User talk:Amaury/2010/February

2010 Archive Index: January • February •  March •  April •  May •  June •  July •  August •  September •  October •  December

Thanks for reverting disruption on User talk:NeilN
For reverting that unhelpful comment on my talk page. -- Neil N   talk to me  21:29, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You're very welcome. - Amaury (talk) 21:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Learn from your mistakes
As I tried to explain to you the last time, if this were an isolated incident it would not be a big deal. This is a long term pattern of yours, and if you won't take it seriously you are going to keep getting these types of messages, and will probably wind up going through the unpleasantness of WP:RFC/U. You need to try and learn from your errors and not repeat them again and again. Every time someone tries to explain this stuff to you you act like it's the first time it's ever come up and the other user is being overly rude or aggressive. You may want to consider the possibility that it is you, and not everybody else, who has a problem. I would again suggest to you that you consider the adopt a user program. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:32, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Why do you think I request reviews from Apparition? I request them so I can learn from the mistakes I've made and improve. I politely ask that you leave me alone. I will consider any other things from you harassment. - Amaury (talk) 21:34, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess that you do have the right to request that Beeblebrox leave your talk page, but I've never seen him say or do anything towards you that was out of line. You do have a long history of bad reverts, and you did rollback an editor who was trying to add to an article and eventually made an erroneous report to AIV. Honestly, not only is that not blatant vandalism, it is blatantly constructive. Beeblebrox never threatened you or anything, but did correctly point out that you could be blocked for edit warring. Everything that I've seen him say here is true. I know that when someone is criticizing you, it is easy to take it more harshly than it really is. From a somewhat outside view, his comments and tone are perfectly fine. They may be a little stern, but when commenting on a long-term issue, sternness may be necessary. Instead of dismissing Beeblebrox's comments and (seemingly) believing that he has something against you personally, I would implore you to take his advice, admit that you screwed up, and just don't let it happen again.


 * You seem to have a tendency to think that some people who don't agree with you have something against you. Remember, that most users are simply trying to do what they believe is best for the project. I really do believe that you have made good strides in improving your anti-vandalism work, but, as in this case, you do still make some bad mistakes. When someone criticizes an edit of yours, listen to them, if you don't believe that it was a mistake, then explain your thoughts, but, if it was a mistake, own up and correct the problem. Remember, my first message to you came in the form of a template . If you listen and learn from others' criticisms and comments, they could end up helping you as much, or more, than I have. Apparition11  Complaints / Mistakes  23:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the comment. If you'll take a look at this and this, you'll see I wasn't the only one reverting their edits, so I don't think it's fair that I should be the only one warned. Also, this is where his comments could be considered a personal attack, especially the summary he used. - Amaury (talk) 03:15, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You're right in that you weren't the only person who messed up there, but you did mess up there and have a history of this sort of thing. If this were an isolated incident, then this wouldn't be such a big deal, but it really is part of a larger pattern. If the other editors had a history of this sort of thing, then they'd likely be getting these messages, too. If I went in and made some erroneous WP:MOS edit, then most likely, I would most likely get an explanation in an edit summary. If I did it again, I'd likely get a comment on my talk page. If I continued doing it, then it would build up into warnings and possibly sanctions. I'm afraid, that's the point we are at now.


 * While Beeblebrox's comment there probably could've been worded differently, the fact is that you really do have a history with bad reverts. The comment really was true and there wasn't really a personal attack. Some of your behavior as of late looks to be pushing on some people's patience. Take a look at User talk:Apparition11 to see that there is concern from more than one admin with this. You've now "banned" two people from your talk page in the past couple of weeks and have been extremely uncivil in several of your edit summaries and comments over the past month or so. Seriously, if you don't display that you understand other people's criticisms and will strive to correct problematic behaviors quickly, I'm afraid that it won't be long before another WP:ANI or an WP:RfC/U opens up and sanctions are made. The way it looks, it seems that you've started thinking that everyone who disagrees with you or your actions are against you. This may not be the truth, but it is the way it looks when going over your edits. You have to realize that nobody is here just to piss you off or get on your nerves. Apparition11  Complaints / Mistakes  08:50, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

List of surface-to-air missiles
The article should be renamed as it only shows MANPADS, not SAMs. Virtually all long range SAM systems as well as non-portable systems are missing. At best, it should have a "stub" template put in. 99.236.221.124 (talk) 05:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * There you go. I've undone my edits to both the article and your talk page. - Amaury (talk) 05:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You are made of smooth and amazing. Wanna help me beef up the article in question with some more info? 99.236.221.124 (talk) 10:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

There is no US-Mexico border wall; in fact, serious talk about such a border has never begun in Congress. It is an unconstructive edit at the very least. Boomshadow talk contribs 16:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, understandable. - Amaury (talk) 16:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

User 明朝
You might want to look at this: Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Yongle the Great. After many attempts to get Yongle the Great to discuss - his edits, anything at all, he was blocked by another Administrator. But he is persistent, often using several IPs or accounts a day, and it is quite a job keeping up with him. If you ever seen an obvious sock puppet of his you can contact me or, if I'm not around, user:EyeSerene to get him blocked. Revert on sight as per our policy on block evasion. Thanks very much for your work with his edits. Dougweller (talk) 10:51, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You're quite welcome. - Amaury (talk) 17:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Heurelho Gomes
I am removing uncited text. what is wrong with that. this is an encyclopedia based on sourced facts, is it not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.78.228.212 (talk) 19:46, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You must provide a proper explanation. Saying, "if you can remove that, i can remove this" is not a proper explanation. Cheers! - Amaury (talk) 19:49, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I have had the reverse problem. I put in cites to articles that didn't have any and have been accused of spam!! Can't win with Wiki I guess! Pharaway (talk) 20:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Reference or Citation Spamming: the repeated insertion of a particular citation or reference in multiple articles by a single contributor, added not to verify article content but rather to populate numerous articles with a particular citation. Variations of citation spamming include the removal of multiple valid sources and statements in an article in favor of a single, typically questionable or low-value, web source. Citation spamming is a subtle form of spam and should not be confused with legitimate good-faith additions intended to verify article content and help build the encyclopedia. 842U (talk) 21:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Phantasy Star Universe
I don't know or care who's right here; talk it out. You're both in the wrong. Half Shadow  19:11, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Understood. - Amaury (talk) 19:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Second HalfShadow. The article has a talk page, why don't both of you try using it instead of this bickering in summaries and edit warring I'm seeing in the article history. If you can't agree, get a 3O, ask at the appropriate project or noticeboard, etc, but do not just keep warring for days on end. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 19:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand completely. What do you mean by get a 30? - Amaury (talk) 19:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Third Opinion - a dispute resolution method when a dispute is just between two editors (neutral party offers a third, neutral view). -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 19:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * i already attempted that as well collectonian with NPC listing subject but wasn't affective in this case. Anyways zhang he, I'm going to attempt to talk to you, if you revert my comment, then it will be my last attempt. but that doesn't mean I'm going to avoid you. you will have to start using the discussion section on talk page. regarding the characters article, it needs to be expanded with some sources and of course give more detail on the characters instead of just a table. the article will get nominated for deletion and it will most likely get deleted. if you want to know how to keep it look up WP:NOTE. Also about using a wiki, most of the time, Wiki's don't pass WP:ELNO. hardly ever, also it's more than just being stable, it's having a history about being stable, and having a number of members. Also on WP:ELYES, it tells us what to use, on #3 it says,  "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons."  on WP:ELMAYBE it gives a small opportunity for it to be used, but that's just 1 out of 3. as you can see, it asks for accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject.  after reading PSUpedia, it does not follow this rule. so that's why it should be avoided.It's not neutral. I'm currently trying to see if wiki's should be used at all due to unreliable and basically the same as Wikipedia except without sources. Bread Ninja (talk) 16:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

User Pharaway
As you have all requested, einsiders should not be used as a reference, so I took down my edits that used EInsiders information. There are also a fair number of other rticles that I put in using EInsiders information. The pages have not been changed except for the reference cites. The copy is too close to what is on the EInsiders website to credit to another source. Some of the sentences are almost completely the same as EInsiders. Should I put in for speedy delete for all those articles due to copyright issues or should I delete them? If you need a list of articles where this is a problem, I can do that if it helps. Pharaway (talk) 20:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "The copy is too close to what is on the EInsiders website to credit to another source." Assuming you aren't talking about the quotations you added with your edits, inserting copy directly into Wikipedia from another source is wp:plagiarism. So that copy must be removed. 842U (talk) 21:09, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * question on my talk page about deleting content or using speedy delete. thanx Pharaway (talk) 22:33, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Covino and Rich
Hey there, the page I wrote and regularly update is constantly being hit with vandalism. It is getting rather tedious and time consuming to undo all the edits. The comments being posted are quite slanderous and are libelous. Is it possible to have a page locked for a period of time from anonymous users or all users until the vandals get bored and quit trying? JoshinWinnipeg (talk) 01:19, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, you can. Just follow the instructions here. - Amaury (talk) 01:52, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I have submitted a request. How likely are they to be granted in cases like these? JoshinWinnipeg (talk) 03:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Central tendency
No worries. I'm new to Huggle, but so far I love it. I went ahead and removed your warning from my talk page. Funnyfarmofdoom (talk) 03:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks like I beat you to it. :P - Amaury (talk) 03:42, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Neltor
The creators of the page Neltor request that it be deleted 65.213.246.201 (talk) 04:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Blanking pages is not the way to get a page deleted. - Amaury (talk) 04:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The author has used wikipedia protocol to request deletion as the author of the majority of the content 65.213.246.201 (talk) 04:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Huggle
First of all, I'm kidding. I noticed you were beating me to a lot of the reverts, so I just wanted to thank you for your work. So often I feel like the only one on Huggle, so it's nice to see you help. Edit on! Funnyfarmofdoom (talk) 16:49, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I feel the same way sometimes. - Amaury (talk) 16:53, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

User Bananaramaslama
You recently warned this user for blanking an article (Miss eWorld) they created. I deleted the article as a user request, although I suspect they aren't very familiar with Wikipedia. Although most cases of blanking are vandalism, you should probably check on the circumstances of blanking prior to warning them. No big deal, we have all done it. Cheers, -- Flyguy649 talk 17:00, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I forgot to check if that user was the creator on that one, because then I would have requested the article's deletion with G7 (blanked or requested by creator). - Amaury (talk) 17:02, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting vandalism on User:Guettarda
Thanks for the rv on my user page. Much appreciated. Guettarda (talk) 17:02, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. - Amaury (talk) 17:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting vandalism on User:Ian.thomson
 Ian.thomson (talk) has given you a kitten! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Kittens must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

Thanks for the revert. I was gonna give you a cheeseburger, but it's Friday. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ian.thomson (talk • contribs) 02:27, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. - Amaury (talk) 02:29, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

User Macphisto
Do you think you could also apply this strategy to my profile, especially when I have told you twice that both profile User:milzo1986 and User:Macphisto are mine? Milzo1986 (talk) 02:32, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Your behavior is very suspicious. First, if you forgot your password, simply click "Forgot password?" on the login page. Second, how do I know what you're saying is even the truth? I have no way of checking your Internet service provider's address. For all I know, you could be playing a practical joke or lying. - Amaury (talk) 02:37, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

IP 66.211.223.200
The message below from Kingpin13 is a response to a message I left at User talk:Kingpin13: I think you were unfair.

Yes, the next warning level would have been a level 2. But when warning users we should use our own discretion on what level warning to give them. In this case the user had vandalised three times already that day, and only really has vandalism edits in the last year. While, yes, it could be different people vandalising from the same IP address, it's obvious that the only people who edit Wikipedia from that address are vandals, and since it's been happening for more than 4 years, it's obvious that this vandalism isn't going to stop. So basically, giving a level 2 warning would merely give the user a chance to vandalise 2 more times (and it seems rather obvious that they would take this chance), why you'd want that is beyond me. - Kingpin13 (talk) 07:33, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Seregain
I am reverting harassment on my talk page. Seregain (talk) 07:29, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, they were warned, too. - Amaury (talk) 07:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Seregain is within his rights to remove anything he wants from his talk page. It is the IP that's doing the edit warring by putting it back. Your warning to Seregain is incorrect. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:31, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Then I take back my warning. - Amaury (talk) 07:32, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * He accused me of being 2 other banned users, I asked him for "the evidence" several times, and he reverted me each time without answering (even after I suggested he file checkuser instead of telling admins on AN/I that this is a fact yet being unable to provide proof that isn't just speculation based on 1 article that I edited several days ago). --94.136.35.108 (talk) 07:34, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Incivility is a WP:WQA issue. He has the right to delete anything from his talk page that he wants to. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm disengaging. For the record, this user has stated as a fact to several admins that he has "evidence" that I am the same person as at least 2 banned users (because I edited an article that the other users apparently edited). I've asked him several times to provide this "evidence" or file a formal checkuser request, but he removes my comments as "harrassment" or "banned user comment" and refuses to answer them. --94.136.35.108 (talk) 07:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * His comments might be uncivil, but your reposting them is also uncivil. Users can delete anything they want from their talk pages. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:32, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Without a doubt, the above IP is the banned User:SuaveArt. Auntie E. (talk) 18:14, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That's odd, seeing as this post is coming from a likely Seregain sockpuppet. "Aunt Entropy" was uninvolved in the AN/I report, but just as Seregain logged out, he/she has taken to lobbying users' talk pages falsely claiming that I'm a "sockpuppet" and requesting a ban for me. Since these user(s) want to forego a sock investigation and have me banned just because "they say so", I think that's just more proof of how little evidence they have here (it's just a strange stalking agenda which both accounts share). I'd recommend taking Seregain/Aunt Entropy to WP:SPI. I'm still willing to be checkusered. Are they? --94.136.35.108 (talk) 19:16, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The IP is now on ice for the next month. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:10, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Peterborough Green-Up
You can stop flagging me with "last warning" and undoing changes on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peterborough_Green-Up RIGHT AWAY.


 * 1) I work for the organization
 * 2) The page was not authorized by the organization
 * 3) The page has SIGNIFICANT ERRORS

Until I have a chance to personally edit the page and write the content myself, I want it left blank —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.91.85 (talk) 07:36, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks like a classic WP:OWN combined with WP:COI. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:38, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I couldn't have said it better myself, Bugs. :) - Amaury (talk) 07:39, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If he's got issues with the article, he can raise them on the article's talk page. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:41, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

IP 123.23.252.89
Thanks. He's really messed up those categories, I don't know how to straighten them out. Dougweller (talk) 10:16, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's its talk page if you want to block it. - Amaury (talk) 15:29, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Blocked it this am, but he seems to have an inexhaustible supply of IP addresses, and a range block is not possible because of that. Dougweller (talk) 15:41, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I take it "am" means morning? Anyway, I asked because I didn't see a "blocked" template on its talk page. - Amaury (talk) 15:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Oops, my bad, I think I got a phone call. Yes, am is this morning. I'll put the template on. Dougweller (talk) 15:55, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Bullfighting
Hello Zhang, why have you reverted what I wrote on Bullfighting? I was just adding new information, that would interest people, as I´m part of a antibullfighting group working to stop it in Catalonia. We iniciated the ILP to ban bullfights in Catalunya. I also added the webpage of our work: www.prou.cat, check it out, please. Adam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adammacia (talk • contribs) 17:54, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:EL. - Amaury (talk) 17:59, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting vandalism on User talk:PaleAqua
Thanks for the revert on my user page. PaleAqua (talk) 18:10, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. However, I think you mean your talk page. - Amaury (talk) 18:11, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

IP189.243.133.85
I just blocked the IP for 31 hours. Someone in Mexico City. Dougweller (talk) 19:08, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism on your user page
The first and fourth messages below from ActivExpression and HalfShadow are responses to messages I left at User talk:ActivExpression: Why, thank you. and User talk:HalfShadow: Thank you.

Where is the cookie you said to give me? I didn't see it. Activ Expression Sign!  19:13, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know where to get the templates, so I just use invisible cookies. - Amaury (talk) 19:14, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok.Thats fine with me! Activ  Expression Sign!  02:43, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

'Faster than a program (on a good day).' Might want to consider semi-protect; this looks like a constant occurence. Half Shadow  20:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't really care. Besides, the more vandals that vandalize my userpage, the higher my vandal counter goes. I may add a counter to my talk page. However, I first have to figure out how many times it's been vandalized. Boy, that'll be hard. :) - Amaury (talk) 20:49, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Bidisha
Hello and many thanks for your message. This is Bidisha and I have been editing my own page on Wikipedia. I am a writer, broadcaster and critic with the BBC World Service, represented by the Susijn Literary Agency and by Summersdale publishers as well as by the BBC. I do not use my surname in public and never have. The reason I don't use my surname is serious, private and family-related. My surname has never been a matter of public record and I am astounded that it is being used on a Wikipedia page against my will, and reinserted when I have removed it. Let me state very clearly that the use of my surname is occurring against my will and against the will of my agent, publishers and bosses at the BBC. I have set no precedent for using my surname in public life, do not permit it and do not give my consent. Please do not reinsert it. I consider this to be an extremely serious matter of public and artistic identity. I will not enter into any further personal discussion about this. If Wikipedia does not remedy this persistent problem we will lodge a formal complaint. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.42.161 (talk) 20:12, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If you have an issue with an article, talk about it on said article's talk page instead of removing its content. I will be messaging you on your talk page shortly with something that may be able to explain it better. Cheers! - Amaury (talk) 20:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello, Zhang He, thank you for your decision to end recurrent deletions from the Bidisha article. These changes were made on a daily basis without any discussion or rationale and from a variety of IP addresses. It seems now they were an attempt to censor an issue of fact in an article by the article's subject herself. Hopefully your intervention will end the debate. Alistair Stevenson (talk) 20:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Billa (2009 film)
How did I vandalize Billa (2009 film) wikipedia page? I am just adding details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.88.78.94 (talk) 21:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Enoch
I too missed the edit summary that the IP left on their edit to Enoch. I do not know if the move was correct, but it definitely was done in good faith so I self reverted and struck my message on their page. I wanted to come here to express my appreciation for your support, though. Thanks  Tide  rolls  00:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

W. Lawrence S. Prabhakar
In restoring the speedy deletion template to W. Lawrence S. Prabhakar, you have also been repeatedly blanking the author's efforts to add a primary source reference. I have declined your speedy and restored the source. Whatever issues you may have with the article, blanking content is not a way to go about it, but I'm sure it was inadvertent on your part, thanks. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I wasn't the original tagger. I was simply just reverting the user because creators are not allowed to remove speedy deletion templates from pages they have created themselves. - Amaury (talk) 15:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I know, but when using undo or rollback we need to be sure that we are not also removing useful edits. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:17, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Got it. Thanks for the message. :) - Amaury (talk) 17:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

List of Superman enemies
That was a technical mistake -- I had made a small edit, but for some reason after clicking SAVE I got a blank screen -- then your talk message saying I had blanked the entire article. Have no idea how that happened -- but am glad you caught it and presumably corrected the blanking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vaffrey (talk • contribs) 05:02, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. :) - Amaury (talk) 05:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Bulletproof (Iyaz song)
I notice that you recently reverted an edit where the author of the article Bulletproof (Iyaz song) had blanked that article, and you placed a warning on that user's talk page, using Huggle. However, it is generally accepted that if the author of an article blanks the article, and no other user has added any significant content, then the blanking is taken as indicating that the author wants the page deleted, and it can then be tagged for speedy deletion with db-blanked. Very often new users who don't know how Wikipedia works see an article they have created tagged for deletion, accept that the article should be deleted, and remove the content, thinking that is deleting it. It is much better in such a case not to bite the newcomer by giving them a warning that they have done something wrong by trying to comply with the deletion notice. You may know all this already: I know from my own experience of using Huggle that it is very easy to slip into simply clicking on the revert button and moving on without checking the edit carefully enough, but I thought it would not harm to mention this. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:06, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I simply left the user a "Removal of speedy deletion template" warning because, from what I understand, users and IP addresses are not allowed to remove speedy deletion templates from pages they have created. - Amaury (talk) 15:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is generally true: however, blanking of a page by its sole author is accepted as a deletion request, and is therefore normally treated as an exception. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesBWatson (talk • contribs) 15:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Fertilisation / Fertilization
You recently changed the redirect structure of these two pages so that the discussion page (under Fertilisation) was left behind. Please respect the history of Wikipedia and decisions made by the group. See the discussion page and the history log for the page that you discarded. Your changes have been reverted. Thank you. Nadiatalent (talk) 12:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I see that you are misusing TWINKLE. I suggest that you read up on WP:VANDAL before accusing me of vandalism. The edits that you reverted here and here are nowhere near vandalism. All you had to do was click the "Undo" link and then leave an edit summary on why you were undoing my changes. Continued misuse of TWINKLE, or any other rollback program, may lead to your rollback privileges being taken away. I strongly advise you to be careful. - Amaury (talk) 19:09, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Open BVE temp
I know that the Openbve topic is empty. I am currently needing to change the name to OpenBVE not Openbve. I have the correct information and everything. Bonanza123d (talk) 19:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Boomerang (Latin American TV channel)
First in the I articulate Boomerang (Latin American TV channel)I am erasing false information nothing else I am not erasing something else ask who also knows of this please to the user *favor block the article Boomerang (Latin American TV channel)because each while 2 put false information on boomerang which does not exist what's this grasping an anónimo.GRACIAS And GREETINGS .--Hugo Felix - Messages Here 19:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Please block this article a lot of vandalism and inventing information on boomerang 2 the same dried thing in wikipedia in Spanish please false information is 2 this business about boomerang´The user that invents this false information is an IP and a little so-called boy also dried Andresutz the same thing in wikipedia in Spanish but they right now have protected him.--Hugo Felix - Messages Here 20:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Forgive me for butting in, but Zhang He is not an administrator (last I checked) and has no special ability to protect the page. If this is a case of vandalism by one IP user, warn the user or report him to WP:AIV if they've already reach final warning. If multiple IPs are vandalizing, please request page protection at WP:RPP. If this is a dispute over content, attempt to discuss the changes on the article talk page, and if that fails, take it to WP:DR to resolve the dispute. &mdash;ShadowRanger (talk 20:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting personal attacks on User talk:Postoak
Thanks for reverting the personal attacks on my talk page! Postoak (talk) 02:46, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. - Amaury (talk) 03:34, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

List of Total Drama series characters
Thanks for helping me revert vandalism on List of Total Drama series characters. :) -- Ha  dg  er  18:29, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You're quite welcome. - Amaury (talk) 18:30, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Woah. That was a quick reply! -- Ha  dg  er  18:31, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

User Bolegash
Hello, Amaury. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:30, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid he's now moved on to WP:ANI, and is make some rather absurd claims there. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:36, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Two things about vandals.


 * 1) We may have a temporary respite from User:Bolegash, as they were blocked.
 * 2) This is why some vandalism may not be reverted for a while. Also, why I find some instances of vandalism funny.

Ham tech  person  01:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC)