User talk:Will381796/Archives/2008/February

Re: AVG-Antivirus Awards

The thing is: There were no references/citations for the awards in that part of the article; so it sounded just like a promotional claim. There were two links: One was linking to a download website and another one had no connection whatsoever to the awards. Regards User Doe_☻T^☼C 03:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alrighty. Any comments about the question I asked on the talk page Re: renaming the page? will381796 (talk) 03:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I answered that question on the article's talk page. User Doe_☻T^☼C 03:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

here you go

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For reverting my vandalism, good work. sorry about that. Dlo2012 (talk) 02:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Block declined

Thanks for your message; I was already in the process of writing this explainer, so I hope it answers your questions. Looking at the contributions history, here is the time-line I see:

IP: article vandalized at 08:45
Will381796: first warning issued at 08:59
IP: article vandalized again at 11:00
IP: the IP's final edit removes the auto-sig on the AfD at 11:01; no additional edits have been made after this point
Will381796: message saying the issue will be reported to WP:AIV left at 11:05
Will381796: reported to AIV at 11:07
Kralizec!: declined to block at 11:09
Will381796: a "last warning" issued at [11:12

From my perspective, it appears that the vandal only received one low-level warning at 08:59, then was reported to AIV after their next edit. In your message on my talk page [1], you said the IP had already been warned twice, however your 11:05 message to the IP was not a warning, and your 11:12 warning was issued five minutes after your AIV report and three minutes after my decline. Even if your 11:05 message to the IP had been a warning, a block would not have been issued because the IP stopped editing at 11:01.

Except in the most egregious cases, editors should receive at least a couple of user warnings regarding their edits, with at least one of those warnings being a level-3 or level-4 "last warning" before a block may be requested. If the editor continues vandalizing after a warning is issued, step up the the warning to the next level. (Please note that warnings should only be escalated if the editor continues to vandalize after their previous warning; making four vandalism edits at 08:05 does not mean that four levels of warnings can be instantly issued.)

If you give four levels of properly escalated warnings, I can guarantee that virtually every one of your block requests will be implemented. Please let me know if you have any other questions or issues. Thanks, --Kralizec! (talk) 16:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glad I could help! Do not feel bad; it seems like we decline at least 20% of block requests for this or similar reasons. Feel free to drop me a line if you have any other questions, and thanks again for your vandal fighting! --Kralizec! (talk) 17:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

my talk page

Was your odd post about Youtube and vandalism an accident? Please reply on my talk page as I will not be checking here. 64.230.92.27 (talk) 02:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for being civil, I appologise if my manner was curt, but time was of the essence.64.230.92.27 (talk) 18:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:Tecan LiqHandlingRobot.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Tecan LiqHandlingRobot.JPG. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 01:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template substitution

Hi Will! I noticed your warning to this anonymous editor, and I'd like to remind you that templates generally need to be substituted, for a variety of reasons. Also, especially with IPs, as they are often shared, it is helpful if you would use the parameter to specify what article had the nonconstructive edit. and would you please remember to sign the warnings you leave? Thanks so much! Ariel♥Gold 16:46, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No worries :) I forget to sign sometimes too! And you can just use a simple format of {{subts:uw-test1|Article}} ~~~~ to get all the info in one line, plus the substitution. The month headers are nice for admins and other editors to know what warning the user is on, but subheaders with article names are helpful too, I didn't notice that's what you'd done, so my apologies. Cheers! Ariel♥Gold 17:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Will381796! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. β^_command 03:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]