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 23:43, 17 February 2010 view sourceAmaury (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers98,541 editsm →Pharaway & Accusation of Vandelism: Formatting.← 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" />
<div style="border:1px solid #0000FF; background:#ddcef2; width:100%; padding:4px; margin-bottom:10px">


<div style="color: #FFFFFF; background: #001932; border: 5px solid #000000; padding: 1%;">
{{UserStatus}}


{{editnotice
'''''It is currently {{Utc|- 8}} where I am'''''
| header = Welcome to my talk page!
| headerstyle = text-align: center;
| text = Today is {{#time: l, F j, Y|now-8 hours}}<br />The current time is {{#time: g:i A|now-8 hours}} (PST)
| textstyle = color: #FFFFFF; background-color: #324B64; border: 1px solid #000000; font-weight: bold; font-size: 200%; text-align: center;
}}


{{editnotice
{{User:Zhang He/Navbar}}
| 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 ==


* The numbers in the cells indicate how many total discussions there are for each year, each month, and overall.


{| class="wikitable"
{| class="messagebox standard-talk" style="width: auto;"
|- |-
! Month
|
! 2008

! ]
|<center><big><big><big><big>'''{{fontcolor|red|Hello! Welcome to my talk page!}}'''</big></big></big></big></center>
! ]

! 2011
----
! ]
<center>Please feel free to to leave me a message, whether it's informing me of something <br>I screwed up, just to say hello, or anything else! I won't ]!</center>
! ]
----
! 2014

! ]
I have a few requests that I hope you'll respect while posting here:
! ]
#'''First and above all, be ].'''
! ]
#*If you don't agree with an action I made&mdash;be it reverted you and left a warning, marked your page for deletion, or anything else&mdash;please be calm and polite. I am a reasonable man, and we'll straighten it out a lot quicker without screaming and name calling.
! ]
#'''Please sign your posts with four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>)'''
! ]
#'''Please start new conversations at the bottom.'''
! ]
#'''I generally like to keep conversations together.'''
! ]
#*If you post here, I'll reply here and leave you a message informing you of my reply.
! ]
#*If I leave you a message on your talk page, I'll keep watching it, but if you want to make sure I notice it quickly, leave me a {{tl|talkback}} template (although not necessary).
! ]
#**I always keep conversations together. If we separate the messages, no big deal, I'll probably go back and cross post here.
! ]

! ]
----
! Total

|-
<center><big>'''Since that is out of the way, please click and leave a message!'''</big></center>
| 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 ==


=== ] at ] ===
'''<big>For 2009 discussions, please visit the following link:<br>
http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Zhang_He/2009</big>'''


== January 2010 ==

===Discussions archived===
An archive of January 2010 discussions can be found .

== February 2010 ==
===Thanks===
For reverting that unhelpful comment on my talk page. --] <sup><font face="Calibri">'']''</font></sup> 21:29, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
:You're very welcome. - ] (]) 21:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

==="One little mistake"===
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 ]. 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 ] program. ] (]) 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 alove. I will consider any other things from you harassment. - ] (]) 21:34, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
::I guess that you do have the right to request that ] 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 an editor who was trying to add <nowiki><references/></nowiki> to an article and eventually made an erroneous 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. <font color="#330099" face="Cooper Black">] <sup>]</sup>/<small>]</small></font> 23:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
:::Thank you for the comment. If you'll take a look at and , you'll see I wasn't the only one reverting its edits, so I don't think it's fair that I should be the only one warned. <br>Also, is where his comments could be considered a personal attack, especially the summary he used. - ] (]) 03:15, 7 February 2010 (UTC)</br>
::::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 ] 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 ]. Some of your behavior as of late looks to be pushing on some people's patience. Take a look at ] to see that it is more there is more concern that 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 ] or an ] 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. <font color="#330099" face="Cooper Black">] <sup>]</sup>/<small>]</small></font> 08:50, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

===]===
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. ] (]) 05:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
:There you go. I've undone my edits to both the article and your talk page. - ] (]) 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? ] (]) 10:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

===Re: 99.236.221.124's edits are not vandalism.===

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.]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup>&nbsp;<sub style="margin-left: -4.3ex">]</sub> 16:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
:Okay, understandable. - ] (]) 16:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

===Various reversions of edits on Ming Dynasty topics===
You might want to look at this: ]. 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, ] to get him blocked. Revert on sight as per our policy on block evasion. Thanks very much for your work with his edits. ] (]) 10:51, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
:You're quite welcome. - ] (]) 17:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

===Gomes===
I am removing uncited text. what is wrong with that. this is an encyclopedia based on sourced facts, is it not? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 19:46, 14 February 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:You must provide a proper explanation. Saying, "if you can remove that, i can remove this" is not a proper explanation. Cheers! - ] (]) 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! ] (]) 20:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


Could you ] ] (]) 22:54, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::::] 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.] (]) 21:15, 17 February 2010 (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)
===You realise it takes two to edit war, right?===
::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 don't know or care who's right here; talk it out. You're both in the wrong. ]] 19:11, 17 February 2010 (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.
:Understood. - ] (]) 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. -- ]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;'''·''' ]) 19:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
:::I understand completely. What do you mean by ''get a 30''? - ] (]) 19:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
::::] - a ] method when a dispute is just between two editors (neutral party offers a third, neutral view). -- ]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;'''·''' ]) 19:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


::: 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)
===Pharaway & Accusation of Vandalism===
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. ] (]) 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 Misplaced Pages from another source is ]. So that copy must be removed. ] (]) 21:09, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
::question on my talk page about deleting content or using speedy delete. thanx ] (]) 22:33, 17 February 2010 (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)