User talk:John Kroshan

Information
You need to stop doing this. Editors are permitted to remove almost any content from their talk pages as you've already been informed. You may read the details at WP:BLANKING. If you have questions or require clarification on this point, please ask. I'll watchlist this page for any inquiry. Please understand that to repeatedly act contrary to accepted policy and convention can be construed as disruption and may jeopardize your editing privilege.  Tide  rolls  05:23, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Explain Oshwah's edit, then. John Kroshan (talk) 05:27, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I would be interested in an explanation of that edit as well. Perhaps you would like to ask that editor. Suffice it to say there are instances where such edits are allowed. I'm informing you that your edit did not fall into any of the exceptions in the guideline.  Tide  rolls  05:33, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Same here! To be honest, I only restored the warnings because of the admin's action. Since you asked, you might want to go ask Oshwah yourself! John Kroshan (talk) 05:37, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've removed the warnings and added an tag to the page. John Kroshan (talk) 05:43, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * While not violating policy I would consider adding the template rude if you had applied it to my user space. Please see WP:DTTR. Just because one can do something doesn't mean they should.  Tide  rolls  05:48, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * If you break the law, and an officer gives you a ticket, do you say he's “harassing” you? A talk page notice is the equivalent of a digital ticket. John Kroshan (talk) 06:15, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Flawed analogy. As editors we are supposed to be working together so we avoid actions that could be construed as rude. That was my message. We are not enforcers except in those rare instances where an individual's actions demonstrate that they are willfully being disruptive.  Tide  rolls  06:26, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Well then users can just keep vandalizing by removing warnings to cover up previous disruption! Bad idea! John Kroshan (talk) 06:30, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Removing warnings is not vandalism.  Tide  rolls  06:32, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * But warnings indicate vandalism! John Kroshan (talk) 06:34, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * They do, but removing them does not cover anything up. The warnings are retained in the talk page history. How do you think I knew you had already been informed re: the blanking issue?  Tide  rolls  06:38, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but the page history isn't immediately visible! The lack of warnings will still superficiality give the false impression that the editor has a clean record! John Kroshan (talk) 06:42, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * All I can ask is that you give admins a little credit for exercizing due diligence. Sometimes we miss something and that's when we rely on other editors to bring things to our attention. As I mentioned, this project is a cooperative effort.  Tide  rolls  06:47, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Before you continue this debate with me, how about posting something on Oshwah's talk page about his edit, just to make things fair? John Kroshan (talk) 07:36, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I have no sense of unfairness in any of my messages here but I will ping . Please pardon the ping, Oshwah, I understand if you are incovenienced.  Tide  rolls <
 * Hi there! There is no inconvenience for pinging me (especially if one of my edits came into question). The only reason I restored the previous warnings on that user's talk page was to show the reason behind my edit warring block - the fact that the user had been warned multiple times and again for edit warring, and that the edits continued despite them. The restoration was not meant to imply that the user did anything wrong in itself by removing them; it was to show that user, "hey, look man... you've been warned for this and this is why I'm blocking you". I understand that my actions may have inadvertently implied a policy in that removing warnings from someone's own talk page was a violation. This is not true, and it is not. I apologize if my edit caused any confusion; it was not intended to serve any other purpose than what I explained above. Please let me know if you have any more questions. I'll be happy to answer them. Thank you :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   13:11, 19 September 2016 (UTC)