User talk:Ben James Ben

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm trying to record whole conversations, and as a result, when I add text to someone's talk page, I've also copied that text to this page.

Contents

[edit] User talk:199.3.196.21

Hi, I just reverted some of your edits, the ones that appear to be advertising and add a link to an external commercial site. They seem to violate Wikipedia policy, see: What Wikipedia is not. You may want to review this policy for your future edits. Thanks. --Ben James Ben 02:07, 2004 Nov 1 (UTC)

No response received from User:199.3.196.21

[edit] User talk:Netoholic: Preventing vote fraud

To follow up on my reply to your comments on Wikipedia:Preliminary_Deletion/Vote, you might want to consider adding an edit to each user's Talk page for those users whose voting record you comment on. The edit might contain boilerplate text such as:

I just wanted to let you know that I've added a comment to the [[vote page]] that points out your edit record. Please do not be offended. I did this only because your editing record is similar to those of other users who have submitted fraudulent votes in the past, and experience has shown that adding these comments are necessary to prevent this sort of fraud. Please let me assure you that this is not an attempt to cancel or discount your vote. Please address my comments by adding a comment below mine on the vote page. I recognize that this places an extra burden on you to "justify" your vote and that this may be unfair (please accept my apology for this). However, I believe that it is necessary to ensure the integrity of the voting system.

The point is that every effort should be made to not disenfranchise legitimate users when preventing vote fraud. By taking the pre-emptive action of apologizing, you can maintain the integrity of the voting system while at the same time not discourage legitimate users from community participation. Again, my position is that discouraging participation is a bigger crime that vote fraud.

Ben James Ben 23:43, 2004 Nov 5 (UTC)

No response received from User:Netoholic

[edit] Received 2004-11-07

Try not to be scared off from voting in surveys. You have plenty of edits, and it shouldn't be a problem. - Mattworld 17:56, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:Netoholic: A Note from a Sockpuppet

Netoholic, I think that your actions of accusing users of invalid votes on the Wikipedia:Preliminary Deletion/Vote have harmed Wikipedia. I recognize that preventing fraudulent votes is important. However, your actions cause more problems than they solve, and all in all, you have done more harm than good. Specifically, your actions work to taint the vote (by wrongly suggesting that votes are invalid), disenfranchise community members (by taking away their right to vote), and intimidate new community members from participating. This makes Wikipedia look bad to new users. I've already made some comments on the vote page, but because of continuing actions, I feel the need to mention this now on your talk page. -- Ben James Ben 03:34, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC)

[edit] Reverted link on Cha-Cha-Cha

Hi Ben James Ben, could you please explain, why a link to a database with ChaChaCha-Music is not useful? Thanks --InvDev 12:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I answered and moved this discussion to the Cha-cha-cha talk page. --Ben James Ben 03:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clabbered Guac

I had no reason to believe that it's vandalism, so I left it with a request for a citation to give it a chance to be verified before deleting it. I thought tagging it to alert readers that its questionable would be enough. That way they could read it in the chance that it's true, but would be wary of the information in the chance that it's not. If it stays uncited for long enough then I would say to delete it. Why do you think it's vandalism? Anyway, thanks for keeping an eye on the Guacamole page. I would also watch Clabber. I'm glad to know what it is, but some Deletist (aka Addhoc) thinks it controversial and keeps deleting it. --In Defense of the Artist 12:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Persistent but sporadic vandals

The problem is, once a month is just infrequent enough that any cure (blocking the IP, protecting the article) would stand to harm more innocent editors than to foil any vandalism. If they always use the same IP, and they vandalize at least daily, then a case can be made to block the IP. If they target the same article daily, then a case can be made to protect the article. Once a month, though, and I think there's too much collateral damage. —C.Fred (talk) 04:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)