Jade0970

February 2009

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing. the results of the AFD on the pages you are editing was NOT "keep", it was "redirect all". Wuhwuzdat (talk) 13:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Can you please link the AFD "redirect all" result you mention? I have only this one: [1], which was a keep. --Jade0970 (talk) 13:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

here ya go:[[2]] much more recent than your AfD. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 13:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I apologise then; the discussion page for those articles only reported the older AFD, and I acted upon that. In the future, however, I would urge you to be more ready to assume good faith in editors, especially new ones, as opposed with simply issuing a vandalism warning. And please use graded warnings initially; reserve "only warning" messages only for much more disruptive behaviour. Thanks! --Jade0970 (talk) 13:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

your edit summaries, and your latest reply, prove to me, beyond a reasonable doubt, that you are NOT a "new editor". Wuhwuzdat (talk) 13:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The assume good faith principle applies to all editors, not just new editors. Use it often. More particularly, use it before you issue maximum-level vandalism warnings, which would be best preceded by thinking whether an edit really is meant to disrupt Wikipedia (as the stereotypical "my friend is gay" gambit), or has some motive (as was the case here). If it does have a motive but you feel that is misguided, by all means revert the edit and/or inform the editor of your reasons. If instead you feel sure the edit is in bad faith, prefer the use of escalating graded vandalism messages whenever possible, as opposed to simply issuing ultimatums. The latter practice is particularly useful to constructively interact with new editors, as you have often done in these initial months of your wiki-activity. Thanks! --Jade0970 (talk) 13:53, 23 February 2009 (UTC)