User talk:IP68.213.169.171

Welcome to Wikibooks, IP68.213.169.171!

Wikibooks
In regards to your comment on User talk:Mike.lifeguard, please note that this is not Wikipedia and that since anyone can sign up, anyone can edit ... with some restrictions. IP address ranges and users are often blocked in order to halt vandalism. The main aim here is the production of and accessibility to quality books. Happy editing. --Swift (talk) 02:26, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. This isn't Wikipedia, BUT most of the same principles apply. My response was in conjunction with something that happened elsewhere. IP68.213.169.171 (talk) 02:59, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Whether the same principles apply is irrelevant. Make sure you know where you are and check the local policies and guidelines.
 * You'll find that people are much more accomodating when you show that you've tried your hardest to figure out the answer on your own (this applies in particular to your recent contributions on Commons). Remember that those you're interacting with are volunteers and many donate a lot of time and effort to the project. Answering simple questions that users should find or figure out themselves may not be high on their list of priorities, and certainly isn't a requirement for their participation on the project. --Swift (talk) 04:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If I might add to this: The reason for the animosity against those who choose not to create an ID stems from experience. Granted, IP address edits are quite often useful and valuable. However, more often IP address editors are here only to vandalize. Most often they are bored schoolkids who choose to destroy other peoples' work rather than creating their own content. Chazz (talk) 04:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Which makes one prone to prejudice. We should, therefore, remember not to profile users and give them the benefit of the doubt (until consistent behaviour removes all doubt... ). --Swift (talk) 07:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * My point exactly swift. Thanks. IP68.213.169.171 (talk) 01:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Not quite. You see; I was making the point that we should be careful not to assume that all anons fit the steriotype. You were making demands of others after they had decided you weren't worth their time. --Swift (talk) 06:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)