User talk:SUIT/Warnings

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Warning

Please refrain from removing content from Wikipedia, as you did to The Adventures of Priscilla: Queen of the Desert. It is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. TheRanger 00:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

How was that vandalism? I simply speced- oh that, sorry 'bout that, guess I messed up...--Atomic-Suit-n-tie^{What Have I Done?!} 00:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removing Speedy Deletion Tags is Vandalism -- DO NOT DO IT AGAIN

Removing a speedy deletion notice is vandalism. It's not your place to judge whether or not a speedy deletion notice is appropriate or not; it's the reviewing administrator. Do not do it again, or you may subject yourself to further penalties that relate to vandalism. The tag itself advises you on how to dispute a speedy deletion notice if you so desire. — Whedonette (ping) 18:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I know all that, I just didn't think you knew what you were doing.--SUIT 18:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Assuming bad faith of your fellow editors (i.e., assuming they don't know what they're doing) isn't a valid excuse for committing vandalism. — Whedonette (ping) 18:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I already said so: I know all the policies; I've been here a while. I know: Assume Good Faith, Vandalism, etc... Now please, are you finished?--SUIT 18:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Glad to hear it. Then start implementing those policies in your behavior as an editor. You didn't in this case; thus, the warning. Don't do it again. — Whedonette (ping) 18:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I have been implementing those policies since August.--SUIT 18:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

If I could butt in, I'd like to say that (if the page that you two are talking about and the page that I'm thinking of are the same) you can't just tag a user subpage because it's "nonsense". What next? Are you going to tag every user sandbox because Wikipedia already has one (which I don't recommend, by the way)? // Sasuke-kun27 18:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removing Speedy Deletion Tags is Vandalism -- DO NOT DO IT AGAIN- Even More

Removing a speedy deletion notice is vandalism. It's not your place to judge whether or not a speedy deletion notice is appropriate or not; it's the reviewing administrator. Do not do it again, or you may subject yourself to further penalties that relate to vandalism. The tag itself advises you on how to dispute a speedy deletion notice if you so desire. — Whedonette (ping) 18:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I know all that, I just didn't think you knew what you were doing.--SUIT 18:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Assuming bad faith of your fellow editors (i.e., assuming they don't know what they're doing) isn't a valid excuse for committing vandalism. — Whedonette (ping) 18:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I already said so: I know all the policies; I've been here a while. I know: Assume Good Faith, Vandalism, etc... Now please, are you finished?--SUIT 18:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Glad to hear it. Then start implementing those policies in your behavior as an editor. You didn't in this case; thus, the warning. Don't do it again. — Whedonette (ping) 18:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I have been implementing those policies since August.--SUIT 18:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

You didn't in this case: you admittedly removed a speedy delete notice (WP:VAND|vandalism) and did it because you assumed a fellow editor didn't know what he was doing (WP:AGF violation). I really don't have the urge to discuss this with you any longer. So here's the official warning text for you from Template:drmspeedy ...

Please do not remove speedy deletion tags from articles that you have created yourself. If you do not believe the article deserves to be deleted, then please place {{hangon}} on the page and make your case on the article's talk page. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article. Thank you.

... and I've left your talk page. — Whedonette (ping) 18:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Removing warnings from your talk page is also considered vandalism and can in many circumstances lead to blocks. You do not own your talk page — it belongs to the Wikipedia project as a means of contacting you. You can archive your current talk page as you see fit, but not outright blank sections — see Template:TestTemplates for warning messages relating to talk page blanking, for example. Feel free to inquire on this issue at the administrators' noticeboard if you do not believe me. Do not do it again. — Whedonette (ping) 18:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

For god's sake, I didn't remove all this it's in an archive. Will you please leave me alone now?--SUIT 19:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Your contribution history shows no sign of archiving it. When people speak of archiving talk pages, they are not speaking of a private archive accessible to only you; they are speaking of publicly accessible archives, in the sense of something akin to User_talk:SUIT/Archive 1. Further information at Wikipedia:How to archive a talk_page. — Whedonette (ping) 19:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

It's in the warnings archive. Why are you treating me like a new user? I'm not I've been here for a while now.--SUIT 19:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Here are all of the pages in your userspace. Here are all of the pages in your user talkspace. I see no "warnings archive." Again, I refer you to the link I posted above, regarding talk page archival policy. — Whedonette (ping) 19:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

If you're looking for a link to the archive, here it is. // Sasuke-kun27 19:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Why do you edit under more than one Wikipedia account? That's extremely frowned upon. "[G]enerally considered uncool unless you have a good reason." — Jimbo Wales (Wikipedia founder) At the very least, you should be appropriately labeling each of your talk pages. — Whedonette (ping) 19:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

He had his name changed and didn't bother to move a few pages. Stop acting all high and mighty. You're trying to make yourself look better by finding small and pointless flaws about SUIT. It's really arrogant and annoying. Nemu 19:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Assume good faith, please. — Whedonette (ping) 19:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

You are the one who should Assume good faith.--SUIT 20:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry SUIT. It seems that Whedonette will get what's coming to him.[1]. -- bulletproof ^3:16 20:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Well that's cool.--SUIT 20:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Friggin' trolls -- bulletproof ^3:16 20:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Template:Civil to the lot of you. Yuser31415 ^{reply!|contribs|help me improve} 02:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)