User talk:Will120: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 00:34, 8 September 2011

Once again

Batfan... You're coming off a week's block and you're just picking up where you left off. No warnings given to editors you are reverting and I'm finding reverts that really are good faith edits that shouldn't have been reverted at all (in my opinion). Specifically: [1] - Good faith edit and no warning or explanation given to the editor; reverted here [2], without any explanation/warning to the editor; again here [3], no warning; same here [4]; here [5].. You've had more than a week's worth of blocks - plenty of time to read up on the practice of reverting vandalism and warning users, which is just not a technicality. As has been pointed out to you many times, warnings form the basis of administrator action in terms of blocking, etc. It is difficult (and unfair) to try to have an editor blocked if they haven't been sufficiently warned. I, and many others, I think, gave you the benefit of the doubt because you were inexperienced. Now, I don't believe it's that you don't know, now I think you just don't care. I forsee longer blocks in your future, I'm afraid. Wikipelli ^Talk 23:00, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

batfan, I've actually asked you in the past to provide explanations for your reversions [6] and you agreed to do so. Should you continue to undo edits without an explanatory edit summary (the default edit summary provided is not sufficient - you must write an explanation in addition to it suchlike "reverted vandalism" or "undid removal of content without explanation" etc.), I will indefinitely block you from editing. –xeno^talk 23:09, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I care

I care. I don't know how to use warning templates. I will only report level 4's to the aiv noticeboard. (learned my lesson there) I will give some explanation to vandals about their vandalism. Please put the link to the warning template page on my userpage.--1966batfan (talk) 00:28, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Vandalism, there are warning templates at Wikipedia:Vandalism#Warnings. See also Wikipedia:Vandalism#What is not vandalism - better yet - read the whole page back to front =) –xeno^talk 00:34, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 4: / Line 4: @@
 *batfan, I've actually asked you in the past to provide explanations for your reversions [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:1966batfan&diff=445171807&oldid=445170270] and you [[User talk:Xeno/Archive 27#Sockpuppet investigation/Reverts|agreed]] to do so. Should you continue to undo edits without an explanatory edit summary (the default edit summary provided is ''not'' sufficient - you must write an explanation in addition to it suchlike "reverted vandalism" or "undid removal of content without explanation" etc.), I will indefinitely block you from editing. –[[user:xeno|<font face="verdana" color="black">'''xeno'''</font>]][[user talk:xeno|<font color="black"><sup>talk</sup></font>]] 23:09, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
+== I care ==
+I care. I don't know how to use warning templates. I will only report level 4's to the aiv noticeboard. (learned my lesson there) I will give some explanation to vandals about their vandalism. Please put the link to the warning template page on my userpage.--[[User:1966batfan|1966batfan]] ([[User talk:1966batfan|talk]]) 00:28, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
+:See [[Wikipedia:Vandalism]], there are warning templates at [[Wikipedia:Vandalism#Warnings]]. See also [[Wikipedia:Vandalism#What is not vandalism]] - better yet - read the whole page back to front =) –[[user:xeno|<font face="verdana" color="black">'''xeno'''</font>]][[user talk:xeno|<font color="black"><sup>talk</sup></font>]] 00:34, 8 September 2011 (UTC)