User talk:69.136.8.109

It's not that I don't appreciate you removing your own vandalism, but... wtf, mate? &mdash; 130.58 (talk) ( 19:49, 25 June 2006 (CDT) )


 * Twice now you've done it. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:51, 25 June 2006 (CDT)


 * If you're doing some testing, please head over to the Sandbox and go nuts ;) --Xasxas256 19:54, 25 June 2006 (CDT)
 * Um, Xasxas256, I don't think those edits are appropriate even in the sand boxs... - 21:20, 25 June 2006 (CDT)
 * Agreed, but I was trying out the don't throw bans everywhere, instead be helpful or something. My thinking was that perhaps they were wondering if indeed the pages here could easily be modified by anyone but couldn't think of any particularly inspiring text to write at the time. But if they knew they could muck around in the sandbox then perhaps they might write something more meaningful and adventurous, from a wikicode point of view. (If you know you're writing something that you're about to revert anyway, I guess it's more likely to be something stupid vs if you know you can go for your life in a sandbox where you might give it more thought.) --203.94.129.158 21:36, 25 June 2006 (CDT) (forgot to login, you know wanted to really get in character for a moment! ::| --Xasxas256 21:37, 25 June 2006 (CDT) )
 * That theory could explain the first time they made a vandalism type edit then reverted it themself; but then doing the same thing on a different article two days later? I'm with 130.58 at that point in asking wtf? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:39, 25 June 2006 (CDT)
 * Who knows really? I've never added a random comment to a wiki page then reverted it and I've never spoken to someone who's said that they've done that either. But it's pretty common so I guess these people have some reason for doing it. I don't like the idea of a potential contributor getting the big "you've been banned" message in general it's belittling and makes a person less likely to contrbiute in a meaningful way and more likely to vandalise pages when their ban end/IP changes. I also don't think WTF is a good word to use if you actually want to start a proper dialog. If someone wrote WTF on my user page in regards to an edit I made, I'd be somewhat unhappy (context and meaning are relevent, I suppose but it's not a nice term). Anons should be treated the same, the point can be made without using that kind of language and is more likely to have a better, more agreeable result. --Xasxas256 21:48, 25 June 2006 (CDT)
 * Agreed, I would've used different language had I posted here before 130.58; but the meaning would've been very similar. It always comes back to needing that typing speed rune *sigh* --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:52, 25 June 2006 (CDT)


 * "Anons should be treated the same" <- Umm, had it been a registered user instead of a anon who did the two vandal+selfreverts, I will definitely go "what the heck?". Anons doing it once is fairly common, yes.  Twice is rather odd. - 21:56, 25 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I like linking to the sandbox personally, it puts it in a more positive light, "please don't do test edits on articles (negative) but feel free to go crazy in the sandbox (positive)". If you've ever done anything in sales, they'll tell you (and I believe it) that that the best way to stop stealing is simply to have a word to anyone acting suspiciously, you know "how's your day", "can I help you" that kind of thing. That way they know they're being watched but because you've said something nice, they're more likely to take it better (ie actually buy something or in this case contribute something meaningful).


 * Why even bother saying what the heck/eff or whatever, nothing good will come of that sort of comment. You may as well try and make the best of it, even if you don't think much good will come of it, you can at least not encourage bad stuff from going down! (Ugh again! Stupid PanSola-ninja-edit-edit-conflict-I'll-get-you!) --Xasxas256 22:03, 25 June 2006 (CDT)