User talk:Amaury/2010/May
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Amaury. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Ah, you were quick on the draw and beat me to the revert. Useight (talk) 23:12, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
- Yep, I sure was. Heh. - Amaury (talk) 23:28, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
This is not vandalism. Tip: If a user ever leaves a constructive edit summary, click space. When one user on Huggle makes a mistake like this it may be misleading to other users. Thank you. Tommy2010 00:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I believe that you made a mistake with reverting in the article The Candidate (Lost) with this edit. Plot information was added to the article and was not in error. Thanks, ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 02:24, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, you are correct. I was trying to revert some other vandalism, and somehow that happened. - Amaury (talk) 02:26, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
- It happens. Nice layout for your talkpage by the way, I like it. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 02:29, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
You reverted changes made on this article, even though there an edit summary citing a disagreement over article organization. I've asked for a discussion on the article organzation from the editors involved (myself and JerzeyKydd) and reverted your changes. Please let me know what was done incorrectly. JustAKnowItAll (talk) 04:49, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
- I reverted my edit to your talk page. However, I reverted your edit to the article again. I left an explanation in the edit summary. - Amaury (talk) 04:53, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
- Leaving the article alone doesn't resolve the dispute. The original article is my organization. JerzeyKydd should leave it alone, not me. He should explain what he thinks should be done to improve the article. At this point, the dispute is my organization -- it should be left alone. JustAKnowItAll (talk) 05:00, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
- In that case, you've got a conflict of interest. I just posted a message regarding that on your talk page. - Amaury (talk) 05:03, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
- I'm referring to the way the article is organized. Not an actual ORGANIZATION. JerzeyKydd reorganized the article. I posted on the talk page that I was reverting the reorganization and that he could discuss the changes he thought that need to be made. The ORIGINAL ARTICLE ORGANIZATION should be preserved, not the ones made my JerzeyKydd. Not sure where the conflict of interest is. JustAKnowItAll (talk) 05:14, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
- In that case, you've got a conflict of interest. I just posted a message regarding that on your talk page. - Amaury (talk) 05:03, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
- Leaving the article alone doesn't resolve the dispute. The original article is my organization. JerzeyKydd should leave it alone, not me. He should explain what he thinks should be done to improve the article. At this point, the dispute is my organization -- it should be left alone. JustAKnowItAll (talk) 05:00, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Comment: that was unacceptable edit warring on the part of both of you and if I had discovered this earlier I would likely have blocked you both. Donald Duck, you should know better: we've been here before. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:53, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia, Donald Duck
(In reply to [1]) Ha, sorry about that, well welcome Donald Duck! The changes look good to me :) Apparition11 Complaints/Mistakes 11:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you. By the way, I don't know if you noticed, but this was the ninth time I haven't received anything on the first of the month. Other times include: January 2009, May 2009, June 2009, August 2009, October 2009, November 2009, January 2010, and February 2010. This probably would have been cooler if it were the first time, but still... - Amaury (talk) 15:17, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
The message below from SchfiftyThree is a response to a message I left at User talk:SchfiftyThree: Hi.
I added that discussion at the feedback page, just to let you know. Feel free to voice your opinions there if you want, or on my talk page. Schfifty3 03:29, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Without having examined this in detail, it looks like you were edit-warring on something on which there was no visible consensus or recent talk page contributions, and then told Iridescent "If said person's edit gets reverted, they don't revert back to their version; instead, they need to be WP:BOLD and take it on the talk page." Can you please start a talk page discussion as this was excellent advice which you do not seem to have yet taken yourself, or else of course point me to an existing one, especially one showing consensus for the change you are trying to enact there? That would be better than arguing it out on a user talk page, which I sense is only going to lead to friction. Thanks, --John (talk) 01:12, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, but the uniform info changes I made to the LFA page was correct and in no way considered to be vandalism because I am a student currently attending, and had no reason to place misinformation on that page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.250.62.60 (talk) 04:21, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
- See WP:CONFLICT. - Amaury (talk) 13:48, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
i got warned for an updated i did, i simply updated the number from boxofficemojo.com and the place in the chart the movie finds itself. Im new, so if there is something i did wrong, let me know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cedric182 (talk • contribs) 07:05, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Dear Donald, I already explained my reasons for removing the content of the Ah Kin article and changing the article to a referral in one of its boxes. Let me restate these reasons here: (1) An "Ah Kin" is a Maya priest, and everything concerning this topic, including the word ah kin itself, is in the "Maya priesthood" article. (2) The article wrongly assumes ah kin to be a name of the sun god. The topic of the Maya Sun God is fully explained in the article "Kinich Ahau", with serious references given.77.162.130.139 (talk) 21:46, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Please pay attention before reverting changes. Most of the other candidates are not properly sourced. One of the references is an official list from the City of Toronto. If you had checked the list you would have seen that the candidate I added is on the city's list. Sources are important, but a proper candidate list will simply be an identical copy of the city's list with words placed around the candidates' names to form sentences. It doesn't make sense to clutter the article with 170 citation links that all point to the same reference. There should probably be a more prominent link to the official list. I'm not trying to attack you for this, I simply feel that you should have looked at the article for a moment before reverting my change. If you had you would have realized that it was an appropriate, accurate, and constructive contribution. It is Wikipedia policy to use references but there are many scenarios where this isn't possible. The entries for each language here are not cited because there isn't a proper source for information like that. Because of exceptions like this, one should briefly review the article before dismissing the validity of an edit to it. 70.55.217.171 (talk) 00:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
i did explain that it is not relevant i have worked hard on this article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.211.186.227 (talk) 04:32, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Any chance you can put a lock on the terrorfakt wikipedia page thyat you just reverted back from the vandalism? it seems some jokers are having a good time with the open edit feature. thanks! 68.198.141.187 (talk) 02:27, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
given the history of vandalism on the wikipedia page for the band terrorfakt, can you please put a lock on it so as to keep it from being edited again by the vandals? thanks! Terrorfannyc (talk) 02:32, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello there. My school's page, Sir Thomas Picton School, is constantly being vandalised from inside the school network, which used a shared IP address. I'm constantly going on there and undoing stupid edits by people who really have no respect for the page. I propose that you block this IP address: 195.195.223.177. If you look at the history you will see what I mean. It was blocked until recently, but it has obviously been lifted. Thank you. TGLewis (talk) 17:19, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the message. However, I am afraid that I cannot do that, as I am not an administrator. I suggest either asking an administrator or filing a report at WP:AIAV. If you decide to ask an administrator, I would suggest asking either SlimVirgin or MSGJ. - Amaury (talk) 18:17, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks for the response. I have done as you recommended. Thanks again. TGLewis (talk) 21:21, 26 May 2010 (UTC)