Misplaced Pages

User talk:Amaury: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 20:55, 10 February 2009 view sourceAmaury (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers98,541 editsm →Note to other admins: Replying to Phil Knight.← Previous edit Latest revision as of 23:09, 10 January 2025 view source Amaury (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers98,541 editsmNo edit summary 
Line 1: Line 1:
<templatestyles src="User:Amaury/styles.css" />
<big><b>If you would like to get to know me, you may do so by visiting the following links:


<div style="color: #FFFFFF; background: #001932; border: 5px solid #000000; padding: 1%;">
*http://www.myspace.com/amaurygarcia
*http://www.youtube.com/user/AmauryGarcia


{{editnotice
You can also catch me at the following places:
| header = Welcome to my talk page!
*http://boards2.sega.com/psu_board/index.php?sid=da0e636affce8456a2952e17d9c911fa <br>(My user account: http://boards2.sega.com/psu_board/profile.php?mode=viewprofile&u=62273)
| headerstyle = text-align: center;
*http://psupedia.info/User:Amaury <br>(You can't here because I'm banned forever for trying to help. Well, you can catch me there, but I won't be able to reply on my talk page. Anyway, I'm not banned from PSUPedia's forums, so you can catch me there. Oh, and also, my stuff will be outdated since I was banned July 6th, 2008).
| text = Today is {{#time: l, F j, Y|now-8 hours}}<br />The current time is {{#time: g:i A|now-8 hours}} (PST)
*http://forum.psupedia.info/ <br>(My user account: http://forum.psupedia.info/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=101)
| textstyle = color: #FFFFFF; background-color: #324B64; border: 1px solid #000000; font-weight: bold; font-size: 200%; text-align: center;
</b></big>
}}


{{editnotice
== January 2009 talk page edits ==
| header = Attention!
| headerstyle = color: #FFFF00;
| text = Due to persistent disruption by an immature block-evading IP, this page has been indefinitely semi-protected. Newly registered users and IPs are not able to post on this talk page. ] • 07:05, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
| textstyle = color: #FFFFFF; background-color: #324B64; border: 1px solid #000000; font-weight: bold; font-size: 200%; text-align: center;
}}


== Archive Statistics ==
===re: Templates===
Here are the welcome templates: ], and here are the warnings: ]. I keep these links on my ] for quick reference :) <span style="font-family:Cooper Black;color:#000;font-size:14px">]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup>/<small>]</small></span> 20:06, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


* The numbers in the cells indicate how many total discussions there are for each year, each month, and overall.
== February 2009 talk page edits ==


{| class="wikitable"
===Proposed deletion of The six traits of writing===
|-
]
! Month
A ] template has been added to the article ], suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process{{#if: Original research, WP:Howto|&#32; because of the following concern:|.}}
! 2008
:<b>Original research, WP:Howto</b>
! ]
! ]
! 2011
! ]
! ]
! 2014
! ]
! ]
! ]
! ]
! ]
! ]
! ]
! ]
! ]
! ]
! ]
! Total
|-
| January
| –
| 12
| 11
| 0
| 0
| 0
| 0
| 0
| 8
| 13
| 7
| 17
| 5
| 3
| 6
| 0
| 2
|
| 84
|-
| February
| –
| 13
| 35
| 0
| 0
| 0
| 0
| 0
| 9
| 9
| 8
| 12
| 10
| 5
| 2
| 1
| 1
|
| 105
|-
| March
| –
| 11
| 24
| 0
| 0
| 1
| 0
| 42
| 6
| 13
| 10
| 8
| 7
| 4
| 1
| 4
| 0
|
| 131
|-
| April
| –
| 20
| 25
| 0
| 1
| 0
| 0
| 38
| 6
| 11
| 14
| 10
| 14
| 5
| 2
| 1
| 1
|
| 148
|-
| May
| –
| 23
| 13
| 0
| 10
| 12
| 0
| 15
| 4
| 18
| 15
| 7
| 5
| 1
| 5
| 0
| 1
|
| 129
|-
| June
| –
| 14
| 4
| 0
| 1
| 39
| 0
| 10
| 6
| 15
| 14
| 9
| 3
| 9
| 4
| 4
| 2
|
| 134
|-
| July
| –
| 20
| 3
| 0
| 1
| 14
| 0
| 18
| 12
| 13
| 20
| 16
| 4
| 2
| 5
| 2
| 1
|
| 131
|-
| August
| –
| 8
| 34
| 0
| 0
| 3
| 0
| 7
| 12
| 19
| 13
| 14
| 4
| 0
| 2
| 1
| 0
|
| 117
|-
| September
| –
| 8
| 5
| 0
| 0
| 0
| 0
| 9
| 9
| 6
| 13
| 5
| 4
| 7
| 5
| 3
| 1
|
| 75
|-
| October
| –
| 24
| 5
| 0
| 0
| 0
| 0
| 6
| 21
| 16
| 10
| 5
| 1
| 6
| 8
| 2
| 0
|
| 104
|-
| November
| –
| 11
| 0
| 0
| 0
| 0
| 0
| 4
| 9
| 7
| 13
| 9
| 5
| 3
| 4
| 5
| 5
|
| 75
|-
| December
| 0
| 9
| 4
| 0
| 0
| 0
| 0
| 5
| 13
| 18
| 15
| 8
| 10
| 6
| 6
| 3
| 6
|
| 103
|-
| Total
| 0
| 173
| 163
| 0
| 13
| 69
| 0
| 154
| 115
| 158
| 152
| 120
| 72
| 51
| 50
| 26
| 20
|
| 1,336
|}


== January 2025 ==
All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Misplaced Pages's ], and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "]" and ]). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the <code>{{tl|dated prod}}</code> notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on ].


=== ] at ] ===
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the ], the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the ] or it can be sent to ], where it may be deleted if ] to delete is reached.<!-- Template:PRODWarning --> ] (]) 00:09, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


Could you ] ] (]) 22:54, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:I'm doing exactly what this SysOp did on this other page I created: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=The_elements_of_grammar&action=history Give me a break already! - ] (]) 00:13, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
: {{Re|Deepfriedokra}} Thank you for the message. I will start off by saying that I don't claim to be perfect, and mistakes certainly happen.
:* Diffs 1 and 6 were already answered by other users.
:* Diff 2 was a mistake that I did not catch.
:* Diff 3 was in violation of ] a common word. This disruption has been a long-term problem in slow-motion from various IPs since at least September 2020, unless I missed something in the article history. I will going to ] the next time it happens. It wasn't happening frequently enough that I didn't know if a request at WP:RFPP would have been approved, but it's getting old and will be going there next time.
:* Diff 4 introduced cast and characters that were not recurring, with the exception of Iggy and Young Alisha. Non-main cast and characters with a credit of guest star or higher need a minimum of five appearances to be considered recurring.
:* Diffs 5, 9, and 10 introduced category/template bloat.
:* Diff 7 broke code formatting, which is often ] that people do.
:* Diff 8 introduced unsourced content.
:* Diff 11 was a partial mistake, as the edit did introduce problems, so it was roughly 50% bad. This is also another area of sneaky vandalism, as people often make up or guess what characters' full names are, which is in-universe ], unless there's a reliable primary or secondary source, such as the credits (primary).
:* Diff 12 introduced a sentence fragment, as well as intentionally breaking the formatting with that line break, despite the user claiming they were correcting grammar.
:* Diff 13 violates ].
:* Diff 14 introduced unnecessary sourcing. The series' credits serve as the primary source. Once an episode airs, a source is no longer required since the episode itself serves as the source. For example, if a secondary source says John Smith as The Great Apple will appear, once that episode airs, the secondary source is no longer required, since the actor and who they portray will be listed in the primary source—the credits.


: Having said all that, I don't appreciate a random user who I don't know stalking my edits and trying to cause trouble by blowing a potentially small problem out of proportion, especially a user who not only has ''far'' less edits than I do, but has also been around for ''far'' less time than I have. 14 edits out of my almost 90,000 edits overall or out of my almost 1,500 edits for 2024 that are potentially a problem don't show a pattern; otherwise, this would have been raised long ago. Unless I'm going around making severe personal attacks that require immediate attention, which I am not, they need to find something better to do with their time than to follow me around just to look for me to mess up. I'm only human, I'm not a robot. This isn't your fault, of course, and I do appreciate the message once again. ''']''' • 03:14, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
===AfD nomination of The six traits of writing===
::Hi Amaury, I don't think anyone is saying these reverts were all wrong, so no one is asking for a long justification for each of them. They are saying (and I am too) that the edits you reverted were, with 2 exceptions, good faith edits, certainly not obvious vandalism, and so they needed more than an unexplained rollback. This is not 14 edits out of 90,000 (nor 1,500), it is 12 edits out of the 57 edits you made between 12/21 and 12/30. As I said at AARV, all that is needed is a recalibration of your "obvious problem edit/bad faith edit” criterion. But that recalibration is needed, or else someone is going to remove your rollback permission. It doesn't need to be a big deal, but it does need addressing. Nobody is asking you to be perfect; all we're asking is that you take feedback onboard. Indeed, it looks to me like starting on the 31st, you did stop unexplained rollbacks. A simple "ok, my bad, some of those times I shouldn't have used rollback, and I've started explaining the reverts" would have nipped this in the bud. ] (]) 15:56, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
]I have nominated ], an article that you created, for ]. I do not think that this article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at ]. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. <!-- Template:AFDWarning --> ] (]) 00:16, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
::: {{Re|Floquenbeam}} Thank you for the message. I could and should have clarified more, but the whole "my bad" is basically what I was at least trying to get across with my not being perfect and make mistakes comment. While I can admit that what was construed as ] by another user wasn't the best of arguments, I still personally feel that the rest of the point I was trying to make is valid. AP was trying to make a mountain out of a molehill and it's pretty clear that they were following me around just looking for me to mess up just so they could have their five minutes of fame and make a report, at least in my opinion. Why so quick to go to a noticeboard to look for possible sanctions after only one message on my talk page? Then to start out with the whole "I don't like that it had to come to this, but..." just sends the wrong vibes. I don't mean for this to sound like I'm whining, because I'm not trying to, that's just what it felt like to me.


::: I do see the point you're making about looking at the edits between December 21 and December 31, but I feel it's also important to look at my edits as a whole. That's the point I was trying to make, in which more often than not, I do use edit summaries for reverts like the highlighted ones in this report. If only looking at the edits between those two dates, it makes it look bad for me, as if I'm always that way. One final point is that I wasn't ignoring AP, I just don't edit Misplaced Pages as much as I used to, as seen by my edit statistics on my user page and the long time it took to update them and my talk page archives. (The really high edit counts are when I was regularly fighting vandalism.) It's a combination of being busy in real life and just not currently having heavy interest here, so I'll normally only get on for a bit and revert any problematic edits I see. If I see I have a message, I skim it and end up forgetting about it. I can be more careful moving forward, but I also don't want to feel like I have to walk on eggshells in fear of, so to speak, AP reporting me again. ''']''' • 20:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
===Your actions are being discussed at the Admin Noticeboard for Incidents===

Hello, {{BASEPAGENAME}}. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. {{#if:|The discussion is about the topic ].}} <!--Template:ANI-notice--> Thank you. (]<span style="border:1px solid black;">'''&nbsp;Bwilkins / BMW&nbsp;'''</span>]) 14:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

===User talk:AndyManchester===

Users are allowed to remove warnings from their own talk pages per ]. When they do this, please do not revert it. ] is perfectly within his rights to remove them. It seems you know this since you have removed warnings and notices on your own talk page. Besides, his edits do not appear to be vandalism. They may or may not be correct, but they certainly appear to be ] edits. Please be careful. Looking at the ] discussion on you, the community appears to be losing patience. Please be careful. <span style="font-family:Cooper Black;color:#000;font-size:14px">]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup>/<small>]</small></span> 08:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
:Since we're sort of good friends, I will listen to you. You're nicer than some of the administrators here. =D - ] (]) 16:30, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
::Thanks. Just to make sure that I don't give the wrong impression, I'm not an admin. I'm pretty sure you remember that and I didn't take your last comment to imply that I was, but I just like to be careful not to misrepresent myself. Despite whether you feel that the other users are nice or not, you really should try to listen to what they are saying. For example, below, ] left a warning that it seems you didn't care for. While you may not like the template, you would be better off listening to what Deor is saying. It is not in good practice to refactor other people's talk page messages. Even if it is just to correct a typo, you should not do it. Also, while you may not have liked ] ] suggestion, it was good advice, and it was quite nice of her to offer to do it herself. I would ask you to reconsider, as it stands, you are on pretty thin ice. Please listen to what others are saying more and be a little less dismissive. While you may feel that they could be nicer, they are speaking in the best interests of Misplaced Pages and trying to help you. <span style="font-family:Cooper Black;color:#000;font-size:14px">]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup>/<small>]</small></span> 20:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

===Blocked===

I've blocked you for 24hrs because of your repeated personal attacks and overall cantankerous attitude displayed during the last few days. ] ] 08:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

===Trying again===

I can tell that you want to be a good editor, so I'm going to try again to talk to you. First, let's talk background here: you have 533 edits. In those 533 edits, you've managed to bother people enough that you've been blocked twice, for 24 hours each. I have over 22,000 edits, and I've also been blocked twice: both by mistake or misunderstanding, and for under 3 hours each. You should be able to understand that that means I've learned a bit about how to edit effectively here. If I got blocked at your rate, I'd have been kicked off Misplaced Pages years ago ... they don't let people get 45 blocks, and that's how many it would have been.

You really need to stop letting anger show. It's impossible not to get pissed off at people here. It's going to happen. Do you think calling them "stupid" or "smarty-pants" helps? Does telling someone that's giving you advice to "shut it" help? Nope. That's pretty much what got you blocked this time. Especially when people that you do it to people that are trying to help you learn something about how to edit here.

As for your editing, some of it's OK. The articles that you created have a common problem, and I'll try to explain it. High-schools simplify a lot of stuff. They teach things as being absolutely true, when in fact it's just one of several techniques, or sometimes just your teacher's or textbook author's opinion. When I pointed you at ] as containing everything in your ] article, I meant it. Had you stopped for a moment and studied that article, you would have learned a lot about English grammar, and would have seen for yourself that your article was redundant. Drmies tried to give you the same advice, and all you did was get angry at him, and that's silly. Look at his userpage, look at his edits. He teaches language instruction, is fluent in four languages and familiar with two more. Hard to tell from my userpage, but you should be able to guess from my hobbies and list of places that I've lived: I function well in three languages and am familiar with three more. Our advice is sound: we know more about grammar than you do, and when we try to help you, we don't deserve to be bitten. You would be well served to listen instead of bite.

Next time you want to create an article, why don't you leave a message on my page and describe what article you want to build? I can help you figure out whether its appropriate, and where it would fit in Misplaced Pages if it is. If you work on fitting in and helping, things will go smoothly. If you just bite the people that try to help, life will go badly quickly.&mdash;](]) 13:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
:I'm not saying you guys don't know things, but my English teacher knows things, too. - ] (]) 15:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
::You're missing the point. ] (]) 15:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
:::Then listen to your friend when he tells you that that was completely uncalled for and inappropriate. Elbutler hasn't ''ruined'' anything that I can see, and was pointing out that you had, indeed, missed my point. No one is saying that your English teacher doesn't know things. I'm saying that he is teaching you a highly simplified form of English grammar. The things he teaches you, by and large, are already covered, and don't warrant individual articles. That problem is an editing problem, and won't get you blocked if you listen to people's advice. Things like ''You stay out of this! You've ruined enough'' are a sign of an attitude problem, and that problem ''will'' get you blocked.&mdash;](]) 15:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
:::::For someone ostensibly interested in English grammar, it's surprising that you would write the grammatically incorrect "This is between Kww and I," rather than "This is between Kww and me." <font color="green">]</font><font color="blue"> ]</font> 18:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
::::::Actually, no, you're the one who's incorrect. Kww and I is the correct way to say it. - ] (]) 20:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
::::::: LOL. Here's free advice from an English grammar teacher. Prepositions such as ''between'' govern the object case (that is, according to the normative grammar which your high school teacher is certainly trying to impart to you. In reality, the situation is of course far more complex, and you may be consoled, your "mistake" isn't necessarily really one.) ] ] 20:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
:::::::: I'll grant you that. Sorry... :-) ] ] 21:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

===Block question===

Shouldn't I be able to edit by now? It still says I'm blocked, but it's been 24 hours. Thanks in advance. - ] (]) 15:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

:Ah, sorry about that, probably an ] that was accidentally triggered during the normal block. I can't find any that's still active right now. Can you try again if you can edit now, and if not, post the exact block message you get on trying? I'll need the "autoblock id" number or your IP address to remove it, if there is still one. ] ] 17:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
::Just got back. I am able to edit now. Thanks for the response. - ] (]) 18:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

==48 hour block==
<div class="user-block"> ] {{#if:|You have been ''']''' from editing for a period of '''time'''|You have been '''temporarily ]''' from editing}} in accordance with ] for {{#if:] - making controversial page moves without discussion despite previous warnings and block|'''] - making controversial page moves without discussion despite previous warnings and block'''|]}}. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to ]. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may ] by adding the text <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx" argument. -->{{tlx|unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our ] first. {{#if:y|] (]) 20:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)}}</div><!-- Template:uw-block1 -->

===Note to other admins===
Feel free to unblock without contacting me. ] (]) 20:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

{{unblock|The block is indeed unjustified. My intention with moving pages this time wasn't to cause another incident accidentally again... it was because I was moving them to match the other seasons of Pokemon episodes. Example: List of Pokemon: The Johto Journeys episodes and all the others were like that, but season 1 (Indigo League) and season 2 (Orange Islands) were not like that (they were like "List of Pokemon episodes (season 1/2)), so I was just moving them to match how the other List of Pokemon episodes articles were. Thanks for listening! - ] (]) 20:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC)}}

:Eugene, I'll unblock, if you agree not to make any more page moves. ] (]) 20:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
::Fine, but can '''you''' at least move those pages I moved back so they match how the other "List of Pokemon" episodes articles are. I said you because I'm promising not to move anymore pages without discussion prior to moving a page. - ] (]) 20:54, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 23:09, 10 January 2025

Welcome to my talk page! Today is Tuesday, January 14, 2025
The current time is 4:32 AM (PST)
Attention! Due to persistent disruption by an immature block-evading IP, this page has been indefinitely semi-protected. Newly registered users and IPs are not able to post on this talk page. Amaury • 07:05, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Archive Statistics

  • The numbers in the cells indicate how many total discussions there are for each year, each month, and overall.
Month 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Total
January – 12 11 0 0 0 0 0 8 13 7 17 5 3 6 0 2 84
February – 13 35 0 0 0 0 0 9 9 8 12 10 5 2 1 1 105
March – 11 24 0 0 1 0 42 6 13 10 8 7 4 1 4 0 131
April – 20 25 0 1 0 0 38 6 11 14 10 14 5 2 1 1 148
May – 23 13 0 10 12 0 15 4 18 15 7 5 1 5 0 1 129
June – 14 4 0 1 39 0 10 6 15 14 9 3 9 4 4 2 134
July – 20 3 0 1 14 0 18 12 13 20 16 4 2 5 2 1 131
August – 8 34 0 0 3 0 7 12 19 13 14 4 0 2 1 0 117
September – 8 5 0 0 0 0 9 9 6 13 5 4 7 5 3 1 75
October – 24 5 0 0 0 0 6 21 16 10 5 1 6 8 2 0 104
November – 11 0 0 0 0 0 4 9 7 13 9 5 3 4 5 5 75
December 0 9 4 0 0 0 0 5 13 18 15 8 10 6 6 3 6 103
Total 0 173 163 0 13 69 0 154 115 158 152 120 72 51 50 26 20 1,336

January 2025

User:Amaury using rollback to revert constructive or good-faith edits without explanation at WP:AARV

Could you address the concerns raised here? Thanks. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:54, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra: Thank you for the message. I will start off by saying that I don't claim to be perfect, and mistakes certainly happen.
  • Diffs 1 and 6 were already answered by other users.
  • Diff 2 was a mistake that I did not catch.
  • Diff 3 was in violation of WP:OVERLINKING a common word. This disruption has been a long-term problem in slow-motion from various IPs since at least September 2020, unless I missed something in the article history. I will going to WP:RFPP the next time it happens. It wasn't happening frequently enough that I didn't know if a request at WP:RFPP would have been approved, but it's getting old and will be going there next time.
  • Diff 4 introduced cast and characters that were not recurring, with the exception of Iggy and Young Alisha. Non-main cast and characters with a credit of guest star or higher need a minimum of five appearances to be considered recurring.
  • Diffs 5, 9, and 10 introduced category/template bloat.
  • Diff 7 broke code formatting, which is often sneaky vandalism that people do.
  • Diff 8 introduced unsourced content.
  • Diff 11 was a partial mistake, as the edit did introduce problems, so it was roughly 50% bad. This is also another area of sneaky vandalism, as people often make up or guess what characters' full names are, which is in-universe WP:TRIVIA, unless there's a reliable primary or secondary source, such as the credits (primary).
  • Diff 12 introduced a sentence fragment, as well as intentionally breaking the formatting with that line break, despite the user claiming they were correcting grammar.
  • Diff 13 violates WP:REDNOT.
  • Diff 14 introduced unnecessary sourcing. The series' credits serve as the primary source. Once an episode airs, a source is no longer required since the episode itself serves as the source. For example, if a secondary source says John Smith as The Great Apple will appear, once that episode airs, the secondary source is no longer required, since the actor and who they portray will be listed in the primary source—the credits.
Having said all that, I don't appreciate a random user who I don't know stalking my edits and trying to cause trouble by blowing a potentially small problem out of proportion, especially a user who not only has far less edits than I do, but has also been around for far less time than I have. 14 edits out of my almost 90,000 edits overall or out of my almost 1,500 edits for 2024 that are potentially a problem don't show a pattern; otherwise, this would have been raised long ago. Unless I'm going around making severe personal attacks that require immediate attention, which I am not, they need to find something better to do with their time than to follow me around just to look for me to mess up. I'm only human, I'm not a robot. This isn't your fault, of course, and I do appreciate the message once again. Amaury • 03:14, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Hi Amaury, I don't think anyone is saying these reverts were all wrong, so no one is asking for a long justification for each of them. They are saying (and I am too) that the edits you reverted were, with 2 exceptions, good faith edits, certainly not obvious vandalism, and so they needed more than an unexplained rollback. This is not 14 edits out of 90,000 (nor 1,500), it is 12 edits out of the 57 edits you made between 12/21 and 12/30. As I said at AARV, all that is needed is a recalibration of your "obvious problem edit/bad faith edit” criterion. But that recalibration is needed, or else someone is going to remove your rollback permission. It doesn't need to be a big deal, but it does need addressing. Nobody is asking you to be perfect; all we're asking is that you take feedback onboard. Indeed, it looks to me like starting on the 31st, you did stop unexplained rollbacks. A simple "ok, my bad, some of those times I shouldn't have used rollback, and I've started explaining the reverts" would have nipped this in the bud. Floquenbeam (talk) 15:56, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
@Floquenbeam: Thank you for the message. I could and should have clarified more, but the whole "my bad" is basically what I was at least trying to get across with my not being perfect and make mistakes comment. While I can admit that what was construed as WP:ITIS by another user wasn't the best of arguments, I still personally feel that the rest of the point I was trying to make is valid. AP was trying to make a mountain out of a molehill and it's pretty clear that they were following me around just looking for me to mess up just so they could have their five minutes of fame and make a report, at least in my opinion. Why so quick to go to a noticeboard to look for possible sanctions after only one message on my talk page? Then to start out with the whole "I don't like that it had to come to this, but..." just sends the wrong vibes. I don't mean for this to sound like I'm whining, because I'm not trying to, that's just what it felt like to me.
I do see the point you're making about looking at the edits between December 21 and December 31, but I feel it's also important to look at my edits as a whole. That's the point I was trying to make, in which more often than not, I do use edit summaries for reverts like the highlighted ones in this report. If only looking at the edits between those two dates, it makes it look bad for me, as if I'm always that way. One final point is that I wasn't ignoring AP, I just don't edit Misplaced Pages as much as I used to, as seen by my edit statistics on my user page and the long time it took to update them and my talk page archives. (The really high edit counts are when I was regularly fighting vandalism.) It's a combination of being busy in real life and just not currently having heavy interest here, so I'll normally only get on for a bit and revert any problematic edits I see. If I see I have a message, I skim it and end up forgetting about it. I can be more careful moving forward, but I also don't want to feel like I have to walk on eggshells in fear of, so to speak, AP reporting me again. Amaury • 20:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC)