User talk:--WikiUser1234945--/Archives/2023/September
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:--WikiUser1234945--. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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 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) |
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)
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)
- Hi, we don't need parodies. Regards --WikiUser1234945-- (talk) 16:45, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
Edit
Hello. I received a message stating that you have reverted an edit of mine. The problem is that I do not have an account on this IP, nor do I remember making the mentioned edit. Thank you for your time. Contact me if you feel as if your judgement is correct. 208.38.237.150 (talk) 16:00, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
- Hi, the earlier owner of your IP adress has made nonsense. Have a nice weekend. --WikiUser1234945-- (talk) 16:41, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
|
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar |
| You have reverted vandalism probably quicker than anybody else, in my opinion. You beat me to reverting vandalisms a couple of times. Nonetheless, I appreciate your reverts. TheAlienMan2002 (talk) 14:29, 15 September 2023 (UTC) |
Wolf
Blaze Wolf 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!
Thanks for reverting that troll on my talk page. Funnily enough I'm inactive enough that most vandalism is gone by the time I see it on my talk page. ― Blaze WolfTalkblaze__wolf 03:24, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
I think it’s wrong information 2001:8F8:1E3D:AAF:7168:2676:2277:E2F4 (talk) 10:46, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
- Hi, please explain your edit detailed. Regards --WikiUser1234945-- (talk) 10:48, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
Hey there friend! You've recently left a note on my talk page that an edit I did on Variations of the ichthys symbol, changing the word "rish" to "fish" is not constructive and has therefore been reverted. Care to explain how fixing that link was wrong? I've tried searching if eagle catching rish was a real thing. However, google returns only that specific WP article page when specifically searching for that term under quotes. eagle catching fish however is a real article. The edit you reverted is: this edit. I'd like to remind you that even single letter edits can be constructive. 144.208.195.154 (talk) 18:01, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
- Hi, sorry for the revert - it was a mistake. Regards --WikiUser1234945-- (talk) 18:59, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you kindly for your good work! Have a nice day! :) 144.208.195.154 (talk) 18:54, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
Hey!
Hello, I am new to Wikipedia and I have seen you reverting vandalism on an article I like, I want to thank you for doing this and taking time out of your day to help! MorningOfTheNight (talk) 16:20, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
hi, can i have an answer please
regarding my correction of the Last Generation article, where you reversed my changes and accused me of vandalism.
Today, the Real estate management authority of Berlin announced that the cleaning of the Brandenburg Gate, after the LG's color attack, will take much longer and cost much more than anticipated. It's just the latest example but by far not the only one, why I suggest to revert your reversion of my changing of the term -"non-violent" to "violent". I.e delete the 4 characters "non-".
Thank you. 212.161.29.178 (talk) 10:04, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
- Hi, I think, you mean this edit, which was reverted by @Knitsey. Regards --WikiUser1234945-- (talk) 16:52, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
- Hi ip, thanks for reaching out. I must admit I have trouble remembering my name when I wake up, so I'm struggling to remember the situation. Nevertheless, looking at the edit and the reference, it wasn't clear they were classed as violent under German legislation.
- Obviously they have been disruptive and they have damaged property but the reference wasn't clear they were classed as violent crimes. If you have a new reference stating they have been convicted of violent crimes then please do add it. Hope this helps, Knitsey (talk) 17:05, 28 September 2023 (UTC)