User talk:SJP/page 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Page 4

  • January 7, 2006-???


One Little Mistake[edit]

Hello Sir james paul! Glad to see you watching for vandalism on userpages however this revert was a mistake. No worries, I make the occasional mistake on recent changes patrol as well, it happens to all of us :P....¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 06:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

User page vandalism[edit]

Thanks for reverting the vandalism that's been occuring at my user page! I appreciate it. :-) -/- Warren 08:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks![edit]

Thank you so much for the barnstar. That was most kind of yours. :-) Best regards,--Húsönd 12:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar.png The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
I award you this barnstar for going the extra mile to be nice. Regards, Húsönd 13:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

quality, not quantity[edit]

Speaking of, this revert was wrong [1]. The edit was a valid capitalization correction (as the edit summary explains), not vandalism. Do you have a bias against IP edits or something? At times it seems like you revert those almost on sight. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 15:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
And how was this IP's edits to Georgetown, Ontario vandalism? [2]. Sure, some of them might be original research or improper tone, but that's not vandalism that should be wholesale reverted, but just content that needs to be cleaned up. Please assume good faith, even with edits from IPs. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 15:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm a horrible person[edit]

Sorry about the vandalism that you had to fix, I'll never do it again. - nameless IP that you recently messaged

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for the smile and for your support of my RfA on Simple English Wikiquote. --Coppertwig 17:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Re. Dispute[edit]

Hi. Could you show me where is the dispute taking place so that I may have a look at what's going on?--Húsönd 18:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

What was the talk page editing that started all this? User talk pages can be edited at anytime by anyone, not just to revert vandalism (except for archives, which should only be edited to remove obvious vandalism). However, I do agree that you might have made a couple of mistakes as ZimZalaBim points. Not to worry though, as all RC patrollers commit mistakes every now and then. By the way, after checking your vandalfight I must ask you to please always remember to warn the vandals after you revert their misdoings (unless a long time has past since they've done them, then it's useless). Removing a smiley with the edit summary "remove annoying smily face from wild christian editor" is blatant incivility.--Húsönd 18:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Might I suggest you both (Sir james & Paxuscalta) just drop this and disengage for a while. A questionable edit was done almost a month ago, and there's no point belaboring the point now. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 19:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism here[edit]

That wasn't vandalism you reverted that was a grammer fix.Sam ov the blue sand 22:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Sir James, please slow down with the reverting IPs that are editing user pages. Many of the edits you are reverting are not vandalism and just spelling, formatting or other changes that very well might just be the page's actual owner who simply forgot to login. thanks. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 00:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:SAND[edit]

I don't think its necessary to warn editors for blanking or experimenting in the Sandbox, as you did here. Indeed, the very point of the sandbox is for experimentation (that's why the warning messages direct them there in the first place), and short of personal attacks or something heinous like that, its probably best to just let it alone. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 00:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Use this warning for those who delete the heading in the sandbox: {{Sandbox-head}}. And, please, if you're responding to a message on my talk page, click the + sign (next to the "edit this page" button) to create a new section for your comment. Adding a threaded (but new) comment within other conversations is confusing. Thanks. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 00:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

More on reverting IPs editing user pages[edit]

How was this set of edits by this IP vandalism? It certainly appears that it was the owner of the page adding userboxes and biographical data to his/her userpage, and s/he simply forgot to login. I really think you should slow it down a bit and check to ensure your reverts for vandalism are actually vandalism, and don't just assume that any edit of a user page by an IP is vandalism that must be reverted. You're just making more work for others. Remember, it is quality, not quantity that is the sign of a good editor. Thanks. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 02:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You recently made this edit, this edit, and this edit. They are all reverts of what are most likely good faith edits by IPs. Please carefully examine all edits before reverting them, and if you are not sure, leave it. Please also read Wikipedia:Vandalism#What vandalism is not to see what does not constitute vandalism. Also, I reverted your user talk page because I encountered an edit conflict when you removed this section and the one above it. Thanks. J Di 03:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
The first edit to me looked as if it was vandalism. The other two I never even called vandalism. The reason for those reverts is just because I think it looked better the way before and the info was not really needed. Have a nice week and go bless. --Sir James Paul, La gloria è a dio 03:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I know you didn't say in your edit summaries that the edits I have pointed out to you are vandalism, and I never said anything to suggest that you did. I would like to know why you thought the information added here was not needed as although it is unsourced, it backs up the claim that preceded it. Please also take note of the two messages on my talk page, one at the top in high contrast text and one in a fixed position on the left of the screen, that say that I would prefer replies to my messages left where I started a conversation (in this case, here on your talk page). J Di 03:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Deleting comments?[edit]

Why are you deleting valid comments & concerns that I have left here with edit summaries like "not a mistake"? (example). Fine if you want to archive them, but I don't see any evidence of that either, unless I missed it. I'd appreciate it if you'd respect my comments more, thanks. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 03:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Striscia la notizia - Vandalism?[edit]

Vandalism? Me? Are you joking my friend? I am Italian, I know what I wrote. Maybe have i made some errors in my English translation? This is possible. But infos were right.
Look here: [3] "A dicembre posa senza veli per uno dei calendari 2007 della rivista Max, che provoca l'allontanamento dal compagno Enzo Iacchetti." means (more or less) "in december, she poses naked for a 2007 calendar of the "Max" magazine, this causing the departure from her partner Enzo Iacchetti"

Please anwser soon.. Bye! --151.27.9.38 22:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Well... I usually work on the Italian Wikipedia (I have an account there)... sometimes i come to en.wiki following some interwiki links, but rarely I edit English articles (a litte for the fear of wrong translations!)... tonight, just for curiosity, I wanted to see if some italian programs were kwnown outside Italy... so I went there and saw that this info wasn't up-to-date, so I updated it.
If you want to write it in a better style (for example by correcting the line I sketchy translated above), you can do it...
Bye! :-)--151.27.9.38 22:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Warnings[edit]

If a user has had no previous warnings, you should start with a level 1 or level 2 warning, not a level 4 warning as you did here. The {{test4}} you left on that talk page was not justified as that IP had only made two edits to one page two minutes apart and before they had received any warnings. Warning templates are at Template:TestTemplates and information on how to warn users is at Wikipedia:Vandalism#Warnings. J Di 22:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Where in the policies does it say you must start at level 1 or 2? I don't think it does. Have a nice week. --Sir James Paul, La gloria è a dio 22:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
It's more a common sense thing; {{test4}} is a final warning, but it doesn't really function as intended if the user has not received any warnings previously. Also, Template:TestTemplates says underneath the table:
   1. General note
   2. Could be seen as vandalism
   3. Warning to stop
   4. Final warning
Also, I have asked that you leave replies to my messages here on your talk page, so please respect my wishes. J Di 22:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Starting with a {{test3}} isn't too good either; the vandalism by this IP wasn't so severe that it warranted such a harsh warning. When warning users, please start with {{test1}} or {{test2}}. J Di 00:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. I'm not going to do it that way. --Sir James Paul, La gloria è a dio 00:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Then I'll have to block you for 24 hours; I won't allow you to scare off potentially good editors. J Di 00:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

More IP bias[edit]

Again, try not to engage in bias against users who chose to edit under IP addresses. While creating accounts is preferred, it is not a requirement. Thanks. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 22:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to lie and say that all IP's are good editors. Also you "help" is not really helpful, it is just making things far worse. --Sir James Paul, La gloria è a dio 00:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
What help of mine is making things worse? (and does that mean you're taking back that nice barnstar you granted me??) <wink> --ZimZalaBim (talk) 00:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Nobody is telling you to say that all people that choose to edit anonymously are good editors, but you're saying that many IPs are vandals without thinking about the many IP editors that aren't. Look through Recent changes and see how many IP edits are vandalism and how many are not. It may shock you. You should also remember to assume good faith. J Di 00:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)