User talk:216.176.129.131
From Guild Wars 2 Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Please don't recreate pages after they've been deleted, especially when it's just made-up crap.
Also, use proper capitalization and punctuation in your other edits. It's hard to tell whether you're being serious or not, which is why most of your edits have been reverted. —Dr Ishmael 
18:15, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
- ~All of his edits that I can see were good faith edits, even if they were incorrect or unneeded info, so I think you're being unnecessarily harsh. Vili 点
20:51, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
- Stranger (profession)
- Offer candy
- Satan
- Dragon Chest •••Mora 21:03, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
- (Edit conflict) The block was given for ignoring the warning and continuing to re-create deleted pages. The pages in question, in case you didn't see them, were attacks on Anet's handling of the ranger profession, which is definitely not good-faith and counts as vandalism in my view. These edits are also hard to see as good-faith: [1] [2] [3]. —Dr Ishmael 21:05, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
- You know that IP addresses aren't bound to single users, and most of the earlier edits that I did go through were perfectly fine (if misguided or poorly formatted), not remotely vandalism at all. I'm not saying that this IP's contributions contain only exemplary edits, since the deleted pages and later edits to stuff are clearly jokes, but let's not pretend it was 100% junk either. Criticize for the bad edits, but give credit from the good edits. Vili 点 21:28, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
- You know that IP addresses aren't bound to single users, and most of the earlier edits that I did go through were perfectly fine (if misguided or poorly formatted), not remotely vandalism at all. I'm not saying that this IP's contributions contain only exemplary edits, since the deleted pages and later edits to stuff are clearly jokes, but let's not pretend it was 100% junk either. Criticize for the bad edits, but give credit from the good edits. Vili 点
- (Edit conflict) The block was given for ignoring the warning and continuing to re-create deleted pages. The pages in question, in case you didn't see them, were attacks on Anet's handling of the ranger profession, which is definitely not good-faith and counts as vandalism in my view. These edits are also hard to see as good-faith: [1] [2] [3]. —Dr Ishmael
- @Vili: If the vandal edits and the good edits had occurred with even a 2 hour gap in between, I could buy that argument. Instead, they were interspersed throughout a continuous string of edits. And as Relyk said, making a number of (questionably) good edits doesn't allow you to make bad ones. —Dr Ishmael 21:53, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
- Well, you're the sysop, not me, but I think that's assuming too much and would have handled the situation differently. That's all I'm saying. Vili 点 22:11, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
- Well, you're the sysop, not me, but I think that's assuming too much and would have handled the situation differently. That's all I'm saying. Vili 点
- @Vili: If the vandal edits and the good edits had occurred with even a 2 hour gap in between, I could buy that argument. Instead, they were interspersed throughout a continuous string of edits. And as Relyk said, making a number of (questionably) good edits doesn't allow you to make bad ones. —Dr Ishmael
This is the discussion page for an anonymous user who has not created an account yet, or who does not use it.
We therefore have to use the numerical IP address to identify them. Such an IP address can be shared by several users. If you are an anonymous user and feel that irrelevant comments have been directed at you, please create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other anonymous users.
