User talk:Just James/Archive 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar

The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
I'm awarding you this RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar for your great contributions to protecting and reverting attacks of vandalism on Wikipedia. Wikidudeman (talk) 08:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Apology Accepted

It's alright, I never truly though you ment to offend me. Bonus X 08:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please look before you leap!

You recently accused me of vandalsim. That seems a bit harsh considering that I edited my own user page. While I was not logged in (sometimes that happens) before you accuse someone based on comments left on an IP user comment page, please look further.--Amadscientist 02:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

For your information I did do my research. And the warnings on 69.62.180.166's user talk page suggested possible vandalism. That is, until you blanked the page.--Just James T/C 01:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


[edit] My User Page

There is no WP policy that prevents one from deleting their user page, nor are you under any obligation to archive it. Please refrain from threatening to block my IP and please refrain from reverting my page. Read WP policy before you start to throw around threats. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.150.206.25 (talk) 05:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I am more up-to-date with WP policy than you are, and in future please provide edit summaries otherwise your edits will be construed as malicious. When I reverted the page blanking, you had not yet told Alexf that you had read the warnings and had decided to delete them. Please familiarise yourself with WP policy before you start accusing others of doing wrong. Also, in future please sign your name with 4 ~. Thank you and have a nice day.--Just James T/C 05:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
And having seen the edits you made to the Comics International article [1], you are hardly in a position to lecture me on WP policy.--Just James T/C 06:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I happened across this yesterday while doing vandalism patrol and asked Alexf about it, but never got a response. I thought that as per WP:USER#Removal of warnings users *were* in fact permitted to remove warnings from their own talk pages, and that the act of doing so was evidence of the warning being read. I'm pretty new to the whole vandalism patrol thing, and want to make sure I'm not doing anything wrong. Is there a conflicting policy that I'm missing? Thanks, --Clubjuggle 11:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Let me interject a little. Just for the record, I did answer after you posted here. I had not seen your message until then. As for the vandal, several editors are keeping an eye on him. If he stays clean and becomes a good editor, then we rejoice. If he takes the wrong path, he'll be blocked. Happy wiking! Alexf(Talk/Contribs) 21:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Alex, thanks for your reply. Sorry if I sounded like I was accusing of anything with "had not received a response," it was certainly not my intent to do so. My post here was simply intended to get another opinion from another editor I saw take a similar course of action to yours. As to the editor in question, he's on my watchlist, too. Thanks, --Clubjuggle 15:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
That's a fair enough interpretation, but I have a couple concerns with it, specifically:
(1) In the case I referenced the person was given a second vandalism warning for blanking his own talk page. As I understand it, blanking one's own talk page, while frowned upon, is not in fact vandalism. My interpretation is that a warning is therefore inappropriate. I'm more than OK with being wrong on that point, but I'd like to know [i]why[/i] I'm wrong.
(2) Likewise, if the person does have the right to remove warnings from his own talk page, I can see reverting the warnings for the sake of noting the warnings in the edit summary ("rv blanking of 1st & 2nd level level vandalism notices") but if they then blank them again, is it really appropriate to revert it a second time?
Again, I welcome any responses or corrections. I'm trying to learn. Thanks, --Clubjuggle 15:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

--How would I edit and delete a warning without reading it buddy? Logic. Its whats for dinner. Now leave me alone. 141.150.206.25 17:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion record from Clubjuggle

It may be so but it is frowned upon. I believe Talk pages should be archived instead. It is true that the page history will show it anyway but I feel it is better for other editors to see this one made a mishap. If they stay clean after one warning, then they become good editors and I see no problem there. If they are habitual vandals and they keep blanking after every warning, it is harder to search and determine if you have to issue a level 3 or level 4 or what have you. Just my opinion, of course. Happy wiking! Alexf(Talk/Contribs) 21:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

When it comes to IP vandals, you generally revert their acts of talk page blanking. Unless of course they are a minor vandal AND have stated in their edit summary that they have read the warning(s). Otherwise it'll just look as though they're trying to cover up their crimes. Again, that's my interpretation of the WP policy.--Just James T/C 13:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
That's a fair enough interpretation, but I have a couple concerns with it, specifically:
(1) In the case I referenced the person was given a second vandalism warning for blanking his own talk page. As I understand it, blanking one's own talk page, while frowned upon, is not in fact vandalism. My interpretation is that a warning is therefore inappropriate. I'm more than OK with being wrong on that point, but I'd like to know [i]why[/i] I'm wrong.
(2) Likewise, if the person does have the right to remove warnings from his own talk page, I can see reverting the warnings for the sake of noting the warnings in the edit summary ("rv blanking of 1st & 2nd level level vandalism notices") but if they then blank them again, is it really appropriate to revert it a second time?
Again, I welcome any responses or corrections. I'm trying to learn. Thanks, --Clubjuggle 15:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Just James. I may not have stated it so eloquently but it is my opinion also that by blanking they are trying to cover up their deeds. If you don't want the blemish to show, don't vandalize, period. As WP policy does not forbid this practice in writing (so far), you cannot enforce it. I generally eye those vandals with a closer scrutiny for a while afterwards, checking their contributions page often and nail them for any un-reported new vandalism. When they reach a point they need to be blocked I go to WP:AIV and report them. If blocking them is what it takes for them to learn to behave in society, then so be it. Alexf(Talk/Contribs) 17:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
You'll find a number of administrators agree with me. They (and I) believe it is important to keep a record of previous conversations, so vandals (and normal WP users) are encouraged to archive their old conversations/warnings. When I first started using WP I was involved in an editing dispute and let's just say I acted inappropriately. I was cautioned but I blanked the warning. Someone reverted this act of page blanking, but again I blanked the page. However, I later reverted this and you will now find the warning in my first talk page archive. I think it's important to understand that no one really owns their user/user talk pages on Wikipedia. For example, users don't have the right to use their page to say something nasty about someone else.--Just James T/C 01:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stottelaartje

Articles written in foreign languages are not patent nonsense. They should not be speedy deleted, but instead listed on pages needing translation. Darksun 13:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

My apologies, I used the wrong db template.--Just James T/C 23:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] thanks!

Someone vandalized my Userspace! But a little angel came along and fixed it! Thank you!  — Timotab Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!) 18:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

You're most welcome!--Just James T/C 23:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Barnstar

Hey, thanks! :) Gscshoyru 12:14, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

James, thanks for the barnstars! --Clubjuggle T/C 12:03, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removing final warning

Hi - you recently removed a final warning for vandalism I put on a user's page, telling me to see comment on my talk page. teh comment on my talk page is precisely why I put the final warning there. A final warning is required before blocking, and no-one had yet given the final warning, despite numerous level 3 warnings. The warning is justified since the IP address was source of further vandalism since the previous warning left of their talk page. Happy for you to suggest alternate remedy to address most recent vandalism, but it should not go on with no action. Tx User:JKW111 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 04:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you mean now. Believe me, I didn't like reverting it. I actually support a zero (or near zero) tolerance on vandalism.--Just James T/C 11:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Apology

somebody is using my name and doing all this.i apologise.-—Preceding unsigned comment added by Aish.ahluwalia (talk • contribs)

[edit] Please see...

User:Auroranorth/Sockpuppets. I can't do anything. Auroranorth 13:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Howard the Duck

Just as an FYI, User:Howard the Duck has been getting persistently attack by IP addresses in the 58.106 block, with a consistent pattern of user-page blanking and replacement with often racist comments. I've been reporting attacks on his user page from IP addresses in that range to AIV on sight and without warning, with a note explaining why. They seem to be responsive. --Clubjuggle T/C 13:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

That's good to hear.--Just James T/C 13:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please remove the warning from my talk page

Look, i know that you maybe thought you were doing the right thing but i am sick to the back teeth of certain people in here getting carried away with their own self importance and status and dropping warnings as though they are god or something. I was in the middle of archiving a page and you come along and not only revert my edits but drop a warning too!! Please remove the warning from my talk page now. Mr Creasy 05:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)