User talk:Amaury

It is approximately 6:19 AM where this user lives.

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 Wikipedia 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)