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... -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 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. -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 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)


 * Given past precedent for the humorous use of vulgarity (c.f. the proposal for "Guildwiki:Don't fucking swear" somewhere on one of Rainith's numerous archives), I fail to see how the sardonic and abbreviated use thereof qualifies as stepping over any kind of line. &mdash; 130.58 (talk) ( 22:16, 25 June 2006 (CDT) )


 * I still disagree and I think that the GuildWiki has a strong anti-foul language culture. Much as Rainith may have created that page I don't recall see him swearing on talk pages. I reckon you're more likely to see than the actual swear word and you'll find stuff like the phrase "char doo doo" instead of a swear word. Do a search for the S word or F word, you won't find many swear words on the GuildWiki. Finally we're talking about a new user here whom you've build up no rapport with, the first ever comment on their user page contains the phrase WTF, is that a good welcome?


 * Again even if we forget this new user, I don't think swearing is necessary, it's difficult to say you're not being personal and sticking to arguing the facts only when you need to swear to get your point accross. English is a wonderfully complex and descriptive language, make full use of it! --Xasxas256 22:33, 25 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Well, that's the whole point of shoving it into an acronym and appending a "mate" rather than spelling it out, ne? But, well, whatever, this thread is now exactly 13 posts longer than it needs to be, so I'm not going to argue about language or the decay thereof here. To be honest, if I were a new user, I'd be more put off by the impromptu committee meeting on my talk page. Anyway, if you feel like you can think of a particularly nice and happy and informative way to express the sentiment, feel free to slap it into User:Galil/Template:Welcome or something like that. Much better than having to write out entire paragraphs about ~ s and sandboxes and why putting random text on a page is bad each time. &mdash; 130.58 (talk) ( 22:49, 25 June 2006 (CDT) )


 * Ears burning, what's going on here? :P  I don't really have anything major to add here, just a couple of comments:  I did not create that page, it wasn't a serious request.  I do ask that people keep swearing out of all actual articles and in general find better ways to express themselves in talk pages.  Swearing, in general isn't professional, and really won't help you get your point across any better.  That said, I'm not overly concerned about abbreviations like "WTF" or "LMAO".  And as a side note, the general policy we've followed for a long time has been not to block people who immediately revert their own vandalism, but if someone were to constantly vandalize and then revert pages, I could see blocks handed out for that.  Two times however does not create a pattern.  --Rainith 22:50, 25 June 2006 (CDT)
 * No one ever actually placed a ban request, but the user certainly has the point now that his actions are watched in the wiki! --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:53, 25 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Just to play devil's advocate here for a moment; he was, technically, making more full use of the language by using wtf, than by censoring it out. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:52, 25 June 2006 (CDT)

On a more general point, I propose the welcome template. So you can just slap some introductory boilerplate onto a new user's talk page. Give it some conditional statements so you can easily turn on/off tips for: It would save a loooot of time. &mdash; 130.58 (talk) ( 22:57, 25 June 2006 (CDT) )
 * How to sign talk posts.
 * How to use sandboxes.
 * How to learn more about syntax.
 * What counts as minor vandalism.
 * How not to rip off Gem.
 * And how to create user pages ... the number of those in Special:Wantedpages have annoyed me for some time now. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:01, 25 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Well an argument/discussion is pretty pointless if neither party is willing to conceed anything so I will admit "WTF" has entered the internet vernacular as more of a general expression of surprise than it's original acronym. Also you're right this is probably not the best place for where this discussion has lead but it's here now though I guess.


 * Seventy.twenty.x.x used to use something similar to what's used on Wikipedia:


 * Please do not add nonsense to GuildWiki. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox.


 * I suppose we could have yet another template but personally I will probably use my own personal message that varies given what the person's contributions have been. --Xasxas256 23:02, 25 June 2006 (CDT)
 * Ugh, I hate those wikipedia things, they're so impersonal &mdash; Skuld  03:28, 26 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Actually, I could use some help with those too you know. I had to experiment to figure out how to sign talk posts, not really sure on what happens when saving to sandboxes, and had to google around for the syntax. Luckily I had an idea what vandalism is and not to rudely rip off Gem, but politely, by specifically saying I did rip Gem off... :D Anyway, seriously, to a new contributor like me, I would like some pointers and a lot of links as to where I can find out about how to do stuff rather than relying on google. --Ab.Er.Rant 03:39, 26 June 2006 (CDT)