most likely their other edits were vandalism, but I could be very well wrong. And yes, I understand that users and/or IP addresses have the right to remove warnings and such from their talk pages, which indicates that they have read it, but to me it looked like they were trying to hide their warnings so they wouldn't get in trouble (this happened a while ago with another user/IP address, and it turned out to be true), and they weren't just removing them, they were using "Undo" to revert them. So there's the story. Whether you believe me or not is up to you. If you need any other details and such, let me know. Oh, and I'm not even going to bother putting up an unblock template. It's only 24 hours, and I've gotten blocked before, as you can see, but as you also can see, I have improved tremendously since February. - Amaury (talk) 18:15, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Just got your email. I did watchlist this page, but somehow it slipped through. A few points:

• Anti-vandalism work here is much needed and appreciated. Thanks for all your work.
• 3RR should not be broken. In this case I would not describe the edits as "obvious vandalism" so even the exception listed on WP:3RR does not apply.
• Warnings and comments on user talk pages should not be restored for any reason. It doesn't matter if you think they are trying to hide them. Yes, it makes it a little more difficult for other editors because they have to look through the history, but that's the situation we're in.
• Why didn't you post a request on WP:AIV after the level-4 warning? You will normally get a quick response from admins there.
• I was careful to warn you about 3RR rule before blocking you. Why did you not stop then? You continued to revert at least twice after I posted the warning, which I can't understand.
• If you could go back to using the undo button for a couple of weeks I will be happy to consider reapplying rollback, assuming that all is well.

— Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't notice your warning until after those two edits. And sure, I would be willing to. I have Twinkle. Would it be okay to use that? - Amaury (talk) 21:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't want to take any more of your privileges away and I want to believe that you'll learn from this. So go ahead, but I'll keep an eye on your edits for a few days. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's two days away from it being a couple weeks, but how's it look for me? - Amaury (talk) 15:29, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

User talk:75.47.135.49

IPs are allowed to delete messages from their talk page.Abce2|TalkSign 09:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

And they can edit sandboxes. But they can't fail an image.Abce2|TalkSign 09:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Response to your email

"Don't argue for other people's weaknesses. Don't argue for your own. When you make a mistake, admit it, correct it, and learn from it / immediately." -Stephen Covey

Hello. Sorry I missed your email before. You made a mistake, it happens. What's done is done. The important thing now is that you learn for it. In this case, I hope you learn that you should never just "step in" when you see an editor being reverted. I had noticed that this had been an on-going mistake that you make, even commenting on it in one of our old review sessions (next to last block of text). I'd also noticed that in most, if not all, of your latest mistakes, another editor had previously reverted and warned the editor.

Remember, everyone makes mistakes. If someone else makes a mistake and you revert based on the original revert, then you are also making a mistake. When this happens, instead of helping, you are just compounding the mistake. Always use your own judgment. If you ever have to think whether or not an edit should be rolled back, then it shouldn't be. If you have to think, then, if you revert, an explanation can and should be given. If the edit does not fit the intentionally strict definition of WP:VANDALISM, then you are in a content dispute. Again, mistakes happen. Just learn from this mistake and become a better editor for it. Also remember, when you get sleepy, go to bed ;) When using Huggle, it's very easy for a small mistake to become a huge one. Apparition^{11 Complaints}/Mistakes 02:39, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Words of (unsolicited) advice

I see that you got rollback yanked, which is a shame, because even though I've criticized you a few times, I think you mean well. My suggestion is that you stop using the Huggles, Twinkles, and rollbacks. Look at [1] and notice how high my percentage of reversions is, but that I rarely hit the "rollback" button, and never use automated tools. I take the time to read every edit I revert, and understand what it is I'm doing to the article. It takes a little longer, and things don't seem to go as fast, but I don't make as many mistakes that way, I don't get blocked, and, if I get resistance, I'm able to explain why I reverted and recruit help. In the long run things go more smoothly and quickly. The main time I use rollback is for the truly, truly, obvious, like adding obscenities to articles. —Kww(talk) 12:09, 9 September 2009 (UTC)