User talk:213.184.220.253

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits, such as those you made to Joe Eigo, are considered vandalism. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the hard work of others. Thanks. Konstable 13:30, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. .ιΙ I n hu man 14 Ιι. ( talk 13:41, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello good friend! There's really no point in vandalizing Wikipedia... countless users have tools and programs that spot vandalism, and we have almost a constant lineup of users who volunteer to monitor harmful edits, as well as automated bots that can locate vandalism and change it back almost instantly. Vandalism just like yours has been done countless times in the past, and we know how to deal with it. Yes, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia anyone can edit, and sure, it might be tempting to totally fuck an article up, but that's not what we're here to do. If you'd like to edit Wikipedia in a constructive manner that doesn't make you look like a complete idiot, feel free to do so, otherwise, it's best to just leave it alone. That saves you the time of making pointless changes, and saves me the time of reverting those changes just as fast, if not faster, than you make them. Thank you for listening and I hope you enjoy using, and maybe editing, Wikipedia. And if you have any questions, feel free to direct your inquiries to my delicious talk page; where we can sit and make banter over a lovely cup of green tea. --  The Prophet Wiz ard of the Cray on Cake (Prophesize 20:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh god, his edit wasn't even vandalism you stupid brownnosing prick. Not only that but it's pretty easy to vandalise something and get away with it for months before anyone notices, everyone knows this is one of Wikipedia's biggest flaws so you can quit trying to distort the truth.  Frankly you look like more of an idiot if you actually take Wikipedia seriously than if you just use it for your personal amusement. - 85.210.176.196 21:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Until you provide a source that isn't a broken link, you can't put in your "correct" information. -  The Prophet Wiz ard of the Cray on Cake (Prophesize 22:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The link works perfectly in both the original edit, and my one where I reinstated it, so I can only assume you're unable to view it due to your complete incompetence and lack of common sense. Not only that but entering information with a broken link as a citation doesn't qualify as vandalism, making the first comment you left on this page, quite frankly, idiotic - and what's wrong with just using a template as per the guidelines instead of the utter bullshit you decided to post? - 85.210.176.196 22:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * First of all, there are no strict guidelines for how to reply to vandals, and it doesn't really matter anyways. Secondly, that was a template, you can type and get the exact same resulsts, because I created it.


 * And your source still points to a broken link... and I'm quite confident in my ability to point and click on some blue text, so I don't think my idiocy is causing the link to break. I will not revert your changes, and will instead wait for a valid source... if I'm given none, then I will simply have to revert it back. Sorry I can't help. --  The Prophet Wiz ard of the Cray on Cake (Prophesize 22:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Sigh. The link works fine.  I'm copying this exchange onto the article's discussion page and filing a RfC. - 85.210.176.196 22:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Sure. Sounds like a good idea. --  The Prophet Wiz ard of the Cray on Cake (Prophesize 23:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * You lose at the internet. 68.69.194.125 04:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)