User talk:MuBoSko

International Harvester Travelette
When reverting vandalism please remember to view the page history to ensure you get it all, cheers! Captainllama (talk) 05:25, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I’ll make sure to revert all of the edits next time. MuBoSko (talk) 15:46, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Talk pages
Hi, I'm BlackcurrantTea. I noticed that you replaced my warning on User talk:78.190.164.254. It comes as a surprise to many editors, but most things can be removed from a talk page. Their removing the notice was ok - it's taken as meaning that they've read it. See WP:REMOVED and WP:OWNTALK for more details. Happy editing! BlackcurrantTea (talk) 18:52, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks- I was attempting to follow the path of this user, whose edits were undone by the user whose talk page it was. Also, there's something not covered in the policy you linked- I don't know if this is within your area of expertise, but say a user vandalizes several pages and accumulates 2 warning levels (listed on Template:Uw-vandalism1 and other vandal template pages), then they remove those messages from their talk page and vandalize again, should the new warning begin at the first severity level or must the reverting editor check the page history to see if previous warnings have been issued, then post a 3rd-level warning? MuBoSko (talk) 19:05, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I forgot to ping. Do you have any insight related to the above? MuBoSko (talk) 22:06, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * (You asked a relatively simple question, and I find I've written an essay.) I wouldn't say checking the talk page history is a requirement, but a good idea. If an IP has a blank talk page, obviously something was there. Consider how much time has passed and what the warnings were for. Does it look like the same person, making the same kind of edits (e.g. blanking, obscenities, randomly changing dates of birth), perhaps to the same subject area? Unless it's a school or public wi-fi (and sometimes when it is), it's likely the same vandal, so they'd get the next-level template. On the off-chance it's not, it's good to include Shared IP advice. If you think the edits are newbie mistakes rather than vandalism, you could leave them something from Category:IP user welcome templates instead of another warning. If it's a registered editor, I'd look at their contributions first to see how much experience they have, and what they've been doing. It's often a new editor. Sometimes someone hasn't a clue about guidelines and policies, makes unfortunate edits which appear to be vandalism, and doesn't know how to react to the templates aside from erasing them. Did anyone welcome them? If not, I might take a step back, and use welcome-unsourced or welcome-delete. Welcome notices are more than a kind gesture: they include links to policies and help pages. If they've been welcomed or had some non-template interaction with other editors (perhaps there's a note that their Teahouse thread has been archived), and their edits are definitely vandalism, they'll get the level 3 template (or 4/4im if, for example, they're serious BLP violations). If they've been here long enough to know better, then I'd check the talk page history. How long ago were the warnings, and were they for the same type of behaviour? Six months ago they added unsourced information to a BLP, today they're removing references with no explanation: Clearly back to level one. They've been warned twice this month for the same thing? On to level 3. However at this point, you should take into account 'Don't template the regulars'. Some people react badly to templates (which might explain their removing the earlier ones from their talk page), and will accept a personal note much more gracefully. I expect this is rather more than you wanted to know. I hope you find at least some of it helpful. Cheers, BlackcurrantTea (talk) 01:27, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:49, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)