User talk:SighSighSigh

Put your messages here.

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, SighSighSigh, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. 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! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --TeaDrinker 18:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Calling Tagging blatant vandalism

Could you point out exactly what you are referring to? (Is this about the Homelessness article?)

Additionally, "Improper use of dispute tags" is listed as a form of vandalism, at WP:VANDAL#Types of vandalism. As is "Abuse of tags", though that refers to something slightly different. It would go towards a 3RR, so I suppose my edit summary on homelessness was incorrect. So, it was apparently a reversion of complex vandalism. --tjstrf 23:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I said as much above. My original statement was based on a misunderstanding of your meaning. I thought you meant that spamming dispute tags was not vandalism, which it most definitely is. After reviewing my edit summary, I realized my mistake. I would also argue that, given the circumstances, this particular instance was blatant vandalism, but that's beside the point. Thanks for the correction. --tjstrf 23:45, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spurious tags

Please do not deface articles by placing spurious tags in them. If you have difficulty comprehending an article's content, please bring your issue to the Talk: page. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please do not use template warnings on other established users. They should be capable of understanding the rules on their own and do not need a form-written notice informing them of what was not truly an offense to begin with. Personalized messages would be more appropriate, specific, and conducive to more productive discussion. --tjstrf 00:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And keep in mind that WP:POINT is considered highly disruptive behavior on Wikipedia, and that people have often been blocked for it. Please avoid that potential outcome at all costs. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't threatened you, I've told you the inevitable consequences of your actions if you continue along this path. And there is no rule that I cannot remove rude and spurious warnings from my Talk: page. I'll be doing so now. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't put spurious and harassing warning templates on my Talk: page again. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:44, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not harassing you. I just put a warning to assume good faith that you are removing without authority. SighSighSigh 02:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My advice was perfectly sound. Please see: WP:VANDAL, which does not prohibit the removal of "invalid or unimportant" warning templates, and indeed says that their readdition is a form of blockable edit warring. --tjstrf 02:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To say that I was defacing a page when I was only seeking to improve it is bullying and not assuming good faith. I am seriously considering opening up an RfC on this issue. SighSighSigh 02:47, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In which I will support Jay, as you added that template without explanation of any sort, and still have not given a justification for it. Your template warning use is merely borderline incivility, and can be forgiven. What I'm interested in is why you have yet to provide reasoning for your original actions. --tjstrf 02:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a note, 3RR was not violated by me on the page in question. SighSighSigh 02:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which is fortunate for yourself. --tjstrf 02:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not going to intentionally violate policy. I just find it extremely disconcerting that just because you're high up on the totem pole, which jayjg is, you get to bend the rules. This is the exact reason why the public has a tough time respecting Wikipedia. SighSighSigh 02:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was unaware of Jay's status as an admin until this point, and would have taken the same actions regardless. ad hominem anyone? --tjstrf 02:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

user talk:jayjg

are you kidding? Go warn Jimbo. - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to mention that if this is indeed brought before RfC, I will ask for a checkuser on Sigh, as the last time I dealt with him there was a similar incident with an IP adding invalid templates to pages and user talk pages. --tjstrf 02:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That incident you were misquoting policy if I remember correctly (and I do). SighSighSigh 03:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I mistook complex vandalism for blatant vandalism. However, the user I was in dispute with was engaging in the exact same behaviours you presently are. --tjstrf 03:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And you're accusing me of ad hominem attacks? Look, I'm going to log off right now but my position on accountability to the rules for ALL Wikipedia users still stands. SighSighSigh 03:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Either ad hominem attacks or classism. And vandalism is an issue of motivation. Legitimate screw-ups are not vandalism, neither are community-supported actions or requesting discussion before making an unexplained change. WP:POINT, on the other hand, is. --tjstrf 03:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Templates, Warnings, and Tags, Oh My!

Hi. I've been reviewing the recent activity on the Holocaust denial page and following the exchange here and on Jayjg's page. Please do not attribute to malice that which can be explained by your own incoherence. While I'm sure that you have a thoroughly detailed explanation of what you meant by that tag in your own head, absolutely none of that made it onto the talk page. I read the one sentence explanation you wrote there, and I cannot even begin to understand what you mean. In that sort of situation, of course people are going to remove the tag, because no cogent explanation of what the tag means or why it is necessary was given.

I suggest that you explain your concerns on the talk page in more detail. Surely, if you have a comprehensible explanation, you will find support and someone else will add the tag on your behalf. I'd further recommend that you leave off using warning templates for now, since it seems that they are causing the same sort of problem with you. If you have a problem with another editor's edits, leave a (civil) message on their talk page asking to discuss the issue. Use your own words. It's good practice. Nandesuka 04:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please See development on MA issue

[1] Amoruso 01:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]