User talk:Amaury/2016/October

2016 Archive Index: January • February • March • April • May • June • July • August • September • October • November • December

Backstage (Canadian TV series)

Regarding this, my guess is that "LN" means "late night", referring to the change in timeslot from 8 PM to 11 PM. Also, for future reference, this is the URL to use to make Internet Archive save a copy:

https://web.archive.org/save/URL_HERE

You can save this as a bookmark and then just click it whenever you want to archive the current page:

javascript:void(open('https://web.archive.org/save/'+encodeURI(document.location)))

nyuszika7h (talk) 17:01, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

@Nyuszika7H: Cool. And on the subject of viewers, if you ever find a source for Canadian viewers, let me know. It would certainly be interesting to see how Backstage has done in Canada. Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:58, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

User talk:73.96.113.24

Not to sound hostile, but your attitude towards 73.96.113.24 seems a little uncalled for, especially warning them for editing unconstructively. Not sure if you've noticed, but the IP has been putting in a lot of good counter-vandalism work and contributing very constructively. Please remember that IPs are human, too. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 05:13, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

List of School of Rock episodes

Sorry to bother you about this again, but I think the exception about "without" should only be applied to the case at Stuck in the Middle, I see you also did it at List of School of Rock episodes. Like I already told you that part, it has some point for uniformity in that article, but in general I think we should follow the MOS. nyuszika7h (talk) 22:03, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

@Nyuszika7H: Eh. I'm of the firm believe that unless it's challenged by someone, I just leave whatever, even if it's "wrong," the way I inserted it, following Chicago's MOS, which says to not capitalize prepositions or other small words, like "or," regardless of length unless they're at the beginning or end of a title. They're not important words, and by capitalizing them, we're saying they are. I mean, it's not like it hurts anyone to have it "wrong." But  Done, I guess. c: Amaury (talk | contribs) 14:13, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Legends of the Hidden Temple (2016 film)

Hey, Amaury, could you add Legends of the Hidden Temple (2016 film) to your watchlist? It's getting closer to its premiere date, so the usual parade of IPs is hitting that article and adding unsourced casting and release date info. I'm not around as much, so it's be great if you could keep an eye on it... Thanks! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:52, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

@IJBall: You know it. Amaury (talk | contribs) 13:01, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

The Lodge (TV series)

Regarding this edit, I have a few things I'd like to point out. First, please don't arbitrarily change date formats to your preference especially when there are already tags in place. It's a British show, so it should use dmy. And access dates were all ISO originally, which is also valid per MOS:DATEFORMAT. Second, the recurring characters were cited to a secondary source so it was reasonable to include them, IMO. nyuszika7h (talk) 17:41, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Also, I think the source for the theme music composer could have stayed, though I suppose songwriters don't always need a citation since they can be found on many sites like Vevo and AllMusic. Regarding the publisher/via format in {{cite AV media}}, I originally used work/author but then I started using the other format after IJBall mentioned he has seen it used that way elsewhere. I don't really mind too much either way, but it would be worth clarifying. nyuszika7h (talk) 17:44, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Technically I guess as you say for other things, if the access date format change is not contested then it's not a problem, like the author format you have changed on a few articles, but I tend to be more careful than that. WP:TIES clearly applies here regarding the dmy dates, though. nyuszika7h (talk) 18:16, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

@Nyuszika7H: Sorry about the Canada part. I saw it said United Kingdom, so I don't know why I did that and it's why I changed some things, following how it was on Backstage. Also, while I do prefer those formats, my changes were unbiased and were based more on what's globally used around Wikipedia. In regard to access dates, ISO dates are really outdated and, from what I know, were only really used in the very early days of the printing press and our computer technology has obviously since improved that we don't need to use ISO format anymore. Plus, they're a bit confusing to read. Also, for the general date format, for what it's worth, there was at least one British article that used M/D/Y format. However, I do think that for the US stuff, we should use M/D/Y. My original plan was actually to leave the D/M/Y dates for British articles alone, but then that made things inconsistent. However, for an article like this, now that I think about it, I don't think having minor inconsistencies is a bad thing and we can make an exception. Amaury (talk | contribs) 18:50, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, if British show articles use mdy, they should be fixed, as that's WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. One annoying example of the WP:ENGVAR inconsistency is Orange (colour), which is the only color article to use "colour" instead of "color" as far as I know – there's no ties there, in that case the "first non-stub revision" rule applies. Though at least having dmy in UK show articles is more logical than that. ISO dates are not really outdated, though personally I don't really like seeing them in Wikipedia articles. And yeah, for US, use mdy as that's what the guideline calls for in that case. I don't know, since you're also changing the author format and all, if nobody cares you could make the access dates dmy. Just don't do it on IJBall's articles. ;) nyuszika7h (talk) 19:09, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

I swear the MOS said not to use "U.K.", but I can't find it now. Though it allows "US" now, if you want consistency. (Also, the ?aid= part in Zap2it URLs is redundant as someone else pointed out on another article earlier – it's not a very long query string so it doesn't matter much either way, but redundant query strings are generally better stripped.) nyuszika7h (talk) 19:29, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

@Nyuszika7H: I'll definitely take that over ISO. However, LOL! What did you think I meant with this? However, I do think that for the US stuff, we should use M/D/Y. My original plan was actually to leave the D/M/Y dates for British articles alone, but then that made things inconsistent. However, for an article like this, now that I think about it, I don't think having minor inconsistencies is a bad thing and we can make an exception. Basically, it doesn't seem to make sense to use D/M/Y format for dates relating to either a source on a US site, though I did for the Zap2it sources since they related to the UK airings, or the dates of the airings in the US. Sometimes I wish I were the head honcho of Wikipedia as I would throw out silly guidelines that say we shouldn't mix date formats, LOL! Particularly with shows that originate somewhere else, we should use the origin's date format, for example (if it's different to begin with, that is), when it's in regard to stuff over there, but the US format when it's in regard to stuff in the US. A good example is the air dates. Amaury (talk | contribs) 21:16, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, I don't know, but I think it's more important to be consistent within an article. People from the US will still understand this date format, after all we're not using ambiguous numeric m/d/y or d/m/y formats. (Though obviously you wouldn't call Pearl Harbor "Pearl Harbour" in an article with UK ties, nobody asks for that.) Also, I just realized the source says the characters are supporting, not recurring, so I guess we should wait for more episodes to air. nyuszika7h (talk) 14:19, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

It's just the edit summary so not a big deal, but it's "#Winning" and not "Winning!". :P And I literally just checked for the ratings a few hours ago and they weren't there yet. nyuszika7h (talk) 20:19, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

@Nyuszika7H: For reference:

Showing	Posted By
Monday–Thursday	Around 1:00 PM (PT) the Next Day
Friday	Around 1:00 PM (PT) on Monday
Saturday–Sunday	Around 6:15 AM (PT) Tuesday

Amaury (talk | contribs) 20:32, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Outdent

Just thought I'd let you know (primarily because incorrect outdents bug me! :P) that {{od}} can take an optional parameter, e.g. {{od|3}} or {{od|:::}}. And generally it's only used when you are actually replying to the indented comment, rather than adding an unrelated top-level comment. In the latter case, just leave an empty line before the last comment. nyuszika7h (talk) 08:50, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Theme song performers

Also pinging Geraldo Perez, MPFitz1968, IJBall about this.

I opened an RM discussion for {{Based on}} then I realized that we usually use "Song Name" performed by Artist(s) for the theme song on television series articles. For |based_on= it generally means the writer, but I was wondering whether the "performed" part is really necessary, as it should be obvious in most cases that we mean the performer, and in an ideal case the composers are also listed in the separate parameter for that. It could also save some space to remove the "performed" part. nyuszika7h (talk) 15:43, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Legends of the Hidden Temple (film)

I didn't realize. You don't hate me for that, do you? Alec Borden (talk) 22:05, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

@Alec Borden: Yes... I totally hate you for not realizing that... Amaury (talk | contribs) 23:14, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

User Orchomen

Related discussion: User Orchomen from September 2016

Extensive Discussion

Keep me in the loop of what you plan to do about this. I don't think WP:SPI is worth pursuing unless and until we can figure out who this might be a sockpuppet of. You can try WP:ANI, but from all of our experience most ANI reports like this one will go unresolved... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:02, 16 October 2016 (UTC) @IJBall: Certainly. I did report them to ANI, so we'll see how that goes. Feel free to go more in depth if you have anything. I'll contact Nyuszika as well since it also seems he's a target. Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:10, 16 October 2016 (UTC) I've added the interaction reports to your ANI filing. I'm hoping that will push an Admin to do something, as the interaction reports are pretty clear about this. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:22, 16 October 2016 (UTC) @IJBall: Indeed. That's a pretty cool feature, and it clearly shows we all edited first. The only exceptions appear to be Gracie Dzienny, Laurie Frontier, and How to Build a Better Boy, where Orchomen edited it first between me and him, but you were first on those three between you and him (and Nyuszika was first on Laurie Frontier between him and Orchomen), and I was just helping you out. Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:28, 16 October 2016 (UTC) Yeah, Laurie Fortier is one of the ones I created. His interest in Barbarians Rising, which I also created, has been high... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:29, 16 October 2016 (UTC) @IJBall: Yup, pretty clear they're stalking, and the reports back us up on that, so hopefully something is done. Now, in the meantime, excuse me while I go and get rid of the ISO access dates on The Lodge. Just kidding! But hopefully that cheers you up! Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:33, 16 October 2016 (UTC) @IJBall: Another administrator is looking into it over on WP:AIAV! Hopefully something good comes out of it! :) Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:41, 16 October 2016 (UTC) They are continuing to edit war. Should we create a subsection for a block proposal or report them to AN/EW? Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 20:41, 16 October 2016 (UTC) @Callmemirela: I'm fine with whatever you think is best. :) This is getting old, and they just need to be blocked indefinitely. Amaury (talk | contribs) 20:43, 16 October 2016 (UTC) I'm actually watching this on the sidelines, and this is getting absolutely ridiculous. Agreed they should be indef blocked. MPFitz1968 (talk) 20:44, 16 October 2016 (UTC) +1. Obvious trolling is obvious. This editor (and I think Amaury and I strongly suspect a long-term socker operating here – we just don't know which one) couches their editing in "constructive editing" but is effectively trolling, and has no intention of editing collaboratively. An indef is in order here; certainly more than a quick 31 hour block is called for. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:53, 16 October 2016 (UTC) Thank you MPFitz for reporting them to AN3. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 20:56, 16 October 2016 (UTC) I've just requested full protection of The Thundermans. MPFitz1968 (talk) 21:00, 16 October 2016 (UTC) Well, a 48-hour block is better than nothing. At least gives us time to get them indefinitely blocked. Amaury (talk | contribs) 21:00, 16 October 2016 (UTC) I'll agree a two-day block over none any day. We can take a breather and aim for the indef block. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 21:02, 16 October 2016 (UTC) @MPFitz1968: Now that they've been blocked—temporarily, for now—I'm wondering if the protection request is really needed anymore. Amaury (talk | contribs) 21:09, 16 October 2016 (UTC) (edit conflict) Just commented over there that they have been blocked and the protection will not be needed, at least right now (barring some kind of block evasion/sockpuppetry). MPFitz1968 (talk) 21:12, 16 October 2016 (UTC) @MPFitz1968: Yup, saw it after I made the comment. Good deal. Amaury (talk | contribs) 21:13, 16 October 2016 (UTC) Was trying to follow along regarding this user, even going thru the various discussions pertaining to what they've done. I obviously couldn't tell from their edits, including at Invisible Sister, which when I went thru that (when they first made the edit), I'll admit they did a good job at making some good-faith fixes to the plot (even lowered the word count by 6, and I'm still trying to trim that plot - still well over 800 words). But the talk about sockpuppetry and stalking has me concerned about this one. MPFitz1968 (talk) 21:19, 16 October 2016 (UTC) @MPFitz1968: Well, Michael, as you predicted, they are evading their block as an IP. All good faith has now been thrown out the window. And yes, as IJBall pointed out, and it hurts to say this, about one percent of their edits—I'm being kind—are slightly constructive. Everything else is just a mix of trolling, stalking, and harassment. I would say don't trust their edits and just work on the plot at Invisible Sister, for example, yourself, which you're already doing. Amaury (talk | contribs) 21:26, 16 October 2016 (UTC) Yup, they're definitely stalking me now. They just reverted me on Gamer's Guide to Pretty Much Everything, and nothing over there has to do with what's going on. List of Nicky, Ricky, Dicky & Dawn episodes is also another one. Amaury (talk | contribs) 21:57, 16 October 2016 (UTC) I definitely saw that, just has their hand on that "undo" trigger. MPFitz1968 (talk) 22:03, 16 October 2016 (UTC) Ditto. I am following Amaury's edits to help them with the sockpuppets. Amaury, I suggest that you pile up a list of sockpuppets associated to Ocherman and add it to the ANI report. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 22:17, 16 October 2016 (UTC) @Callmemirela: Thank you. It's appreciated. I'm waiting a little while to see if any more pop up, but now that Forever in Your Mind, Gamer's Guide to Pretty Much Everything, and How to Build a Better Boy have been protected, I'm hoping it will die down. Amaury (talk | contribs) 22:21, 16 October 2016 (UTC) @Callmemirela: Report has been updated. You and the others are more than free to add IPs to that list yourselves. Amaury (talk | contribs) 22:38, 16 October 2016 (UTC) Orchomen has been indefinitely blocked. While evading IPs may still pop up, I think we pretty much won the battle. IJBall, you can finally take a breather. MPFitz1968, Callmemirela, thanks for the help! Amaury (talk | contribs) 01:01, 17 October 2016 (UTC) You're welcome. I'm glad I joined the fun! ;) Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 01:08, 17 October 2016 (UTC) No problem, Amaury. :) MPFitz1968 (talk) 01:15, 17 October 2016 (UTC) Actually, his IP hoppers went after my most recent edits (while I was away from the computer). Luckily Sro23 was on the case! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:14, 17 October 2016 (UTC) @IJBall: Eh. Yup. I just had to request protection on multiple articles. They're bound to run out of steam at some point, especially once all the articles they're stalking are protected. Obviously, they can't take the hint that we don't want them here. Amaury (talk | contribs) 04:17, 17 October 2016 (UTC) Uh oh – we probably need to keep an eye on Special:Contributions/Tttttttttfffffffffffffffff: looks like it could be Orchomen trying to get around WP:AUTOCONFIRMED (in a few days). The good news is that if he tries that, we can file a bona fide WP:SPI report this time, which many be useful long-term... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:57, 17 October 2016 (UTC) Wow! That was fast!! (If this Orchomen, he's gone completely nuts!) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:58, 17 October 2016 (UTC) @IJBall: Obviously has nothing better to do. Amaury (talk | contribs) 05:00, 17 October 2016 (UTC) Looks like it's my turn to be stalked, Special:Contributions/176.204.85.11. If the pattern follows of the previous IPs being from United Arab Emirates, it's Ocheroman socking again. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 06:03, 17 October 2016 (UTC) @Callmemirela: There seems to be some consistency with the IPs. Some begin with 31, some begin with 176, and such. It seems like a range block would be possible, but at the same time, it's different IPs, which is why I think Rob Dennis didn't think a range block would work over on WP:ANI. Amaury (talk | contribs) 06:06, 17 October 2016 (UTC) It's sad that the sock master has nothing to do but glue his mouse on the undo button. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 06:09, 17 October 2016 (UTC) Just an FYI, I have added your talk page on my watchlist and will follow your edits until the sockpuppetry subsides to help you out. I hope you don't mind. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 06:12, 17 October 2016 (UTC) @Callmemirela: Not at all. The more the merrier. Amaury (talk | contribs) 06:13, 17 October 2016 (UTC) They've got me playing their game, too. Well, I can play games, LOL! [1] MPFitz1968 (talk) 07:01, 17 October 2016 (UTC) @Geraldo Perez: Want to join the party? Amaury (talk | contribs) 07:02, 17 October 2016 (UTC)  Comment: I have reverted an unexplained blanking of the user talk page. MPD (Talk to me!) I love how they admitted to doing sockpuppetry, but the "I will stop" sounds like a bunch of malarkey to me. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 14:04, 18 October 2016 (UTC) @Callmemirela: Agreed. I believe and will believe nothing that comes out of their mouth. Amaury (talk | contribs) 14:07, 18 October 2016 (UTC) No doubt they are using the user contributions log to revert us. Here are diffs from two articles that I'm thinking are not on your watchlist, Amaury - has to do with the Billboard Hot 100 chart (U.S. pop music), which I follow and edit when new info comes out. [2][3] (Interesting that they then reverted themselves, but they still got blocked for evasion.) I'm still for the idea of a way to deny access to one's contribution list if something like this is going to happen. MPFitz1968 (talk) 15:37, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Jamesmiko reported by User:Walter Görlitz (Result: Warning, Protection) at WP:AN/EW

Amaury, could you explain why I'm the only one who received a warning? Walter Görlitz is just as guilty for his reverts. I just wish admins could talk like adults instead of threatening people all the time. Every other sports team has actual team colors, and NBA teams even have their own protected infoboxes. Why is Atlanta United FC an exception, because one guy? If you were consistent, then make every sports team follow WP:CONTRAST Jamesmiko (talk) 23:04, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

With appolgies to Amaury: @Jamesmiko: I am actually not as guilty because A) I was following MOS:CONTRAST and B) I made three reverts while you were well over. If you inform me of other teams that are not obeying CONTRAST, I'll open a discussion there, however, when an editor wilfully edits away from a better colour scheme, it should be reverted immediately, which is what I did on your team's page. If you want to continue this discussion I respectfully ask that you do so on your own talk page, not on another editor's. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:41, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: I don't care what excuse you make, you're not an admin, but an editor like me. If you violate the rules, you're just another violator. You're a hypocrite when you claim to follow the rules, but break them in your zeal. Jamesmiko (talk) 22:33, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

With further appolgies to Amaury: @Jamesmiko:. I'm glad you don't care that I'm not an admin. They're not excuses though. While I am editor, I'm not like you. I work toward consensus. I try to understand other editors instead of telling them how wrong they are. I explain the rules (and I've created several). So let's carry out this discussion on your talk page going forward and leave Amaury alone. I will reply there if you continue to abuse this editor's space. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:22, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Okay, enough, please see WP:3RR for exceptions. Okay? Now, @Jamesmiko: act with some maturity would you? Saying things like "I don't care what excuse you make" aren't the most WP:Civil things to say. ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 07:23, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Crash, for Walter to threaten me also violates WP:Civility, as does your attack against my apparent immaturity. From what I see, most admins don't carry out their privileges without bias, and merely use them to push editors around. If I am immature for pointing out cronyism and unfair admin practices, then so be it. If I really did anything wrong, you would ban me. You have a lot of words, but no rule to back you. Jamesmiko (talk) 11:15, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

@Jamesmiko: sorry, but you lost any semblance of credibility in your argument, with me at least, when you started talking about "cronyism". Almost everyone that gets a warning whines about admins being unfair. Also, I wasn't attacking you, I was merely pointing out that your statement, that I quoted wasn't in keeping with Civility. But like I said, everyone that gets into trouble, complains about admins being unfair, that's nothing knew. Everyone at some point feels they've been treated unfairly, but guess what, life's not fair. Admin's aren't perfect, they're only human. ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 11:58, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Crash, that your best answer, that life is unfair? So you admit that you're not being fair. Perhaps, all those users you ban have a point? You ever think of that? The reason I said that was because you and the other admins fail to warn User:Walter Görlitz for his edit-warring and insults, but join in on it. Jamesmiko (talk) 12:00, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Crash, this was an insult directed at me before User:Walter Görlitz deleted it: "It's not that I don't approve of your edits, it's that you're editing like a tyrant who assumes that he is right and everyone else is out to get him. You may think I have a log in my eye and I'm missing the speck in yours, but you actually have a forest in your eyes, and probably your head. In the future, act like an adult and stop thinking we're bullying you just because we tell you something you don't want to hear." Jamesmiko (talk) 12:06, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

@Jamesmiko: what are you blathering about? I'm not an admin! I don't block people chuckles. He's "deleted" edit supposed to mean anything to me? You are assuimng "that he is right and everyone else is out to get" you. Yes, he could've said it in a more civil tone (if he said it at all, you provided no diff as proof), but he's not entirely wrong. You assume there's a vendetta against you when you're told something you don't want to here, as evidenced by your behavior towards me. Admittedly, as I said before, that's not an uncommon reaction when someone gets a warning, they whine and complain that an admin's being unfair. ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 12:52, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Amaury, of course, you're entitled to your opinion. However, what I have seen from you and some some admins are excuses why they don't uphold the same policies on all pages. For example, you said above, "Everyone at some point feels they've been treated unfairly, but guess what, life's not fair. Admin's aren't perfect, they're only human." This is an excuse. I expect admins to enforce the standards with as much fairness as they can offer, not make excuses about how life is unfair. Yes, I see that you're not an admin, but forgive me for the confusion since you involve yourself with an authoritative manner. Jamesmiko (talk) 20:54, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

@Jamesmiko: You and the others are more than welcome to discuss the matter here, but please don't get upset with me. I'm not even involved in this. Amaury (talk | contribs) 21:06, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

@Jamesmiko: again, you screwed up. Amaury didn't say: "veryone at some point feels they've been treated unfairly, but guess what, life's not fair. Admin's aren't perfect, they're only human." I did. Please look at the person who said something before you comment and say that someone else said it. And I involved myself when I saw you jump onto an admin that I have worked with in the past. If you have a problem with an admin, take it up with that admin, not some random admin and complain. How is Amaury supposed to control he behavior of other admins? Seriously, how? ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 23:16, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Huggle

Hey, Amaury, how do you like Huggle? I don't have Rollback, so I've never tried Huggle, but I have been tempted on occasion to request Rollback just to try out Huggle... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:07, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

@IJBall: Are you stalking me? ;) I've always wondered why you always use undo. Guess you don't currently use Twinkle, either, then. I've actually used Huggle before, which explains those pretty high edit counts on my user page, but I took a break from it when I started focusing more on working on TV series articles. I prefer the legacy version, which can be downloaded, but it doesn't seem to work anymore. The new version, though, isn't that bad, and I've gotten used to it. Amaury (talk | contribs) 15:26, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Always! And, yeah – according to the "real" rules for Rollback, you're only supposed to use it for "clear (bad-faith) vandalism", so in my own editing I don't necessarily use Twinkle to revert if I just think it's a "bad edit" (or a series of "bad edits") rather than "malicious edit(s)", I'll just use Undo... As for Huggle, what are its pluses and minuses? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:30, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

@IJBall: The only thing that comes to mind right now is that it makes it easy to deal with vandals or otherwise disruptive editors, but a little bit more easy to make mistakes because it's an automated tool, but as long as you're careful or are quick to fix your mistakes, there really shouldn't be any problems. Huggle doesn't only have vandalism removal, you can also select why you're reverting with a dropdown menu, such as failing to provide a reliable source. You can see others' feedback for the tool here. Amaury (talk | contribs) 15:38, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

@IJBall: Well, Twinkle has three different rollback methods – AGF, normal and vandalism. Twinkle doesn't even need the rollback permission to use. The main point is you should leave an edit summary if not reverting obvious vandalism (and Twinkle asks you to specify one by default unless you choose the "vandal" one). nyuszika7h (talk) 16:26, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, of course. And I use the AGF "rollback" on Twinkle quite often, as that is very useful in certain circumstances. But in those cases in which I'm not sure if edit(s) are just "incompetent" vs. "malevolent", I'll often just do a standard Undo/revert rather than use Twinkle. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:29, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Class (2016 TV series)

WTF Mate??? You can't warn me for politely contributing to article talk page discussion??? 69.50.70.9 (talk) 00:52, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

While the IP editor and I may be disagreeing on article content, I have to agree with them - please explain how their post on the talk page, which was the beginning of a discussion, was in any form disruptive. Alex|The|Whovian^? 00:58, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

@AlexTheWhovian: Nothing more than a mistake. Amaury (talk | contribs) 01:01, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks mate! 69.50.70.9 (talk) 01:09, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Haloquadratum

You should look at edits before you revert them 66.61.85.149 (talk) 01:05, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

We do. That's when we decide to revert. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 05:47, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Jessica Drake

I mistakenly thanked you for your edit to the Jessica Drake article. I thought you had removed the "False" title, rather than initiating it. You're an experienced Wikipedia editor and I presume you know that your edit was not appropriate as it was purely POV. Activist (talk) 15:49, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I tried to take the "False" out of the title as they are allegations yet to be proven true or false. [4] i hope you take this into account, bias at this time is not needed Jekyill (talk) 15:51, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

@Activist: Sorry about that. I misunderstood the article history and thought it was you who added that to the header. Please consider all my reverts to the page null and void. Amaury (talk | contribs) 15:53, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

No problem for me. Thanks much. The sections of the article, the lede, allegations and career all look pretty good now. Activist (talk) 00:12, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Damien Walter

User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#WP:BLP_violations_at_Damien_Walter - Govindaharihari (talk) 19:25, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

@Govindaharihari: I saw. I got the alert. I have no reason to participate in the discussion, though. Amaury (talk | contribs) 19:26, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Ok, so tell me here, why did you replace the disputed wp:blp violating content after it had been repeatedly removed with libel claims? Govindaharihari (talk) 19:31, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

@Govindaharihari: I already answered that above. Amaury (talk | contribs) 19:37, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

No you did not, you just refused to respond - Look at this edit of yours, [5] a content addition of a removal by an account with the subjects name (Request to delete page.)where he stated, delete | [Page created maliciously] , you make no explanation at all for your addition of the repeatedly disputed and removed on policy violating and accusation libel grounds? Govindaharihari (talk) 19:39, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

@Govindaharihari: Right here: @Activist: Sorry about that. I misunderstood the article history and thought it was you who added that to the header. Please consider all my reverts to the page null and void. If you can't be bothered to look where I pointed you to look, then don't make such ridiculous accusations. Amaury (talk | contribs) 19:43, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

You seem to not realising, this chat thread is about the BLP and the thread on Jimmy Wales page about your content addition to Damien_Walter Govindaharihari (talk) 19:48, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

List of WWE Intercontinental Champions

Hey buddy I'm not Vandalizing I'm adding extra information to the text If you don't like it, tough — Preceding unsigned comment added by CoreyP (talk • contribs) 18:05, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

@CoreyP: Can't just arbitrarily insert unsourced content like that. Amaury (talk | contribs) 19:27, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

It not fake it legit because it part of WWE history and there's archive footage that mention that they're holding an addition championship(s) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CoreyP (talk • contribs) 23:24, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

IP 103.215.52.89

• 103.215.52.89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

The edits from this IP, which you reported at WP:AIV, do not appear to be vandalism. In particular, it's appropriate to include native names of cities in the lead or infobox as per WP:ENGLISH. Please be careful to use rollback only when reverting obvious vandalism. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 22:18, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

+1 Yes, Amaury please take more time and AGF when "huggle"ing fellow contributors![6][7] Those "Nothing more than a mistake"s are pretty frequent here when briefly reading your talkpage and are producing more work and discontent for others. --SI 23:31, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

BU Rob13, Schmarrnintelligenz: Noted, thanks. For what it's worth, I started using Huggle again yesterday. Considering I've probably made at least 300 reverts by now, having only two or three messages regarding my reverts is not that bad. We're only human after all. In your case, SI, it was a simple misclick which I quickly rectified, which I don't really count. Amaury (talk | contribs) 01:37, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Voyager 2

I am slightly confused here. I made that edit because the claim given (that DTR operation ceased due to a failure on the PWS High Waveform Receiver) was not in the link given, nor was it actually linked from that page - it actually appears on exactly two places on NASA's website, one of which was the reference I changed it to (that coincidentally is also linked to at the top of that table, but in a completely different context), and the other is an SFOS PDF. So I'm somewhat confused what's "not constructive" about this edit. Mind clarifying? BOfH (talk) 13:34, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I shouldn't have to explain what was wrong with your edit. If you can't see it, then that's on you. Amaury (talk | contribs) 13:44, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

So this started out as a small rant and then I went back and checked what I actually made and, uh, I sincerely apologise for Cloud2Butt making useless edits. I only intended to fix the link and UVS. Is the current edit fine? I triple-checked it to make sure what happened the first time wouldn't happen again. BOfH (talk) 02:20, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

List of The Thundermans episodes

I added episode summaries for the last few episodes of the Thundermans (List of The Thundermans episodes]]) but you removed them as violating copyright. Can you show me where that's a violation? I'm 100% sure I used my own original summary of the episode based on the actual episodes and didn't copy-paste them from any other site. As far as I know, writing a summary of an episode is not a violation of copyright. I also know that episode summaries don't require citations especially if it's an aired episode that can be written based on the actual content. If the summaries I wrote are copyrighted, please provide evidence e.g by showing me the sites why I copy-pasted or the guideline that makes it illegal to add episode summaries. If that were the case, there would be no summaries on any episodes or any shows. Just because you have some authority doesn't mean you should interfere with page content based on your likes and dislikes. Aviva Heckman (talk) 18:20, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

@Amaury: I'm kind of curious about what source you were looking at to identify Aviva's edits as COPYVIOs. I did look at Zap2it's descriptions (one of the column refs under air date) and those edits didn't look copy-pasted, and were reasonably different from what was in Zap2it. Having said that, Aviva Heckman, I did see your summaries, and usually these summaries should be longer in length (100-200 words is what WP:TVPLOT recommends) but when they are significantly below the minimum threshold, there is always the suspicion that they will come from somewhere else since summaries provided to us from reliable sources before an episode airs (which I've heard it be referred to as "teasers") will not be more than 40 or 50 words. MPFitz1968 (talk) 18:33, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

@MPFitz1968: Thank you. Also thank you for clarifying about the length. I agree I used short summaries - but I would have expected it to be at least marked as "needs improvement" or "too short" instead of being flagged as copyright violation. Also, looking at most of the Thundermans episodes, there's very little in summaries because of people like this who are constantly removing legit content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aviva Heckman (talk • contribs) 18:44, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Frank Rizzo

I think you may be right - I must have been thinking of a different Frank Rizzo. Sorry about that, bottle nose! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.192.97 (talk) 19:10, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Boy Meets World

A disruptive editor User:Devereux Phoenixx is inserting a person into the main cast of the article who I doubt was ever in Boy Meets World. (Unreliable IMDb doesn't even list this name anywhere in their cast listing of the show, so odds are she wasn't.) I've now reverted them twice, saying that the person is not in the main cast, but they continue to add back the info. On top of that, the user created an article about this person, which has been BLPPRODed because there are no sources included. If you or IJBall or Geraldo Perez or Nyuszika7H could also keep an eye on the article like I am, I'd appreciate it. Thanks. MPFitz1968 (talk) 21:26, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

@MPFitz1968: There has been a disruptive (socker?) doing this on a number of articles lately (I think starting as an IP). For example, there was somebody who kept adding Miranda Cosgrove to the cast list at the How to Build a Better Boy article. I suspect this is the same editor. I believe Geraldo Perez has also run across this vandal... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:35, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

@MPFitz1968: I have CSD tagged Brooke Ramirez as WP:G3 – that is a blatant hoax IMO. Nothing about it checks out. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:43, 26 October 2016 (UTC)