User talk:Voyagerfan5761/Archives/20070321
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< User talk:Voyagerfan5761 | Archives
[edit] Talk page comments.
Hi, please stop reverting User talk:Liist. A user may remove comments from his own talk page if he wishes. | Mr. Darcy talk 20:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- User:Liist continually removes warnings from his/her own talk page. Warnings should stay on talk pages, as a record of the user's actions. Liist is welcome to archive the warnings (and I have mentioned this possibility), but not to delete them outright. I have always observed other users being told not to remove legitimate warnings; why should Liist be an exception? — Tuvok[T@lk/Improve me] 01:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- You are absolutely mistaken. The removal of a warning is considered an acknowledgement that it has been read. There is NO policy that states that a user must leave warnings on his/her talk page. The fact that you are actually edit-warring - including reverting an admin's revert - over this is ridiculous. Do not restore those warnings to Liist's talk page again. | Mr. Darcy talk 05:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- The purpose of a vandalism warning is not just to warn the vandal, but also to inform other people who are fighting against vandalism that the vandal is at a certain level of warning so that they can issue the appropriate warnings or ask to have him blocked. Removing the warnings interferes with the process of fighting vandalism and thus IS vandalism. JRSpriggs 07:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Now you see, that's what I thought was the reason. Do you think I should continue the reverts, Mr(s). Spriggs (I gather from your username)? I see MrDarcy has warned you, too. Such a commotion (from one admin, I notice) about what would seem to be obvious. — Tuvok[T@lk/Improve me] 23:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I'm not a Wikipedia policy expert, but from a logical standpoint I have to agree with JRSpriggs and Tuvok. The closest I could find on this was this: Wikipedia:Template_messages/User_talk_namespace, and it doesn't mention anything about removing warnings. IMHO, it would be logical therefore to assume they should stay. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by I80and (talk • contribs) 00:11, March 7, 2007.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Users have the right to do as they wish within their user space, as long as it doesn't violate another policy (such as WP:NPA). Archiving is encouraged but not required; the removal of a warning doesn't remove it from the page's history, so its effect is cosmetic rather than permanent. There is NO policy that says that talk page messages can't be removed. Voyager, I've warned you already not to continue. | Mr. Darcy talk 00:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- OK, I have talked with Persian Poet Gal and she has helped me see the difference. Last time I checked, Liist was not blocked. Now that (s)he has been indefblocked, I see no reason (per PPG's reasoning) to put the warnings back. I have, however, redirected the talk page to the userpage, since it is now an empty talk page for a blocked user. I trust that is not vandalism. — Tuvok[T@lk/Improve me] 02:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
I raised this issue at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Reverting removal of vandalism warnings by the vandal -- is it vandalism?, in order to try to get a definitive ruling from them. JRSpriggs 11:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Cool, thanks! I see it's garnered quite a response. — Tuvok[T@lk/Improve me] 22:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- The section has now been archived. My impression was that there was no consensus one way or the other. Consequently, I will refrain henceforth from such reversions and warnings. However, I think that it would also be appropriate, for the same reason, for you (MrDarcy) to refrain from taking actions against those who continue to enforce a prohibition on blanking warnings. Rules should not be enforced if they are not clear, including the "rule" against such enforcement actions. JRSpriggs 05:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
-
