Editing Forum:Non-User contibuters

{{Forumheader|The World that Never was}}

<!-- Please put your content under this line.  Be sure to sign your edits with either your talk page template or four tildes ~~~~ -->

{{Hangon|time=04:41, November 21, 2010 (UTC)|text=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|text=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.|time=04:47, November 21, 2010 (UTC)}}
{{LapisScarab|time=05:07, November 21, 2010 (UTC)|text=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.}}

{{Lapidoth|text= 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|text=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...|time=07:07, November 21, 2010 (UTC)}}

{{17m|text= 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 [[User:Chitalian8|Chitalian]] and [[User:NinjaSheik|NinjaSheik]] will lose their jobs D:}}

{{LapisScarab|time=12:50, November 21, 2010 (UTC)|text=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|text=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|time=22:42, November 21, 2010 (UTC)|text=Four days at the most. that's how old an account has to be to be auto-confirmed. Still not much.}}

{{Hangon|time=22:56, November 22, 2010 (UTC)|text=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|time=23:10, November 22, 2010 (UTC)|hane= 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|time=00:35, November 23, 2010 (UTC)|text=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|time=20:47, November 25, 2010 (UTC)|text=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|time=21:18, November 25, 2010 (UTC)|text=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|time=23:44, November 26, 2010 (UTC)|text=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}}

{{ANX219|time={{{time}}}|NamineSad=A non-user wrote something inappropriate on Vexen Boss' page. It makes me mad!}}

{{ANX219|time={{{time}}}|NamineSad=A non-user wrote something inappropriate on Sephriroth's page. It makes me mad! I am 100% of blocking non-wikians.}}

{{LapisScarab|time=02:19, November 27, 2010 (UTC)|text=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|time=02:38, November 27, 2010 (UTC)|text=[http://kingdomhearts.wikia.com/wiki/Special:Contributions/98.225.16.38 One potato], [http://kingdomhearts.wikia.com/wiki/Special:Contributions/66.215.20.249 two potato], [http://kingdomhearts.wikia.com/wiki/Special:Contributions/98.164.155.33 three potato], [http://kingdomhearts.wikia.com/index.php?title=Prize_Pod&diff=prev&oldid=420167 four]. [http://kingdomhearts.wikia.com/wiki/Special:Contributions/117.192.230.251 You get the idea].}}

{{17m|text= 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.}}

{{LapisScarab|time=03:00, November 27, 2010 (UTC)|text=So, basically, '''exactly what we do with vandals right now.''' I think you guys are missing the point; regardless of wether they're registered or unregistered, we deal with vandals the same way - a "friendly" warning to stop, then successive warning templates until they hit three, then we block them. There's no reason to discriminate specifically against anons.}}

Dammit... guys... why?  Lapis has said this about ten times in a row.  Just read.  This page isn't even a giant like the WWWG? forum.  I took me about three minutes to read this.  And, to repeat what Lapis said again, will stop of the fake figures, Hangon?  What is this 7 1/2?  Have you ever seen the wiki contributor pyramid thing?  It starts at everything, then goes to people who like a certain area.  After that, it goes to people who like that item who need to search for it and wish to read about it.  Then, it goes to those who will find their way here.  Of those people, only a certain percent will stay, and of those, an even smaller percent will edit the wiki, either registered or unregistered.  I know from experience that it is ''really'' easy to scare away new editors.  I've scared away a couple myself.  Getting rid of an anon who reads might even discourage them from reading in the future.  {{The Inexistentsig}}
@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-{{Forumheader|The Realm of Sleep|The World that Never was}}
+{{Forumheader|The World that Never was}}
 <!-- Please put your content under this line.  Be sure to sign your edits with either your talk page template or four tildes ~~~~ -->
@@ Line 42: / Line 42: @@
 {{Hangon|time=23:44, November 26, 2010 (UTC)|text=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}}
-{{ANX219|time={{{time}}}|sad=A non-user wrote something inappropriate on Vexen Boss' page. It makes me mad!}}
+{{ANX219|time={{{time}}}|NamineSad=A non-user wrote something inappropriate on Vexen Boss' page. It makes me mad!}}
-{{ANX219|time={{{time}}}|sad=A non-user wrote something inappropriate on Sephriroth's page. It makes me mad! I am 100% of blocking non-wikians.}}
+{{ANX219|time={{{time}}}|NamineSad=A non-user wrote something inappropriate on Sephriroth's page. It makes me mad! I am 100% of blocking non-wikians.}}
 {{LapisScarab|time=02:19, November 27, 2010 (UTC)|text=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.}}
@@ Line 54: / Line 54: @@
 {{LapisScarab|time=03:00, November 27, 2010 (UTC)|text=So, basically, '''exactly what we do with vandals right now.''' I think you guys are missing the point; regardless of wether they're registered or unregistered, we deal with vandals the same way - a "friendly" warning to stop, then successive warning templates until they hit three, then we block them. There's no reason to discriminate specifically against anons.}}
-Dammit... guys... why?  Lapis has said this about ten times in a row.  Just read.  This page isn't even a giant like the WWWG? forum.  I took me about three minutes to read this.  And, to repeat what Lapis said again, will you stop with the fake figures, Hangon?  What is this 7 1/2?  Have you ever seen the wiki contributor pyramid thing?  It starts at everything, then goes to people who like a certain area.  After that, it goes to people who like that item who need to search for it and wish to read about it.  Then, it goes to those who will find their way here.  Of those people, only a certain percent will stay, and of those, an even smaller percent will edit the wiki, either registered or unregistered.  I know from experience that it is ''really'' easy to scare away new editors.  I've scared away a couple myself.  Getting rid of an anon who reads might even discourage them from reading in the future.  {{The Inexistentsig}}
+Dammit... guys... why?  Lapis has said this about ten times in a row.  Just read.  This page isn't even a giant like the WWWG? forum.  I took me about three minutes to read this.  And, to repeat what Lapis said again, will stop of the fake figures, Hangon?  What is this 7 1/2?  Have you ever seen the wiki contributor pyramid thing?  It starts at everything, then goes to people who like a certain area.  After that, it goes to people who like that item who need to search for it and wish to read about it.  Then, it goes to those who will find their way here.  Of those people, only a certain percent will stay, and of those, an even smaller percent will edit the wiki, either registered or unregistered.  I know from experience that it is ''really'' easy to scare away new editors.  I've scared away a couple myself.  Getting rid of an anon who reads might even discourage them from reading in the future.  {{The Inexistentsig}}
-{{LapisScarab|time=03:51, November 27, 2010 (UTC)|text=[http://kingdomhearts.wikia.com/wiki/Special:Contributions/Kemo- Yes, all vandals are anons...] Does everyone get the point yet? [http://kingdomhearts.wikia.com/wiki/Special:Contributions/Groudonfire17 Anyone can be a vandal.]}}
-{{JFHavoc|time=04:00, November 27, 2010 (UTC)|text=For the record, I only read the first post. So I don't know if anyone else has already brought this up. A Wiki is a database of information that ''anyone'' can edit and contribute too. It's not anon's fault that they're uninformed. If anything the problem is uninformed users.}}
-{{17m|text= JFH is right. And we already have 2 [[User:Chitalian8|trustworthy]] [[User:NinjaSheik|wiki gnomes]] already!}}
-{{ANX219|time={{{time}}}|shocked=Oh! I'm sorry Lapis. I wasn't paying attention. But, The Inexistent has a point there.}}
-{{Hangon|time=17:25, December 4, 2010 (UTC)|sad=Sorry, JFH is right, but when I said "7½" I meant age, not fraction of users, since anyone can edit little people can to, I got my first KH game when I was little, so why can't kids get on like that? JFH is right though I suggest we bring this Forum to an end I'm really sorry for all the trouble I caused.}}