User talk:69.135.206.147

Please stop removing content from Wikiquote. It is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Wikiquote exists for the collecting of notable quotations of famous people and famous works. For a quick overview of what Wikiquote is, read Wikiquote, and also What Wikiquote is not for a list of common activities that Wikiquote does not support. When people are not interested in responsibly contributing to the development of the project incidents of their deliberate vandalism can result in IP addresses being blocked from editing. Thank you.--Aphaia 00:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism
''Aphaia, you recently warned me to stop removing content from Wikiquote. Did you take the time to look at the material I removed? I assume you didn't because I removed a duplicate quote...and I'm a little offended that you would warn me after one edit, much less an obviously benevolent one.69.135.206.147 01:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)''
 * NOTE: Originally posted to User talk:Aphaia.


 * Please excuse me for jumping in here. I'm posting this message to the three people involved in this 30 April 2007 edit to Atheism: 69.135.206.147 (who removed a quote without explanation); Écrasez l'infâme (who reverted it, calling it "vandalism"); and Aphaia (who posted a warning message to 69.135.206.147's talk page).


 * 69.135.206.147, please do not remove content without specifying a reason in the edit summary. Vandals routinely do this, but it is not at all unusual for well-meaning editors to do so, too. The latter, however, should not generally remove someone else's effort without a simple explanation (e.g., "rm duplicate quote", "rm unsourced quote from likely unnotable", "rm quote taken out of context", "rm copyvio material", etc.).


 * Écrasez, please do not call simple removal of a quote "vandalism". Vandalism is an unmistakable attempt to deface Wikiquote. Inclusion or exclusion of particular quotes is almost never vandalism, even when the editors fail to include an explanation. The best response to such a removal is to revert it with a more accurate edit summary (e.g., "rv unexplained removal of quote"). Please assume good faith.


 * Aphaia, I think we need to update our warning templates and/or our practices in using them, because it's not a good idea to warn editors who have made only a single contribution that their unexplained removal "is considered vandalism" when it isn't obviously so. Persistent unexplained removals, of course, can be, but even then they're often just content disputes involving someone who is unaware of how to deal with these disputes properly on a wiki. (I know there aren't many of us posting warnings, but I think they should reflect at least one attempt to help rather than scold.)


 * I believe we need to try to work together more instead of reacting negatively so quickly. Thank you for listening. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)