| Revision as of 02:26, 3 August 2021 editFormalDude (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers31,511 edits →spam (used to refer to annoying repeated messages; people pointing out that this is not technically spam are not helping their case)← Previous edit | Revision as of 02:27, 3 August 2021 edit undoFormalDude (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers31,511 edits →spam (used to refer to annoying repeated messages; people pointing out that this is not technically spam are not helping their case)Next edit → | ||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
| Oh, and about that parenthetical, which I added because someone actually claimed that I ''lied'' by calling this spam even after I noted that I was using it colloquially: https://en.wikipedia.org/Spamming {{tq|or simply sending the same message over and over to the same user}} -- ] (]) 01:58, 3 August 2021 (UTC) | Oh, and about that parenthetical, which I added because someone actually claimed that I ''lied'' by calling this spam even after I noted that I was using it colloquially: https://en.wikipedia.org/Spamming {{tq|or simply sending the same message over and over to the same user}} -- ] (]) 01:58, 3 August 2021 (UTC) | ||
| :Two actions installing a short, good-faith, and complimentary message is not spam in any sense of the word. | : installing a short, good-faith, and complimentary message is not spam in any sense of the word. | ||
| :*'''not irrelevant''' it was on-topic talk page use | :*'''not irrelevant''' it was on-topic talk page use | ||
| :*'''not inappropriate''' both the comment and the reinstating were done in good faith. |
:*'''not inappropriate''' both the comment and the reinstating were done in good faith. While users can remove anything from their talk page, it is not inappropriate to think a user missed a message and thus comment it once more. | ||
| :*'''not canned''' it was unique | :*'''not canned''' it was unique | ||
| :*'''not indiscriminate''' it was only reinstated because I thought you accidentally removed it due to you removing warnings in the same edit and putting in your edit summary that you were removing warnings. You provided no response to my good faith message, so a reinstatement of it should in good faith have been seen as an assumption you missed it. | :*'''not indiscriminate''' it was only reinstated because I thought you accidentally removed it due to you removing warnings in the same edit and putting in your edit summary that you were removing warnings. You provided no response to my good faith message, so a reinstatement of it should in good faith have been seen as an assumption you missed it. | ||
Revision as of 02:27, 3 August 2021
I apologize to those whom I have insulted or denigrated on this page. Unless this comment violates some policy, I will leave it here as a reminder to myself not to engage in such behavior again. -- Jibal (talk) 23:14, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
spam (used to refer to annoying repeated messages; people pointing out that this is not technically spam are not helping their case)
People who spam me with notifications by posting bogus warnings and then removing them are banned from this page. Do it again and I will seek sanctions. -- Jibal (talk) 15:00, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Addendum: This applies to any material that I have deleted from this page. Please see
https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:User_pages#Removal_of_comments,_notices,_and_warnings
If a user removes material from their talk page, it is normally taken to mean that the user has read and is aware of its contents. There is no need to keep them on display, and usually users should not be forced to do so.
-- Jibal (talk) 00:32, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Oh, and about that parenthetical, which I added because someone actually claimed that I lied by calling this spam even after I noted that I was using it colloquially: https://en.wikipedia.org/Spamming or simply sending the same message over and over to the same user
-- Jibal (talk) 01:58, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- Two actions installing a short, good-faith, and complimentary message is not spam in any sense of the word.
- not irrelevant it was on-topic talk page use
- not inappropriate both the comment and the reinstating were done in good faith. While users can remove anything from their talk page, it is not inappropriate to think a user missed a message and thus comment it once more.
- not canned it was unique
- not indiscriminate it was only reinstated because I thought you accidentally removed it due to you removing warnings in the same edit and putting in your edit summary that you were removing warnings. You provided no response to my good faith message, so a reinstatement of it should in good faith have been seen as an assumption you missed it.
- not overly repetitive it was repeated only once
- So characterizing it as such is indeed a lie. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 02:24, 3 August 2021 (UTC)