User talk:Amaury/2015/May

2015 Archive Index: March • April •  May •  June •  July •  August •  September •  October •  November •  December

Model United Nations
Hey you asked me about the link in the mun page actually this isn't any form advertising the reason i added the link is because this is elsmun's official Facebook page and they have no website but it has nothing to do with me or with any business thankyou — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nourghorab (talk • contribs) 17:03, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Sini Anderson
Hi i don't know how this works, I don't understand how I am violating Sini Anderson's wikipedia page. Why can't what is copywritten just be removed and all of my other information stay there? I didn't know we weren't allowed to cite twitter, so it was a mistake. I am a college student doing a research report on Sini in which i add facts to her page, and I would love to get some help on this so my information stays put. Thank you. Maggiefrank (talk) 02:54, 4 May 2015 (UTC)maggiefrank

Sadda Haq (TV series)
Hi, Ok I will write the summary of Sadda Haq (TV series), sorry for my mistake as it should be a brief one. Thank you. Hcns (talk) 09:33, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Chemical plant
The link to the ASME B73 webpage provides a useful link to a wealth of information provided by an American National Standards Committee. Why do you feel it is inappropriate? 104.148.242.186 (talk) 19:17, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

User Andrew Shen
Sorry I was removing personal information from the website. I have logged in and redone it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew Shen (talk • contribs) 16:49, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No problem. Make sure you're logged in next time, haha! Amaury (talk) 16:59, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar

 * Why, thank you. Amaury (talk) 03:53, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Fwc domain.png
Hello Amaury. I came across, and I think you misunderstood it. That edit was a good-faith attempt at providing source information. It was not vandalism. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 21:27, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

James Craig (loyalist)
who put this up, majority of it is false information and hear-say? the information is incorrect so I suggest that you take it down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.168.219.62 (talk) 14:22, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

One Piece articles
The links I'm putting are references to prove that the information is real. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.248.183.144 (talk) 03:35, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Participatory art
Hello Amaury. You just reverted all of my contribution to the entry Participatory Art. I have been studying the subject for 4 years now and I consider that the entry, at the moment, is only focused in one point of view and not on the broader sense of this movement. I think I added some usefull facts to the entry and I was not finnished yet, I would like you to give me the opportunity of continuing writting. You just reverted by saying: because it didn’t appear constructive to me. I think that this expression it's way to subjective for reverting an enciclopedia entry. Can you expand on why you reverted or undo the revert? On the other hand I am new in wikipedia so let me know if I did something wrong. All the best, Nina Bonnin (talk) 10:43, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting disruption on User talk:DGG
thanks  DGG ( talk ) 01:28, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! Amaury (talk) 01:33, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines and User talk:Truthman633
This edit by Truthman633 was not vandalism. It definately wasn't worth an only warning. The edit was mistakenly left there as he was trying to discuss edits that had been reverted. Please be more careful with warnings in the future. -- GB fan 01:52, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I just I misread it. Amaury (talk) 02:04, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Floyd–Warshall algorithm
I don't appreciate your pointless threat. I've been editing wikipedia from its beginning. If yoiu don't understand something, it is best not to get involved. The floyd allgorthim has incorrect information on it, and it confused students. Either do something to help fix it or stay out of the way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.57.23.82 (talk) 05:33, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not a threat. You have failed to provide reliable sources to back up your claims. Please see WP:CITE, WP:RELIABLE, and WP:VERIFY. Amaury (talk) 06:29, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

How to insert citations
I learned how to insert citations, and did so with my additions to the Illinois Constitution. Did I do it right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawrenceastein (talk • contribs) 07:12, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * At a quick glance, I don't think so. Have a look at some other articles and see how things are cited there in the edit view—one thing I'm noticing is that you're missing URLs within your REFs. may also be able to help as he's more experienced in this field. Amaury (talk) 07:19, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * @Amaury: I'm calling it a night and will address your kind suggestions promptly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawrenceastein (talk • contribs) 07:35, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:Citing sources explains it better than I can. Offline sources are perfectly fine (often preferred), so URLs are not always necessary. Apparition11 Complaints/ Mistakes 13:00, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * All right, that makes sense. Now, I also saw sources linking to other Wikipedia articles. I don't think that is correct, is it? Amaury (talk) 18:20, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * If you mean that Wikipedia articles shouldn't be used as sources, then you are exactly correct. It does not meet its own defintion of a reliable source. A correctly formatted cite could contain some Wikipedia links such as this example that I stole from Apple Inc.:




 * The cite does include a link to The New York Times, but, obviously, Wikipedia is not the source, it is just linking to more information about the website. I hope that makes sense... Apparition11 Complaints/ Mistakes 18:42, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It makes perfect sense, thanks. This is the article in question if you're curious. It just doesn't look quite right to me. Amaury (talk) 18:47, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Any time :) The article could certainly use some attention from an experienced copy-editor and some citation fixes. It's not near WP:GA level yet, but, IMHO, it's in decent shape considering that it has received less than 200 edits. Apparition11 Complaints/ Mistakes 19:06, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Spoiler effect
I'm not sure how this "talk" page works or why I can't reply directly and privately to a message but I'll try. I was sent a message b you that my edits to the Spoiler Effect article were unconstructive. I take exception to this assessment. My intent was to provide a little bit of balance to an exceptionally biased and one-sided article. There are many Americans who reject the validity of the Spoiler Effect theory and this is effectively not mentioned in the article. I will try again to make the changes in a way that is less objectionable if I figure out how. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saabrian (talk • contribs) 04:24, 18 May 2015 (UTC)