User talk:Legalprof

You keep saying in your edit summary that if vandalism continues, you will alert an administrator. Well, I am one, and I wish to inform you that labeling valid messages to you as vandalism can be considered a personal attack. You are free to remove messages from your talk page, but don't label valid messages as vandalism. --Geniac (talk) 14:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that valid messages are allowed and do not constitute vandalism. However, I do not consider the messages that were repeatedly being posted to be valid. For example, some users posted comments refering to me as a shill, which, aside from being blatantly false, was obviously intended as an insult and would therefore constitute Userspace Vandalism. My understanding of Wikipedia policy is that users should attempt to resolve these situations among themselves before contacting administrators. My actions were solely done to remedy the situation before it became necessary to bring in an administrator and not out of malice toward the other users.

Also, some of the "warnings" that were being posted concerned the fact that I had deleted a warning from an adiministrator, which, by the way, I had immediately complied with upon reading (in fact, I made no further postings after receiving that warning). The users who posted these "warnings" stated that I was committing vandalism merely by deleting this warning. However, Wikipedia policy has made it clear that users are "granted considerable latitude over editing their own userspace pages (including talk pages), and blanking one's own user talk page is specifically not prohibited. A policy of prohibiting users from removing warnings from their own talk pages was considered and rejected on the grounds that it would create more issues than it would solve" (copied from the Wikipedia's policy regarding Discussion Page Vandalism). Accordingly, I was permitted to blank my userpages. Based on your explanation of a personal attack, the users who continued to revert my userpages and stated that I was committing vandalism were actually committing personal attacks against me.

If my understanding of vandalism was incorrect and I was wrong in labelling the comments and behavior of the other users as vandalism, then I apologize. My reference to vandalism was not meant to be a personal attack but rather to notify the other users that I recognized that their comments and behavior were problematic and I wished to remedy the situation before administrators needed to become involved.

Additionally, if my understanding of the Wikipedia policies are incorrect, I ask that you please clarify them as I want to ensure that I have a proper understanding of Wikipedia policies and do not violate the policies in the future.

Thank you. Legalprof (talk) 23:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There were 4 messages:

3RR on MediaDefender
Valid. You did revert that article more than 3 times in a 24-hour period.
NPOV on unstated article, but the only article you've edited is MediaDefender
Might be valid. You used may to diffuse POV, but it was still there.
"Deleting warnings is vandalism."
Not valid.
"Please do not remove warnings."
Valid. That's just a request from a user, not the same thing as 3.

You removed all 4 messages with a blanket label of vandalism. However, 1 and 4 were valid messages and not vandalism. An alternative would have been to blank your talk page with a neutral edit summary; something like "removed messages after reading them". That's not saying you agree or disagree with their content, it leaves you free to ignore the ones you consider vandalism, and it acknowledges receipt of the messages, which most people appreciate. --Geniac 14:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]