User talk:--WikiUser1234945--: Difference between revisions
Reverted 1 edit by 2A00:23C5:E937:8701:1085:C278:5144:9C14 (talk): Disruptive |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 66: | Line 66: | ||
:Hallo [[User:91.143.105.59|91.143.105.59]], aktualisiert! Viele Grüße [[User:--WikiUser1234945--|--WikiUser1234945--]] ([[User talk:--WikiUser1234945--#top|talk]]) 14:38, 13 September 2023 (UTC) |
:Hallo [[User:91.143.105.59|91.143.105.59]], aktualisiert! Viele Grüße [[User:--WikiUser1234945--|--WikiUser1234945--]] ([[User talk:--WikiUser1234945--#top|talk]]) 14:38, 13 September 2023 (UTC) |
||
RE: Noddy - hi actually there are some books available with that title [[Special:Contributions/2A00:23C5:E937:8701:141A:65AA:C18F:FC6D|2A00:23C5:E937:8701:141A:65AA:C18F:FC6D]] ([[User talk:2A00:23C5:E937:8701:141A:65AA:C18F:FC6D|talk]]) 16:13, 14 September 2023 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 16:13, 14 September 2023
| This is --WikiUser1234945--'s talk page, where you can send him messages and comments. |
|
 Archives (Index) |
|
This page is archived by ClueBot III.
|
A barnstar for you!
|
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar |
| Here's a little token of appreciation for what you do in counter-vandalism and more...👏👏👏. Keep it going! Volten001 ☎ 11:04, 27 August 2023 (UTC) |
Wolf
.jpg)
Cyberwolf434344 has given you a Wolf! Wolves promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Wolves must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion and protector forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a wolf, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
Spread the goodness of wolves by adding {{subst:Wolf}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!
•Cyberwolf• 14:04, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
Revertastic
Thanks for the reverts. Always appreciated. I was trying to deal with a sock at the same time. Knitsey (talk) 14:46, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
- Hi Knitsey, I'm busy with many other things, can happen. Greetings --WikiUser1234945-- (talk) 14:54, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar |
| For your wonderful anti-vandalism work. Keep it up! ChrisWx (talk - contribs) 16:24, 2 September 2023 (UTC) |
Thanks, and FYI
Hi, --WikiUser1234945--. Thanks for reverting the N-word vandalism at Special:PageHistory/Robert Kaske. I've now blocked the account responsible, and it's been locked by a steward. For future reference, if you see vandalism that severe coming from an account with previous good-faith edits, the best thing to do is to immediately report to AIV as possibly compromised. Thanks, and happy editing. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 19:46, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- Hi Tamzin, thanks for your message. I have another question: when should I report vandalism-/spam-only accounts? Some users here report vandalism-only accounts without final warning on AIV. Have a nice day. --WikiUser1234945-- (talk) 16:38, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- It's honestly a judgment call. Each warning has a different level of AGF associated with it. Level-1 is pure AGF: It assumes that the user is completely unaware that what they've done is a bad thing. Level-2 assumes they knew it was wrong but maybe not the severity. Levels 3 and 4(im), as well as a no-warning block, all assume they knew exactly what they were doing. So like, I might use level-1 for someone who's blanked a section, because that's doable by accident. I might start at -2 for someone who changes "is a musician" to "is a butt", because that's blatant vandalism but relatively benign, and maybe a single warning message will scare someone onto the right track. I rarely do both levels 3 and 4 on someone; which I use is a function of the severity of the vandalism.So all that is to say, suppose someone replaces "is a musician" in an article with "is a real piece of shit". You start with a level-3 warning because that's obviously bad faith. (-4im would also be reasonable here, but it's within a patroller's discretion.) They then make the same edit again. At that point, yeah, for an account, going straight to AIV is reasonable. You might find the occasional admin who says no, you should have given a level-4 warning too, but I think it's the minority view by far.This is all distinct from warnings to IPs. Because IPs often rotate among people, it can be more important to establish a paper-trail that the IP has been consistently used for vandalism. Like, I've blocked accounts for vandalism that had made 3 vandal edits, each a month apart. But I probably would not do that for an IP, because it might be 3 different people.Does all of that make sense? -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 16:51, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- Hi Tamzin, that's good. Have a nice weekend. --WikiUser1234945-- (talk) 19:17, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- It's honestly a judgment call. Each warning has a different level of AGF associated with it. Level-1 is pure AGF: It assumes that the user is completely unaware that what they've done is a bad thing. Level-2 assumes they knew it was wrong but maybe not the severity. Levels 3 and 4(im), as well as a no-warning block, all assume they knew exactly what they were doing. So like, I might use level-1 for someone who's blanked a section, because that's doable by accident. I might start at -2 for someone who changes "is a musician" to "is a butt", because that's blatant vandalism but relatively benign, and maybe a single warning message will scare someone onto the right track. I rarely do both levels 3 and 4 on someone; which I use is a function of the severity of the vandalism.So all that is to say, suppose someone replaces "is a musician" in an article with "is a real piece of shit". You start with a level-3 warning because that's obviously bad faith. (-4im would also be reasonable here, but it's within a patroller's discretion.) They then make the same edit again. At that point, yeah, for an account, going straight to AIV is reasonable. You might find the occasional admin who says no, you should have given a level-4 warning too, but I think it's the minority view by far.This is all distinct from warnings to IPs. Because IPs often rotate among people, it can be more important to establish a paper-trail that the IP has been consistently used for vandalism. Like, I've blocked accounts for vandalism that had made 3 vandal edits, each a month apart. But I probably would not do that for an IP, because it might be 3 different people.Does all of that make sense? -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 16:51, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Chestnut Hill
Hello, I received your note about using the talk section instead of editing. I just saw that so I apologize for missing that. I’m confused about why chestnut hill is considered a village. I believe it is a region that encompasses or Brookline, Newton and west Roxbury. and it should be updated accordingly. Please let me know how/when we can discuss further. Thank you kindly. 73.227.213.55 (talk) 18:56, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- Hi, I think the WikiProject Massachusetts is the best place for your question. Have a nice weekend. --WikiUser1234945-- (talk) 19:10, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
Christoph Leitgeb
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christoph_Leitgeb
Es wurde für eine Änderung ein Nachweis verlangt:
Auf Seite 15 steht, dass er in Feldkirchen bei Graz ein Haus baut. Mittlerweise wird er dieses schon bezogen haben. 91.143.105.59 (talk) 09:33, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- Hallo 91.143.105.59, aktualisiert! Viele Grüße --WikiUser1234945-- (talk) 14:38, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
RE: Noddy - hi actually there are some books available with that title 2A00:23C5:E937:8701:141A:65AA:C18F:FC6D (talk) 16:13, 14 September 2023 (UTC)