User talk:Amcrius
 | Please read my stance on criticism, right here. In a nutshell, any criticism is absolutely welcomed, and extremely wanted here. If you have any slightest thing you're considering posting concerning a suggestion/improvement for me, go ahead and post it! Thanks! |
Welcome
GB fan 00:37, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
You are welcome
I am glad you understand. If you have any questions that I can answer let me know. Again welcome and keep up the good work. GB fan 00:40, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
ChaseAm, you are invited to the Teahouse
|
Hi ChaseAm! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. |
A barnstar for you!
|
The Photographer's Barnstar |
| I've no idea how or why you decided to update the images on the ClueBot false positive page, but the new pictures are a great improvement. Thank you! Yunshui 雲水 06:52, 5 April 2013 (UTC) |
Review
Hello. Overall I still agree with what I said when I first saw your request at WP:RFP/C, you are doing a very good job. For the most part your edits and warning are appropriate. There are some that warnings that probably weren't appropriate.
You gave 130.185.155.130 an only warning for [this edit. While the edit was inappropriate, it probably didn't rise to the level of an only warning. Also you reported them to WP:AIV for vandalism after a final warning. The only problem is that the final warning was in January. After a few days most warnings of IPs can be disregarded because there is a strong possibility that it was a different person.
Here, you reverted an IP on their talkpage. The comments they made were inappropriate ad should have been removed then warned for it, but you should not have readded the information they removed. Users, even IPs, can remove most items from their talk page. The list of things that can not be removed is very short. Prior to this you were correct when you restored content to an IPs talk page that they removed.
Nothing technically wrong with this, but after you moved Wikipedia:Hope Castle to Hope Castle you could have requested the redirect be deleted as it was not needed. (I have deleted the redirect)
When you edited Brooke Candy you added {{citation needed}} tags to a couple of unsourced statements. While that is correct in most instances, when we are talking about living people and have something that could be considered negative, the first step should be to remove the the information until a reliable source is found.
You use edits summaries which is very important for others to be able to see what you have done. There are a few things you can improve on, but that is the same for all of us. Overall you are progressing very nicely. Keep up the good work. GB fan 01:13, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- Alright, certainly! Thank you so much for the suggestions; it's nice to have some outside ideas on where to work on and place focus. Once again, thanks a bunch! ChaseAm (talk) 19:51, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Suggestions
ChaseAm, you can shorten your edit summaries. Like with this [1], you said "Doesn't appear to be a valid change (it appears dubious and vandalous); if it is, an edit summary or reference should be provided, or it should..." You could just say rvv(?), no RS, unexplained. Or any combo of those terms. See Glossary and WP:ES (especially the link in the SA section) for more hints. Also, your AfD on Stephen Liddle has sparked a lively discussion. I've enjoyed it and learned a few things. Keep up the good work. – S. Rich (talk) 00:25, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Oh, excellent - a wonderful surprise! Thank you, I'm guessing you see that I rather enjoy and appreciate suggestions! Okay, I will definitely take that into account when reverting. However, I've been "on the fence", so to speak, about edit summaries. For the new people, I'd like the person who was reverted to be able to clearly see as to why they were reverted. Though, I also think if they're editing should they not have knowledge of these codes/shortenings, or look into them if not? I especially try not to bite newcomers (or anybody, really). Hmm, I suppose if that's reallly a concern I could just post a personal message on their page if it hasn't already been done, seeing as that's more of a function of messages rather than edit summaries. What would you think as for that? Also, for the AfD on Stephen Liddle has certainly taught me many things as well. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! ChaseAm (talk) 00:33, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Ok chase. Thank you very much. I know Euronymous and Dead are best firneds, so I shall put in personal life. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.69.162.127 (talk) 23:58, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi Dear Friend
Hi. I see you reverted Euronymous. These men are best friends. I have cited source for best friend. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.69.162.127 (talk) 04:05, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
- Hello! That isn't particularly something that should go in the caption, if you really would like to put that in the article, it will need to go into a section, most likely personal life. Be sure to cite that source. Thanks for your contributions ChaseAm (talk) 11:55, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Hello Again!
I posted this on Benlisquare's talk page, but I will repost here so you don't miss it:
"::Well isn't this interesting. Witchhunt? Calm down, both of you, and Benlisquare, your recent stunt is borderline criminal and if you do anything like that again, I will be in touch with authorities with a bit more power than facebook admins. And Chase, seriously, don't witchhunt. Jersey John (talk) 01:50, 30 April 2013 (UTC) "
There you have it! Jersey John (talk) 01:50, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
By the by, I wouldn't be too hasty to ally myself with someone like Benlisquare. I say this out of honest concern for your image here. Despite the fact that you're going unnecesarily Don Quixote on me, you're still obviously concerned with doing the right thing. Benlisquare, on the other hand, is not. You think I'm bad...? His history, certainly is no better. Only he is much more blatant and malicious, as his latest stunt shows.
And continuing in the spirit of trying to recognize where you are coming from and finding common ground, I want to extend an apology to you for this whole mess. I feel we can both just back away from this now and be better off for it. What do you say? Jersey John (talk) 02:15, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Regarding Jros83
As of now, I'd like to wait a bit. I've been meaning to compile a list of all the non-constructive posts he's made to all users on various article and user talk pages since last year, but keep getting sidetracked. I'm going to wait to see if he makes any more stupid comments, especially as they venture into blatant banworthy territory, just to make things a bit easier. He has been doing this for a long time, and I"m slowly getting fed up. I believe that he is not here to build an encyclopedia, and is merely using talk pages to pick fights with other people. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 07:20, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
- You both need to stop and let this go. You are both being as unconstructive and petty as I have ever been. Chase I have a feeling youre sensible enough but please be aware that Benli is simply having fun creating more drama and it would be a shame if one such as you were dragged into it. As far as I am concerned this issue is over with. Chase I have made clear my personal position towards you and I hope you see it is genuine and as for you Benli I'll stay away from you, you stay away from me. That is the BEST course of action, and if you insist on keeping this crap going then it can only be construed as you being malicious. This is done and over with. Regards to all. Jersey John (talk) 14:44, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
- Okay Benlisquare, agreed. And Jros83, as far as that, I simply cannot observe you being rude to people. If you would just stop, I'd have no problem working with you and forgetting about it, as I'm sure the rest of the Wikipedians would say, but the problem is that you don't stop. Frankly, I would rather get scolded, or even have administrative action taken against me, for standing up for a Wikipedia editor that was a victim of these unconstructive comments. Also, I don't think that it's unconstructive or petty for me to stand up for somebody, perhaps it's just due to a huge slant on my part, but that's what I think as of now, and it seems to be the most... ethical I suppose you could call it... thing to do, maybe not towards you, but for the people who assumed good faith and you took bad faith against them. I was planning on letting this go until I saw that it just keeps on persisting, it never goes away (or at least it's yet to). I'm sorry for saying this again, but it's truly not a personal thing, if you would just stop it would be completely indifferent to me. Thank you, and Jros, you still have a chance, I hope you, as well as all of us, decide to forget all of this and continue making constructive edits and comments to Wikipedia. We're all people here, we all make mistakes, and it's understandable to get upset or frustrated with somebody, as you can see by my comments towards you right now (I'm trying to keep these as in good faith as possible, not sure how successful I was) and in the past. ChaseAm (talk) 19:53, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
- Also: I just went to your talkpage to add a TB and saw the diffs for what you said about witchhunting. I wouldn't consider what I did to be witchhunting, what you're saying & doing is a blatant and continuing thing. It literally requires a 5-10 second skim of active additions to see it's not in good faith. It affects other editors, it's continuing: something needs to be done here, whether it be a change in your/our behavior or something beyond that. From WP:WITCHHUNT "A witchhunt is an action taken by a Wikipedia editor to find fault or violations in another editor when it is not already obvious that such has occurred.... may become so obsessed with that possibility that they go to the extremes of studying the edit histories of others very deeply as if they were detectives". While I may match possibly one of those descriptions, I don't believe it's bad to stand up for editors. ChaseAm (talk) 20:03, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
- How difficult is it for you to accept that this is over? I'm not fighting your position. You're perfectly right about it. It's DONE. Ok? It doesn't need further discussion. Jersey John (talk) 20:23, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
- Okay, I hope that's proven to me. You're off to a good start by saying so, with making constructive comments ChaseAm (talk) 20:46, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
- How difficult is it for you to accept that this is over? I'm not fighting your position. You're perfectly right about it. It's DONE. Ok? It doesn't need further discussion. Jersey John (talk) 20:23, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
- Also: I just went to your talkpage to add a TB and saw the diffs for what you said about witchhunting. I wouldn't consider what I did to be witchhunting, what you're saying & doing is a blatant and continuing thing. It literally requires a 5-10 second skim of active additions to see it's not in good faith. It affects other editors, it's continuing: something needs to be done here, whether it be a change in your/our behavior or something beyond that. From WP:WITCHHUNT "A witchhunt is an action taken by a Wikipedia editor to find fault or violations in another editor when it is not already obvious that such has occurred.... may become so obsessed with that possibility that they go to the extremes of studying the edit histories of others very deeply as if they were detectives". While I may match possibly one of those descriptions, I don't believe it's bad to stand up for editors. ChaseAm (talk) 20:03, 30 April 2013 (UTC)