The following discussion is an archived talkpage of Amberrock below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on Amberrock's live user talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.

hi, you removed the contribution i put up on talkeetna taxi because it was promotional, but the paragraph above has an almost exactly the same promotion (Talkeetna Air Taxi). What was it about my contribution that was different than that? There is specific promotions for air and train travel, but none for shuttle service or taxi service. It is useful information. How about if I list other companies, as well? Or say "as well as other servicers"?

Thanks

dan — Preceding unsigned comment added by M0wyw0wy (talk • contribs) 00:13, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dan, rest assured: just because I removed your edit, it doesn't mean that I automatically agree with anything that was already on that page. Feel free to rework that entire section on taxi traveling in Talkeetna, Alaska. Things to keep in mind with regards to this subject: make sure you only mention companies by name which are notable. The best way to establish that is by adding citations to independent third party sources that verify the authenticity of the claim and justify its addition to the article. WP:V and WP:SOAP are some relevant links with regards to this subject matter. I hope that helps!—♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 00:25, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

What is your basis for removing images from the Mary Rose McGee wikipedia page? You seem to indicate that there is a copyright issue, but these items are from her (my grandmother's) personal archives and not subject to copyright protections. I am particularly perplexed about your removal of public campaign literature. Can you please explain or stop removing the pictures? Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.161.119.185 (talk) 00:45, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As indicated on your talk page, those images had very little information with regards to their source. Please update the file descriptions, which - according to the description you list here - should render them eligible for use on Wikipedia.—♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 00:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You claim you try to be neutral, and then promote an obvious leftist agenda. I'm actually the one promoting neutrality by removing something that only a vast minority of the world's population supports. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheGoodGoy (talk • contribs) 01:15, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the place for political soapboxing. GAB^Hello! 01:16, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@TheGoodGoy: All I can say is that you severely misinterpret my politics, but I'm not willing to discuss them here. Whether or not a "vast minority" supports something is really irrelevant when it comes to building an encyclopedia. It's all about having a neutral point of view and verifiability. Whether that offends people is really besides the point.—♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 12:11, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, I have returned my wording. You think just the turning off of the switch is interesting. I think the entire scene, start to finish, off and back on, is interesting. Plus, as I state in my edit summary, the reader should not be left thinking the switch is in the "off" position when it isn't. Let's not assume we can know where the writers are going with what, on the surface seems like a minor detail. Consider: the episode is called "Switch" for a reason. And, the writers have said that the switch will be re-visited later in the season. It may be more important than it initially seems. Nice to meet you. Buster Seven Talk 13:59, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To me it seemed to appear as if the most striking thing about the switch was that Jimmy flicks it off when a note attached to it clearly states it shouldn't be touched. The noteworthy thing about that Switch scene was that Jimmy was committing a small act of rebellion amidst his new corporate surroundings which would probably require his best behaviour. To show the viewers that he wasn't going to change, despite his awesome new job. I think that's the obvious thing. But you're right about me assuming too much, so I won't undo your reversal.. for now. I'll see how the storyline of this season unfolds, and take action accordingly afterwards.—♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 15:28, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And to me turning the switch back to its original position (ON) is the obvious thing that shows Jimmy is willing to "play by the rules", at least temporarily. Lets see where it goes, (as you say) ...for now. Buster Seven Talk 16:18, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Amberrock, I noticed that, as part of your recent DYK reviewing, which has been most welcome, you have been both marking with an X (DYKno) and rejecting DYK nominations in a single step. This is supposed to be a two-step process: one person marks the X, and someone else comes along and, if they agree, rejects the nomination.

The reason these are in two steps is two-fold: first, it gives the nominator one last chance to respond, and second, it allows a second opinion on whether the review should be closed. Both are important, and we're not in such a rush that we need to preclude either. It's not uncommon to allow up to the standard seven days after the X is applied before closing the review.

One of your recent rejections has already been reversed, per the DYK talk page: WT:DYK#Template:Did you know nominations/State road D915 (Turkey) was posted, the nomination restored, and a review made that approved the nomination, all in under 24 hours.

Please do only one or the other of the two steps going forward. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:23, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. It's been a while since I've been involved in DYK, and I'm a little rusty. Thanks for the help!—♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 01:40, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Amber,

The information was removed as it was not relevant and the links didn't work. One goes to a bodybuilding shop and the other didn't work. Plus the names of these individuals shouldn't be linked to this page. Please remove them.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by RAF Knowledge (talk • contribs) 00:44, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Amberrock. It looks like you deleted my web page on Feb 4th. I would like it restored. I put that page up for my alienated children to find, should they ever decide to come looking for me. My children have been taken from me, and told horrendous lies about me by a vindictive ex. I would like my page up to remind them of me, the good times we had, and to point them toward resources for finding the truth regarding the lies they have been fed. Please restore my page. Thank you for your cooperation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Walter.singleton (talk • contribs) 17:38, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Walter, although I express my sympathies with regards to the situation with your children - which is horrible, no doubt about that - I would also like to point you into the direction of WP:UPNOT. Wikipedia is not a webspace host, but an encyclopedic project. What you had on your user page ran contrary to that goal, so it unfortunately had to removed under the criteria for speedy deletion (WP:U5). Once again, I'm truly sorry for your situation, but Wikipedia is unfortunately not the place for this type of content... —♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 21:17, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Pokémon Sun and Moon at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 21:45, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have done some additional copyediting to fix some of the issues that you have raised in the DYK nom and to improve source quality. Please review the changes and let me know if I am being accurate. Raymie (t • c) 03:35, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help at Kamiya Kaoru's DYK issues. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 00:35, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem at all!—♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 00:40, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On 29 February 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Minecraft mods, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that mods are credited as one of the main reasons behind Minecraft's success? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Minecraft mods. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, ), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 12:02, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some of these were useful, but in other cases less so—the substituted prose to eliminate the copyvio was well-intentioned, but it is not standard chemical language used in teaching organic, and moving Clayden's description (which is the best UK text, and perfect for WP introductory material) out of the lede, and leaving instead only the very technical IUPAC language was not where we needed to end the lede. Also, there was no need to remove all of the example structures places by earlier editors; what was needed was a thoughtful culling to ensure good, non-repetitive examples remained. Finally moving the carefully chosen, and thoughtful "legend-ed" examples from the lede, into the Examples section left the article with no pedagogical thrust—the images were the only thing that made the IUPAC-based lede understandable. Have done some work, hold off for an hour, and take a look. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 22:52, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The nomenclature source that you provide was already provided in Further reading, in the long-form citation of the IUPAC nomenclature (look close, the same URL is there). So, I replaced the URL-only citation (as expanded by Derrick) to the full-featured, standard IUPAC citation (see, for instance, the Steroid article). Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 22:53, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note, in returning the various listed examples, it was a not a knee-jerk reversion, nor were removing "straight line" and "foremost" from the IUPAC paraphrase. In the first case, the examples provide the only example of heterocyclic bridged compounds, both with regard to bridgehead and bridge-containing heteroatoms; they are not all needed, but some are, and what remains need to be supplemented with other good examples (e.g., the common 7-Oxabicyclo[2.2.1]heptane). In the second case, the replacement of "unbranched" (which one could easily wikilink to the concept in other WP articles where unbranched is used) and "main bridge" with non-standard language does not make clear what was meant by the original IUPAC language (second problem not yet solved). No, that prose should not have been copy and pasted; but a personal paraphrase simply took the material out of chemistry, and did not make it chemically acceptable (to this ret. chem prof), or make it understandable (to this continuing teacher). Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 22:55, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When I edited the article, I was just trying to make less of a mess out of it. It was simply unorganized, layout wise, copyvright violation wise, structure wise, pretty-much-everything wise. Even I - an absolute novice when it comes to subjects involving chemistry - was able to pick up on that, so I did my best to improve the article. It's very possible I might have made some mistakes in the process. That's entirely possible, since I haven't been involved with chemistry since I was in the early years high school - about 15 years ago. As to the notes you left here on my talk page, I must confess I barely have a clue what you are talking about here. Which is not to say you are talking rubbish: quite the opposite, you are clearly far more versed in these matters than I am. I'm just your humble average generalist who was (in this particular case) trying to bring some improvement to an article which had a ((unsourced)) slapped on top of it for nearly a decade. So, I encourage you to be bold and reverse as many of my edits as you think will be necessary. I trust your judgment, and you shouldn't invest your precious time in pointing out to me the thousand ways that I've shown my lack of affinity with chemistry. Don't get me wrong: I appreciate you trying to teach me, but it's somewhat akin to investing time trying to learn a dog how to fly. Really, it's all good, and I'm glad you're improving this article. —♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 23:22, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your support and encouragement are appreciated. I am more used to people with your self-described level of science training nevertheless getting, how do you say, "bent out of shape" on being corrected or reverted, even in part. Thank you for the response, and for appreciating the hard work to move such articles in a good direction (even after a decade). (Amazing, despite my section title error, that you knew what I was on about.) Curmudgeonly I am, but you bring out the better nature. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 07:02, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see you're an admin too. The original article is here. If you've got the same sense of humour as me and Martinevans123 you'll be amused; if you've got the same as my other half, you'll scratch your head in bewilderment. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:13, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this and like how. I have withdrawn from the DYK review to allow WereWolf's DYK submission a proper review. Xender Lourdes (talk) 16:55, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it. I made a similar allegation not too long ago, and it took less than a day for another reviewer to point out to me what actually happened ;) We all make mistakes, don't fret it!—♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 19:24, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I loved the because I am vain part in your edit summary :) But isn't similiar wrong spelling? Xender Lourdes (talk) 01:52, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm such an idiot sometimes.—♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 01:55, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

:) Xender Lourdes (talk) 16:47, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for approving the article. I was surprised, but perhaps I shouldn't have been after reading everything you wrote, that despite being a native Dutch speaker you had never heard a stream referred to as a "kill"

Because we have lots of "kills" here in the Hudson Valley (as the linked article above makes clear), thanks to your people settling here and naming things before the British took over ... of course, that didn't stop us from using both English and Dutch in naming them from then on. I can look across my street at the Wallkill River, named after the Waal, right now.

I think that usage also came from German ... Stadtkyll sounds similar. And yes, there's a German Kyll river. Although it's pronounced differently.

I trust that "verkeerder" is properly understood by a modern Dutch speaker, though? I don't mind choosing that hook; it was the first one I thought of and I think it would get more clicks.

Glad I helped you learn something today ... I hope someday you can return the favor. Daniel Case (talk) 21:46, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have heard of streams being referred to as "kills", but I never considered the notion that this word could have been derived from Dutch. But yeah, the Dutch language has changed considerably over the course of many centuries and I do know Dutch settlers used to be quite prominent on the US East Coast. It used to be a lot closer to German, which is why it isn't surprising there's also a similar German word.

Verkeerder is understood by modern Dutch speakers, although nowadays we would probably spell it without the final r. I do hope that some day, I can teach you something new too. Cheers, and thanks for the interesting talk page note!—♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 21:59, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's not the whole East Coast, just the area north and a little bit east of New York City, to about north of Albany and as far west along the Mohawk as Amsterdam. There's still lots of remnants besides place names—family names like Van Alst, Kissam, Schaick, Roosa and (yes) Roosevelt; old stone houses (like this one, the oldest building in upstate New York and this one, also a National Historic Landmark, which is one of the most Dutch-looking buildings I've seen outside of my one visit to the Netherlands years ago (I wish my old picture from the side was still in the article). Daniel Case (talk) 22:00, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Amberrock,

I have supplied a new hook for the above, as you requested. Please continue your review.

Georgejdorner (talk) 15:46, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you promoted a number of DYK sets to the queues earlier today. Is there any reason that you did not add the ((DYKbotdo)) templates at the start of each set that is needed before DYKUpdateBot will promote a queue to the Main page? The bot has logged an error at User:DYKUpdateBot/Errors and placed a warning at Wikipedia talk:Did you know‎ because of the missing template. --Allen3 ^talk 23:22, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, not a particular reason. That was a boo boo on my part, due to my inexperience with this procedure. I would normally have shied away from moving prep areas over to queues, but all six queues were empty. I stepped in to make sure that a new update to the DYK on the main page would not be delayed. Because I haven't done this thing before, it's possible I made a mistake. Anyway: I'll look at it, and make sure I won't make the bot produce errors anymore. Sorry for the mess!—♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 23:47, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for promoting my DYK. (Phew... My last experience at clearing a DYK really taught me such a lesson....that it feels nice to see my own DYK pass without any issue). See you around. Xender Lourdes (talk) 03:04, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You really should stop feeling bad because of one mistake. Promoting your DYK was my pleasure!—♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 09:39, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. I was unaware of the discussion. JC · Talk · Contributions 23:01, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's ok! —♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 23:36, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On 18 March 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Pokémon Sun and Moon, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the upcoming Pokémon games Sun and Moon will feature connectivity with the Virtual Console versions of Red, Green, Blue and Yellow through Pokémon Bank? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Pokémon Sun and Moon. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, ), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Orfud has been nominated for merging with Template:Or-fu-re. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 12:46, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What's a barnstar? Daisy134 (talk) 02:20, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar is some kind of award that editors of Wikipedia can give to one another when they feel that they have earned them. For example, I have been given two barnstars for work I did at the Did you know nominations. It's up to individual users to decide which barnstar (if any) is given out, and why. For more information, I suggest visiting WP:BARNSTAR. —♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 09:38, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On 25 March 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Zoeterwoude-Dorp, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Dutch village of Zoeterwoude-Dorp was built in the 13th century around a church dedicated to the English missionary Saint Lebuinus? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Zoeterwoude-Dorp. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, ), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:47, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Nightrain.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:27, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Sweetchildomine.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:28, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yash! 05:55, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am writing this message to you because you put yourself down as a regular admin at DYK.

Per this AN thread, LavaBaron is given editing restrictions on DYK. Any hook nominated or reviewed by LavaBaron must be reviewed by a second editor before it may be promoted to the main page. The restrictions are reproduced below as follows:

1. A DYK article nomination or hook submitted by LavaBaron must be reviewed and accepted by 2 other editors before it may be promoted.
2. Any DYK nomination reviewed by LavaBaron must also be reviewed and accepted by 1 other editor before it may be promoted.
3. Any additional reviews by other editors, which are mandated by this restriction, shall count towards the QPQ of that editor.
4. (To balance the maths) For each article submitted by LavaBaron to DYK, 2 QPQ reviews by LavaBaron are required, at least 1 of which shall be a nomination that had not yet been accepted by another editor.
5. These restrictions shall initially last for a period of 3 months. At the end of the period, this restriction shall be reviewed.

--Deryck C. 13:45, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:34, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Amberrock.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:46, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.