User talk:Juhko

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Juhko! I am Marek69 and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Oh yeah, I almost forgot, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

Marek.69 ^talk 00:59, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Please read up on what vandalism is and please look before blind reverting and issuing warnings.

Take a look at:

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Xeugene_and_Pacifica_Forum, that's the first of a duplicate section immediately below it, the duplicate section I removed and you decided removal was vanadlism and then restored. Duh. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 22:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And as is typical whilst typing that the person posting the dupe has come along and removed it again [1] are you going to issue them a warning too? --82.7.40.7 (talk) 22:54, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but blanking talk pages, or editing messages posted by another user is not allowed. --Juhko (talk) 23:09, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No it's a duplicate section, it's a mistake, correct mistakes is allowed. Please read what vandalism is housekeeping isn't it. Try applying some common sense. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 23:10, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, my own mistake. Sorry --Juhko (talk) 23:13, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, just to confirm what IP 82.7.40.7 says above, I double-posted a new section due to a problem on my end. There was no need for the duplicate, so removing it was fine. In fact, since the issue was with my internet connection acting badly, having the duplicate removed by another user would be a big help. It's good to be alert for people attempting to blank ANI discussions, and please continue to watch for that - but please also be careful to confirm what's happening, so that you don't make such a mistake again. It's not a huge issue, but you warned the IP for something that ought to be encouraged, and you shouldn't do so. Thanks for reading. — Gavia immer (talk) 23:31, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am organising my talk page as is permitted, as you've left it the comments relating to this come under the heading "LinkedIn Open Networker - Deletion proposal", is this anything to do with that topic? I've added a heading to organise my page detailing what the section is about. You've now reverted that 3 times, please see WP:3RR which if you remove it again you will be in breach of. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 23:43, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gavia immer added there title "Some other thing", and it's OK, but title "Bogus Vandalism Warning" isn't. --Juhko (talk) 23:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No I haven't changed your comment I added my own comments and added a section header to organise the talk page. Take a look at Wikipedia:TALK#Editing_comments the part of section headers being an explicitly allowed edits. The reverts I was talking about was removing of the section header I legitimately added to my own talk page. Frankly your permission for the new heading isn't required but it reveals the root of the issue, you didn't like being called on your mistake. Well sorry if you jump in, revert and warn without bothering checking (I gave an edit summary saying what I was doing) then you are going to get told about it. If you can't take the criticism then you should learn to do the proper checks rather than blindly reverting. I'm not going to go back and change the heading to my preferred version, because really it doesn't actually matter that much. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 23:58, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The title you added, changes the meaning of my comment, although it was just a template. --Juhko (talk) 00:08, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Juhko, it is time for you to drop this. 82.7.40.7 did something allowable, you made a trivial mistake that nobody is really all that concerned about, the section on 82.7.40.7's talk page now has a nice neutral title, and nothing else will result from continued discussion except for continued discussion. You are the only one continuing to push for any such continued discussion, so if you stop arguing there will be no argument. Please do so. — Gavia immer (talk) 00:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, i gonna go back to do blind reverts as that, now. ;) --Juhko (talk) 00:30, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please check edit summaries before reverting

Before reverting content removal, such as in Elmbrook School District, please take a look at the edit summary to avoid mistakes. Thanks. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 01:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto that. You've given me two warnings today for edits that I made to revert vandalism, and have not bothered to double-check. A little more careful, please. 76.248.149.51 (talk) 01:09, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've took, but I didn't found any explanation. Can you link me the right revision, please? --Juhko (talk) 01:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here [2] you restored a nonsense/vandalism section that I deleted, and here [3] you restored a violation of WP:BLP that I reverted, and which had previously engendered page protection. Although I explained my edits in the summaries, you gave me warnings for both actions. Please slow down and read the content, as well as edit summaries, before making reversions and sending warnings. Thank you. 76.248.149.51 (talk) 01:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]