| Revision as of 16:47, 17 April 2006 editBishonen (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators80,248 editsm Unprotected User talk:JohnnyCanuck: Protected long enough← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:52, 17 April 2006 edit undoBishonen (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators80,248 edits Feel free to use this nice clean sheetNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| Hi, Johnny. I've unprotected this page and removed all previous comments. Feel free to use this nice clean sheet. Please don't use it to claim that people have "vandalized" the page, though! That's a very serious accusation and a personal attack. Please read ] to see that good-faith edits are not vandalism. It's insulting to call an editor a vandal, and it gets people's backs up, so it's important to think carefully before you do it. I hope you won't restore your "vandalism counter": to the best of my belief, this page has actually ''never'' been vandalized. Your work here will probably run a lot more smoothly if you stop using the word at all; at least, please don't use it as your favorite word for any message you don't like. | |||
| '''This page has been briefly protected from editing by non-admins, see foot of the page for reasons.''' ] | ] 08:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC). | |||
| <br>If you have anything you'd like to say to me, write it on this page, I'll be watching it. If you're ready to edit more constructively, I'll unblock you. Please feel free to remove this post when you've read it. ] | ] 16:52, 17 April 2006 (UTC). | |||
| Welcome to my talk page. Feel free to add your messages below. Messages that are not stamped by registered users will be deleted My talk page has been vandalized in the past so I am starting a running count starting at zero of how many times it is vandalized. --] 20:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ---- | |||
| <div style="background:#ffffff; border:2px solid #FF0000; padding:0px 10px; margin:10px;"> | |||
| '''Number of times this page has been vandalized:''' 0 | |||
| </div> | |||
| ---- | |||
| ==]== | |||
| Regarding ]: Please do not replace Misplaced Pages pages with blank content. It is considered ]. Please use ] for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the ] if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks.<!-- Template:Blank2-n --> --] | ] 00:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| What part of "not blanking pages" was unclear? What part of using a standard warning template to notify a user over an obvious policy violation constitutes "vandalism" and "personal attack"? | |||
| You did not "remove a personal attack", you '''blanked the entire page'''. What's the problem with '''the entire page'''? --] | ] 00:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Oh, and looking at the history of that page: don't forget ]. --] | ] 00:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Read Carefully== | |||
| Let's try this again: | |||
| :'''You did not "remove a personal attack", you blanked the entire page'''. | |||
| Now what part of that was unclear? The verbs? The subject? The objects? --] | ] 01:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| And your "Number of times this page has been vandalized: 2" message? Man, talk about breathtakingly dishonest. --] | ] 01:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ''The whole page is full of false info. from one user, read it and check the facts'' | |||
| One user? I counted nine editors, including yourself. Even assuming, mathematically, that "9" is within an order of magnitude of "1" and can be treated the same, perhaps you can tell me what was false about your: | |||
| :''Candidates should be deleted if thats all they are is candidates but this candidate deserves to be kept because of other impressive accomplishiments. the incumbents were rightfully deleted. If Frankl WASN'T a candidate he still deserves an article and I highly doubt if anyone would disagree. If he wasn't a candidate there wouldn't even be a debate here.'' | |||
| So you admit this is false info? | |||
| or | |||
| :''Frankl is notable for an article that was the concensus, it was deleted because of the false claims against the article'' | |||
| Oh, wait, that is false. I guess I'll mark that. | |||
| What about Eyeonvaughn's: | |||
| :''He is very prominent within the sports industry, served as Vice President of the Toronto Board of Trade (one of the largest boards in North America) as well as serving on numerous committees and boards at various levels of government'' | |||
| Also false, then? | |||
| Of course, I could go on about your flimsy rationale, but it's moot: any claimed right to remove material by others that you unilaterally deem to be false is a figment of your imagination. | |||
| Me, I think the real problem is that you did a Google search for "Elliott Frankl", and discovered that the #1 hit is for the (deleted and protected) ] - God knows someone could click on that "Discussion" tab. Even better is that the #2 hit is -- ]. No wonder you like to keep it blank. --] | ] 01:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Block warning== | |||
| Don't remove warnings from this page. They're not vandalism; your removal of them is vandalism. Please see ]. Don't remove comments from ] again. Seriously. '''You will be blocked''' from editing if you do it again. ] | ] 01:08, 17 April 2006 (UTC). | |||
| == "check facts"/You have been blocked == | |||
| Please check the facts before you start making assumptions--] 01:11, 17 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Sorry, you're the one making assuptions. Let me lay it out for you: ] a) is not policy, but a disputed guideline (click on the link and see for yourself), b) refers to attacks against ''users'' not ''subjects'' (do you think an encyclopedia is forbidden from stating negative facts about its subjects..?), and c) there's no way the ''entire page'' could be called any kind of attack, no matter how you stretch it. What about Bearcat's admin messages? You deleted them too. You deleted the whole thing. And the History of your own userpage shows you have removed a ''lot'' of warnings from admins and other experienced users. (I only restored the last ones.) Btw, note that editing logged out won't help you look like two different users. It only makes you look as if you're trying to deceive. '''You have been blocked for 24 hours for violating the ]''' rule on ] after being warned. Note that you can still edit this page. But if you remove the messages on it again, I will protect it so only admins can edit it (sorry, Calton). ] | ] 01:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC). | |||
| ::The user blanked the page again, so I've protected it. I'm sorry for this, since it's the blocked user's only means of communication (JohnnyCanuck has not specified a valid e-mail address, so he can't e-mail admins). On the other hand, see my explicit warning above, plus the fact that he hasn't so far seemed to value the ability to post on the page while blocked; all he's done is blank warnings. Johnny, you still have one venue of communication: the ]. ] | ] 08:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC). | |||
Revision as of 16:52, 17 April 2006
Hi, Johnny. I've unprotected this page and removed all previous comments. Feel free to use this nice clean sheet. Please don't use it to claim that people have "vandalized" the page, though! That's a very serious accusation and a personal attack. Please read Misplaced Pages:Vandalism to see that good-faith edits are not vandalism. It's insulting to call an editor a vandal, and it gets people's backs up, so it's important to think carefully before you do it. I hope you won't restore your "vandalism counter": to the best of my belief, this page has actually never been vandalized. Your work here will probably run a lot more smoothly if you stop using the word at all; at least, please don't use it as your favorite word for any message you don't like.
If you have anything you'd like to say to me, write it on this page, I'll be watching it. If you're ready to edit more constructively, I'll unblock you. Please feel free to remove this post when you've read it. Bishonen | talk 16:52, 17 April 2006 (UTC).