User talk:Ultimateria

Archive

• 2008 - 2010
• 2010 - 2018
• 2019 - 2024

Context on AGP group

Hi Ultimateria, hope you're doing well! I just wanted to give you some more context about what Stríðsdrengur seemed to be referring to in this edit. We just got down to the bottom of it in the Wiktionary Discord server, and it seems like Stríðsdrengur held a private vote in the AGP server about whether or not to include you: with the title of "Tirar [...] Ultimateria da Aliança". However, a screenshot was provided from another user in said server that showed that the "vote" was 2-1-3 Sim-Não-Não sei, and most users from said group stated that they did not support the "removal." I personally take no position on the group or the block, but I just wanted to provide more context, since I don't believe you're active in the Discord group. AG202 (talk) 05:28, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

@AG202: Thanks for the context. I was wondering what "a decisão já foi tomada" meant. Ultimateria (talk) 20:38, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Luder line

Hi. Curious why you deleted this. Easy enough to verify the term, though it might be moved to Lüder line with an umlaut [e.g. John E. Hatch, 1984, Aluminum: Properties and Physical Metallurgy, p.129]. Forms with an s, apostrophe s, and 'band' in place of 'line' are all fairly common, so maybe just Lüder would be best. It seems that no form of the term appears on Wk. kwami (talk) 23:00, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: I've restored it and moved it to Lüders band. Ultimateria (talk) 05:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. kwami (talk) 05:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

An easy detail to miss

When you're hiding edits by an account with an unacceptable username, always remember to hide the edit summary on any rollback, since it includes the account name that made the edits. It's easy to forget, since you can't hide the content of the current revision and thus can't hide both the reverted edits and the rollback at the same time. You probably knew that already, but I thought I'd mention it as a reminder. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:35, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Got it, thank you. Ultimateria (talk) 03:06, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks u. ɶLerman (talk) 08:45, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

the bride at every wedding and the corpse at every funeral

Hello,

I contest your deletion of those pages, and have re-created them. In particular, I believe speedy deletion was misused. Speedy deletion is for vandalism or otherwise obvious junk, and that was not the case. "Is this legit?", the nominator's rationale, is NOT a rationale for speedy deletion. Doesn't help that it was probably Wonderfool who tagged for speedy deletion. You're welcome to tag them for RfD or whatever, but please DO NOT SPEEDY them again. Purplebackpack89 14:55, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

@Purplebackpack89: As someone pointed out at Talk:the bride at every wedding, the corpse at every funeral, these phrases don't appear to be used on their own. Speedy deletion has multiple uses and I don't appreciate you trying to explain it to me considering I've been an admin for over 15 years. "Unwanted redirect" was the rationale I gave, and I stand by that, but I'm certain I won't convince you so I'd rather just drop the issue. Ultimateria (talk) 16:42, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

He's recreated them. Please delete and salt. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:812E:E390:CD0C:A43F 16:47, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Why? The only person who's explicitly given any reason to delete them is you, 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:812E:E390:CD0C:A43F (90-99% sure you're WonderFool, btw) I literally said I was going to recreate them and why about. It shouldn't be SALTed without an RfD discussion; and I've created one to restore them. And it was inappropriate for Knight to call it "vandalism" Purplebackpack89 12:44, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

For the record, is was the IP who called you a vandal, not Theknightwho. Ultimateria (talk) 20:22, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Knight said "it was a vandal who created it" in his deletion summary. Wouldn't be the first time Knight tried to start a fight... Purplebackpack89 21:17, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm looking at the deleted edit history and I assure you it was the IP who wrote "This phrase is never used alone, as discussed at RFV/RFD -- note a vandal keeps recreating it -- please protect". The reason it shows up in the deletion notice is because it was part of the page's content, in this case the deletion template that the IP added. Ultimateria (talk) 00:04, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/2001:1388:4FC2:D8B6:0:0:0:0/64

Whoever this is has been creating odd unformatted stubs for historical alternative spellings. I've sort of fixed the formatting, but I don't trust this person's knowledge or judgment when it comes to what these spellings really are. It would take me a long time to get up to speed on the subject matter, so I thought you would be better suited to sort through their edits. Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 01:23, 24 March 2025 (UTC)