Forum:Non-User contibuters

Forums: Index > The World that Never was > Non-User contibuters

Hangon - Hello, good day to you all. TALK - Hello there, I like pie.-04:41, November 21, 2010 (UTC) This is SERIOUS, the stupid non-user editors are always messing things up, no offence to them, but all the pages marked for deletion are by the stupid ones, I think we have to change it so that they can't edit somehow, they can get kicked off if they're users, but theese guys keep on coming! IT'S IRRETATING THE STUPID PEOPLE!

Soxra - This party's getting crazy! Let's rock! It's showtime! - 04:47, November 21, 2010 (UTC) I have no problem with non-user contributors in general, but they should be prevented from creating new pages. If they want to edit existing, that's not usually a problem (simple revert and note to an admin to ban them or whatnot, in the case that it's serious enough)... but definitely there's not enough need for new articles here that we need anons creating them. Just my $0.02.

LapisScarab - You accept darkness, yet choose to live in the light. So why is it that you loathe us who teeter on the edge of nothing? We who were turned away by both light and dark - never given a choice? TALK - That may be... however, what other choice might we have had? I am 100% against blocking unregistered contributors from editing (if that's even possible). They are not intrinsically bad editors, we just notice the vandals more becuase they are by definition attention-whores. Preventing them from creating new pages (again, if that's even possible), is a somewhat better idea, since anons do occasionally create new pages that we don't need due to inexperience. However, both vandalism and accidentally creating useless pages are things registered users have done in the past as well. Basically my point is that it's unfair to punish an entire group because a few of them have done things that any user can do anyway.

Lapidothtill - What sound does an Arctic Tern make, Col? TALK - BACKSTREET BOYS? The way I see it is that most of the unregistered users try to help if/when they can, but don't want to become involved in all that goes on with everything else on here. They read the pages we write, and if there are small errors/mistakes they usually do a good job to fix them. The reason many of us have a bias against the annons is there are those few who think it's funny to change articles or create stupid ones. And it's really not that hard to revert vandal edits or delete the stupid pages they make. So, I said all that to say this, let's not make mountains out of mole-hills.

Soxra - This party's getting crazy! Let's rock! It's showtime! - 07:07, November 21, 2010 (UTC) Actually, though reverting edits is a three-click-miracle, it is a bit of a pain to actually delete their pages. The person/people who find it report it to the "delete this" page and an admin has to find it and delete it. Not saying that we're not used to doing it, just saying that it's kind of unnecessary to go through the hassle of doing so. I'm actually in favor of allowing anons to continue basic editing on existing pages. They catch a mistake here or there (as I did when I was an anon), usually typos or whatnot, which is helpful to the average user flipping through our wiki. @ Lapis, yes it is possible through MediaWiki's configuration. Not sure if Wikia has blocked that, but hopefully that won't be an issue shortly...

17master - Hey, guys, check out my new camera! TALK - Oh wait, this isn't a camera... - {{{time}}} Bad idea Hangon. Okay so some of them vandalizes the articles, but that doesn't mean ALL of them are like that. I was, once, an unregistered contributer, and I finally made an account because of that. Some of them vandalizes, and some of them are trying to help, even if they do edits that are considered bad, unneeded, or badly written, they're still doing it based on good intentions. So, if you will, show a little respect by not bad-mouthing them, okay? ;) Besides, if the anons are no more, then wiki-gnomes like Chitalian and NinjaSheik will lose their jobs D:

LapisScarab - You accept darkness, yet choose to live in the light. So why is it that you loathe us who teeter on the edge of nothing? We who were turned away by both light and dark - never given a choice? TALK - That may be... however, what other choice might we have had? Then we might as well block every user from creating new pages. Registered contributors can and have created useless pages in the past, whether they're vandals or just inexperienced, and we've had to delete them just the same.

BlackSoulBlade - Keyblades of Light and Dark were locked in combat... TALK - As the great Keyblade War raged! I see no point in blocking anons from making pages or editing, all it does is make them create an account, delaying them by what? 5 minutes?

LapisScarab - You accept darkness, yet choose to live in the light. So why is it that you loathe us who teeter on the edge of nothing? We who were turned away by both light and dark - never given a choice? TALK - That may be... however, what other choice might we have had? Four days at the most. that's how old an account has to be to be auto-confirmed. Still not much.

Hangon - Hello, good day to you all. TALK - Hello there, I like pie.-22:56, November 22, 2010 (UTC) You all think sencefully, but some people threaten me saying they'll mess up my User Page, and that gets annoying, but not only that, my friend's new and he typed on UFC wiki at the bottom "by the way I love thi move", he can get kicked off, wich is good, now little kids can get on this site and mess it up, I told my friend he shouldn't but he did, I'm not against them all, but most of them have some kind of mental issue, it's not my fault though.

Chitalian8 Hey, boss! — The world ends with you. If you want to enjoy life, expand your world. You gotta push your horizons out as far as they'll go. Enjoy the moment with all your might... whether it's gloomy, whether it's bright! — 23:10, November 22, 2010 (UTC) Saying that most anons have some sort of "mental issue" could be taken as offensive by some, and it's also a ridiculous exaggeration. Just because some anon replaces all content with "I LIEK BAKON" or something like that doesn't mean you can judge all of the anons. That's unfair discrimination. I'm sure all of us were anons at some point, and I was an anon for a rather long time before I made my account. Besides, is it really that hard to work the (quote Soxra) "Three click miracle?"

LapisScarab - You accept darkness, yet choose to live in the light. So why is it that you loathe us who teeter on the edge of nothing? We who were turned away by both light and dark - never given a choice? TALK - That may be... however, what other choice might we have had? Not to mention we can always just block the individual troublemakers as they come like we normally do. It doesn't matte rhow old someone is and in fact if they're vandals they're probably older than they're pretending to be. "Little kids" don't know any better; "big kids" (for lack of a better phrase) do things like this for fun. I've gotten threats of vandalism from anons and registered contributors alike, and I just ignore them. Little morons that don't have anything more constructive to do don't intimidate me, I laugh at them. And Chitalian's right; the assertion that "most" anons (you're pulling that estimate out of your ass, by the way; most anons are fine, we just notice vandals more) have a "mental issue" is extremely offensive to me personally. I'd like to know exactly what "mental issue" compells people to vandalize the Kingdom Hearts Wiki specifically. There's a difference between having a mental condition you can't control and being a dick all on your own.

Hangon - Hello, good day to you all. TALK - Hello there, I like pie.-20:47, November 25, 2010 (UTC) Sory for offending you LapisScarab, you're right everything you said, but I still think that at least 75% of people mess up the wiki thinking it's funny, wich is why we could block them, the kids shouldn't be on the wiki anyway, the tweens and older can get kicked off with ease, A.K.A., 3 warnings, get what I'm saying?

LapisScarab - You accept darkness, yet choose to live in the light. So why is it that you loathe us who teeter on the edge of nothing? We who were turned away by both light and dark - never given a choice? TALK - That may be... however, what other choice might we have had? Exactly my point. We can always just block, and have always been blocking, the individual vandals as they come. We don't need to render anons incapable of editing because of the actions of the few (and they are the few; where exactly are you getting "75%" from? I am doubtful that you actually recorded every single IP's edits, then calculated how many were vandals. Aything less than that and you're just making crap up). Age should not matter whatsoever. Twelve year olds can be quite mature, and seventee or eighteen year-olds can be the most immature brats you can imagne (trust me, I knnow many). What matters is maturity, which is not something you can tell just from someone's age or whether they're anons or not. You can only know if someone's a good or bad editor after they've actually done something, and blocking IPs in some preemptive strike renders that meaningless. And again I need to stress that even if we did block all anons, vandalism would still happen. They'd just get accounts, vandalize and get blocked--back to square one, only then we'd have been assholes to unregistered contributors that want to help for no reason.

Hangon - Hello, good day to you all. TALK - Hello there, I like pie.-23:44, November 26, 2010 (UTC) You're right I'm still wrong, I'm feeling pretty stupid now, but I'm talking about, like 7½ people who play KH and don't know the coding

LapisScarab - You accept darkness, yet choose to live in the light. So why is it that you loathe us who teeter on the edge of nothing? We who were turned away by both light and dark - never given a choice? TALK - That may be... however, what other choice might we have had? You didn't read anything I just typed did you? That is one unregistered contributor. Give me an hour and I could come up with ten anons that weren't vandals. And that term doesn't make sense. In editing this wiki they become "Wikians", whether they're vandals or not.

LapisScarab - You accept darkness, yet choose to live in the light. So why is it that you loathe us who teeter on the edge of nothing? We who were turned away by both light and dark - never given a choice? TALK - That may be... however, what other choice might we have had? One potato, two potato, three potato, four. You get the idea.

17master - Hey, guys, check out my new camera! TALK - Oh wait, this isn't a camera... - {{{time}}} Okay how about this: we put up a warning in the editing section. I don't know if that's possible, but if it is possible, then we should put it up. Other solution I can think of is to give them the first warning immediately after their first vandal. Maybe that'll stop some of them from continuing to vandal the other articles.