User talk:74.215.145.113

Hai
I am not sure what your intentions are but when contribing to the wiki please try to keep them positive. Also you just broke GWW:1RR, please dont do it again. If you find that you have done so you should simply revert yourself and move on. Thank you. Drogo Boffin 03:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello good sir, I hope you do indeed realize that while I appreciate your good intentions, you should've taken two seconds to figure out he broke 1RR before I did, in order to make yourself not look like an idiot. As I deemed the offense was not something requiring admin attention, I simply reverted him.  74.215.145.113 03:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually it is not I who looks like the idiot. He made his edit then you reverted him your 1st revert then he reverted you his 1st revert and then you reverted him again your 2nd revert. And now I have reverted you because the information is correct and you removing it is vandalism. So if you want to contribe feel free. Just keep them positive and in a non disruptive form. [[Image:User DrogoBoffin sig icon.png]] Drogo Boffin 03:57, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That's not how it works. His first edit is technically a revert, as he is modifying the original page. Therefore his 'first' revert breaks 1RR. By your definition of a revert, it would take *two* people to revert the article back to the original version. 1 person is equal to 1 person.  As for the actual information he (and you) is pushing through, its redundant. By the time you get to the trainers he mentioned, you have already been to the ones previously listed.  We don't list every place you can get a skill, just the earliest ones. 74.215.145.113 04:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No you are allowed an edit. His original edit wasnt a "Revert" he was adding information not removing it. Thus showing you still havent read the policy through. Please read it again. [[Image:User DrogoBoffin sig icon.png]] Drogo Boffin 04:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * So you are saying it takes 2 people to revert the actions of 1? Cool, that makes trolling/vandalising easier. 74.215.145.113 04:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh, all I need to do is 'add information' 74.215.145.113 04:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I fixed the page. Next time just dont start a revert war. Get a Guild Wars Wiki:Requests for comment and it will get fixed without any policy being broken. Ant no trolling/vandalism doesnt apply to the 1 revert rule. You will however cause disruption on the wiki will get on peoples nerves. So if you revert a vandal on a single page a couple times just leave it till they are blocked or let somebody else deal with it. [[Image:User DrogoBoffin sig icon.png]] Drogo Boffin 04:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Only 'obvious' vandalism. Again as I said reporting him would only take longer, though it seems some people.... 74.215.145.113 04:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Reporting may take longer but it is better than having a possible block for a breach of policy. Just the little precautions. [[Image:User DrogoBoffin sig icon.png]] Drogo Boffin 04:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

A couple of things, first off, Drogo is correct, don't sit there and constantly revert stuff, even if you're in the right it still can create problems. A much simpler solution would be to inform the person putting in the incorrect info on their talk page about how (for example) once you unlock a skill, all trainers from that campaign will offer it to you. Second off, trolling/vandalism will get you a block on the first try. Thanks. --Rainith 04:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Trolling/vandalism once doesn't award blocks, and as I said earlier, it wasn't major enough to warrant any followup. Try as you might, I don't need to say a whole paragraph on how one tiny thing he is doing is wrong (though apparently you two seem to think its necessary) 74.215.145.113 04:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hate to break it to you, but trolling/vandalism once can and does award blocks. That said, as you won't be doing it, it won't be a problem, right?  :)  --Rainith 04:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: "So you are saying it takes 2 people to revert the actions of 1?":

Yes, if the first user re-reverts, and this is intentional. The intent is to make controversial reverts cumbersome enough to 1) avoid revert warring and 2) require a discussion on the talk page to meaningfully resolve.

Trolling and vandalism usually isn't a concern, because trolls and vandals generally violate 1RR and get themselves blocked. Even if they don't, the ratio of trolls/vandals:everyone else works in our favor.

I disapprove of Drogo's assumption of bad faith above. I'll draft up a guideline about "anonymous editors are editors too" in hopes of quelling this sort of thing. Your contribs are overwhelmingly positive and this should not have been handled as it was.

&mdash;Tanaric 22:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC) . I simply should have worded it different in that one sentence. Why dont you just listen to people when you talk to them. The last thing we need is another guideline. We all know anoms are editors too. Hence the reason they are allowed on the wiki. Drogo Boffin 15:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There was no "assumption of bad faith"


 * Fair enough, Drogo. I wouldn't draft a guideline based on one incident. There's a five-year-running trend of treating anon editors like crap. &mdash;Tanaric 23:34, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * To be fair almost all vandalism is also by anons so. I can see where your going but untill I see and read the draft Im not sure how I feel about adding another guideline. [[Image:User DrogoBoffin sig icon.png]] Drogo Boffin 23:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC)