User talk:Amorymeltzer

Amory has a very distracting family and will likely be editing erratically until the kids stop being cute.

This is Amorymeltzer's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31Auto-archiving period: 11 days

16:28, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Hey, Amorymeltzer! This is zfJames! I wanted to let you know that the page Kirby (character) seems to be experiencing persistent vandalism even after temporary protection and it may be a candidate for a longer protection scheme. Let me know if you have any thoughts on that... I wanted to get your opinion instead of just posting it to another board so that I could learn more about the level of vandalism required before page protection should be requested (if that made any sense). Thanks! - zfJames Please ping me in your reply on this page (chat page , contribs) 20:18, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

​Thanks for the heads up — I've gone and protected it for three months, 'til August. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:46, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When you protected Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous, you removed the move protection on the page. Can you restore the move protection so that only admins can move it? Thanks, — MRD2014 ^Talk 11:52, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

​  Done Thanks for the catch! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:05, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Amory, would you mind backing out of your closure of Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 May 4#List of botanical crypids and relisting? I don't think keeping the redirect as-is is a good idea and I wish to weigh in on the matter. Thanks, -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:34, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Tavix: A little eager with the date there, eh? I've gone and undone the close, and relisted it. I have yet to ping any of the previous participants, on the fence about that. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:49, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:59, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how you could possible come to the conclusion that "folks find them useful (as evidenced by using them)" when all three of these redirects are unused! {{

I'll admit I could've been more verbose and been a bit more specific with my pronouns and past/present tenses, but regardless, These are redirects, and redirects need to be useful, not used, to be kept.. Your nomination itself suggests two of the three were used. Perhaps things can be a bit different for redirects in templatespace, but I was not convinced of the harm in keeping or utility in deleting. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:10, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it's a matter of tidyness vs. potential usefulness, with my preference leaning towards the former. Useddenim (talk) 20:44, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While idly wandering through the backwoods of Wikipedia, I stumbled across this thread. As a

full-time dabfixer, I can put my hand on my heart and say, that {{stnlnk}} and its cute relations are effing nightmares. They create bad links to DAB pages which are often impossible for humans to sort out, and which require intervention by a template expert. They are not the only templates which need such attention, but I've learned how to end-run around half-a-dozen of them; and, after 4 or 5 hours of wasted effort, I know who to ask (though I suspect that that template expert also has better things to do). Narky Blert (talk) 23:19, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Pity you didn't make it to the RfD! DRV if it's a real pain? ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:23, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

22:22, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi Amorymeltzer. Re this, why would a piped link be preferable? It just redirects to Victoria Falls, which is extremely unlikely to ever be moved or replaced by a disambiguation page. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER

Someone turned it into a dab the other day, I changed a few to avoid it. That's since been reverted, so, no, the pipe isn't preferable, but at least it ain't hurtin'. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:23, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, OK. I didn't think to look at the history. What an odd page move! I left a comment at Talk:Victoria Falls. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 17:13, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Amorymeltzer, Please be requested to assign permanent rollback permissions. Warm Regards, ZI Jony (talk) 15:02, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ZI Jony:Curious about this and this, could you please explain your reasoning? Also, what does "unexpected" mean when you use it in an edit summary? ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:22, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

​First reverted edit is types fixing, user was use "," with "and" which are not required to use also some internal pages link was updated wrong. Second reverted edit is wrong page link, internal page Pyongyang Standard Time is an Redirected page to Time in North Korea which also unnecessary creation. Unexpected use in an edit summary when reverted edits which should not update. Warm Regards, ZI Jony (talk) 19:20, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback is only for clear cases of vandalism, and is not to be used for trivial disagreements and certainly not for undoing positive contributions.

As I've already said, most of your reverts are positive, so please keep doing good work with twinkle, but please be careful when reverting, and only revert clear cases of malicious intent. You should provide more clear edit summaries for non-vandalism reverts (I still don't know what you mean by "unexpected"). I'd suggest waiting at least 5 weeks before reapplying. Best, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:05, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

I had thought I done more than that in the last few months, how comes I keep getting page reviewed of late then? I thought I must of created over 50 pages or more in my time! Govvy (talk) 20:25, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed you have, but most were near a decade ago based on this. What pages are you getting notifications for? ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:01, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well I've had notifications for stuff I've created in my

APOEL FC in Europe etc. I plan to write some more footy bio for Tottenham academy players in prep for the next football (soccer) season. Maybe I don't create that much or prolific like others, I just thought it would of helped the project that's all I can say, cheers. Govvy (talk) 10:21, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:IP block exemption. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On 09:52, 26 March 2018 you deleted page Roberto Garcia Lachner. Why? Wikijediknight (talk) 23:33, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@

notability criteria for cyclists. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:44, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

An athlete is presumed to be notable if the person has actively participated in a major amateur or professional competition or won a significant honor. This persons wiki page included links to his ITU triathlon profile and won in 2016 the US Masters open water long distance swim championships. Wikijediknight (talk) 10:49, 18 May 2018 (UTC)Wikijediknight[reply]

I would talk with Fastily, who was the admin who actually deleted the page if you'd like to contest the PROD. At first blush, I'll add that the article included no such claim or evidence regarding the 2016 Masters. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:09, 18 May 2018 (UTC) Event results from 2017 Open Water National Championships, Lido Key, Sarasota, Florida, April 22, 2017. Wikijediknight (talk) 17:45, 18 May 2018 (UTC)Wikijediknight.[reply]

Placeholder for discussion after RfD, see also this conversation ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:28, 18 May 2018 (UTC) Only about 25000 out of 80000 transclusions are direct uses in articles, many others from templates - thus, I'm working through templates and replacing instances. I'm also thinking that all the instances of tooltip with a first parameter of "pos", "pld" or some other common abbreviation could be automatically replaced without checking. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:01, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I put it in

WP:TFDH since it reasonable to put it there for holding while reviewing the transclusions.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:02, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

That's a good idea, thanks ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:13, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Advertized at AWB/TA, CHECKWIKI, and Template talk:Abbr. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:00, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

how r u — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.88.244.171 (talk) 23:41, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]