User talk:William Avery/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Archives

1 2 3 4 5

Vandalism by 64.160.203.138

Earlier today, you put a {{uw-huggle1}} vandalism warning template, Level 1, on the talk page of 64.160.203.138. However, over the past week, that anon had received other vandalism warnings, Levels 1, 2, and 3. Thus, the next such warning should have been Level 4. That way, if a bot were to revert any additional vandalism from that anon, it would place a short-term block on access from that IP address. Would you please consider raising the level of your vandalism warning to {{uw-huggle4}}? Thanks! (P.S. Please respond here since I will have your page watchlisted.) — Spike (talk) 19:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The level of warning I issued is consistent with what Cluebot or Huggle would deliver, ignoring previous messages over 24 hours old. If the IP was consistently returning to one article I would ignore that and ramp up the level regardless of the time interval. In my experience failure to ignore old vandalism will lead to admins declining requests at WP:AIV by saying there is not enough recent vandalism, or the warnings given were improper. See Wikipedia:WikiProject_user_warnings/Help:Introduction#Edits_from_IP_addresses. William Avery (talk) 20:03, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation, but I thought that the whole reason headings like September 2009 were added was that recency is determined by larger time frames than just 24 hours. At the very least, I thought that consideration would be given to a pattern over seven days. Otherwise, how are these anons ever going to be brought under control?! There is such an extreme waste of time and effort expended by Wikipedians reverting anonymous vandalism: So much time, in fact, that it necessitated the creation of programs primarily dedicated to that task such as Twinkle, Huggle, etc.; hence, my surprise that the time frame is as narrow as 24 hours. Thanks again for your explanation! :) — Spike (talk) 20:13, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Oh! That link at the end of your reponse was added after I started editing. I’ll go and read it now! — Spike (talk)

Re your P.S., sorry about that. "waste of time and effort expended by Wikipedians reverting anonymous vandalism": tell me about it! William Avery (talk) 20:19, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

WP AIV

Hi William. Just curious - why did you delete my post on the AIV page?this post Jay†Litman 12:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The was report was filed automatically by Huggle when I reverted some vandalism, and that seems to be the way it works. Do you think it's a bug? William Avery (talk) 12:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Oops - I just noticed its a different IP address - so definitely a bug. William Avery (talk) 12:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into this. It does appear that Huggle hijacked part of my post to insert your post. I will leave a message on the Huggle discussion so that this glitch can be addressed. Jay†Litman 15:13, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Dalhousie

Thanks for moving the name. How do you go about moving the name of an article when a change like that occurs? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.173.235.108 (talk) 18:48, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem. There is a 'move' tab, at the top of the page to the right of 'edit' & 'history'. William Avery (talk) 18:50, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

dashes.js

I see you used dashes.js on Bristol. I reverted your change because you had put ndashes into external link and book titles where they didn't exist in the original. By all means use the tool on the body of the article but leave the references alone. --Simple Bob (talk) 10:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Maurice Bowra

Thank you very much for your article on C.M. Bowra!--Wetman (talk) 19:12, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Gothic (term)

On the Talk:Gothic page you recently praised the new material on Gothic (term). I thought you might want to comment on the debate at Talk:Gothic (term), as the validity of that article is now disputed, partly because of the name to which it was moved. This is without prejudice to what you might say, as I am looking for consensus here and not trying to fix a debate. Thanks.--SabreBD (talk) 09:40, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Little Richard

I undid the first, only to realize that the second contained even worse. I couldn't figure out how to revert two, so I just copied and pasted Sssoul's. - 76.20.10.117 (talk) 20:17, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The image

I think the image is good, what's the problem? --Pediainsight (talk) 16:29, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Hallo

I hope your intervention will slow Pediainsght reposition of unwanted images. I've linked to your comment on his WQ user talk [1], where he is replacing other images by Commons:User:Cme in spite of Wikimedia having more informative images. The last account that acted similarly in es:WP (es:Usuario:日本語 has been blocked due to a variety of disruptions, but now there are similar patterns from unregistered IPs. We had previously blocked many accounts which acted similarly both in es:WP and es:WQ, but new accounts are created and retake this and worse behaviours. Please excuse my English. Cheers. --Javierme (talk) 19:30, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Arthur Smith (illustrator)

Many thanks for tidying up the article and putting in some categories. Richard Avery (talk) 18:16, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Renaissance architecture

All that removal of information by Theologia from that generic article to set up one specific to Itlay was done without any discussion, and an effectively pirated an A-class article. I notice that you made several minor edits while the removals were underway. I am just drawing your attention to what was happening. I'll try to reinstate your edits. Amandajm (talk) 08:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

G'day! I thought I'd fixed the baptistery bit. I was strenuously trying to ignore the facades as I am opposed to using the French accent. I believe the word has been anglicised. However the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary doesn't agree with me, so I will have to learn to live with all those tacky little Rococo flourishes! Pity! Amandajm (talk) 10:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

No, don't remove them! Everybody else loves them. Amandajm (talk) 10:43, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism by 204.38.47.175

Hi, just wanted to say that anon vandalized again, now on page 109 (number). And he already got the last warning, as far as I can see... Chibidrive (talk) 23:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi - I've moved your comment down here (normally new comments go at the bottom). I have reported this IP to AIV. Thanks for your vandal fighting efforts.  7  23:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Gold Finger

He's the man, the man with the Midas touch A spider's touch Such a cold finger Beckons you to enter his web of sin BUT DON'T GO IN! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.7.245.46 (talk) 23:17, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Albert Schweitzer

Hello William,
Whatever can be done about all that stuff on the end of the world in this article? The editor seems to be trying to make some specific point but it is almost impossible to wade through the veils of repetition! Any suggestions? Can you see how to turn that into two sentences? Best wishes, Eebahgum (talk) 13:52, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm feeling a little dizzy after reading that. I am tempted to suggest pruning it with an axe rather than secateurs, but that's rather facetious. William Avery (talk) 14:04, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I'm just fiddling with the 'implications' philosophy section, towards which I have long harboured similar intentions. Perhaps you'll keep an eye on what I do and help in the post-butchery cleanup? Eebahgum (talk) 14:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC)