User talk:Toasterstrudel64

What type of toaster strudels? Тy rannosaurs 01:33, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh, the chocolate ones. Definitely the chocolate ones.--Toasterstrudel64 (talk) 01:37, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Cool. :} Тy rannosaurs 01:42, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You sound delicious. Let's be nom buddies!--Dumpling (talk) 01:59, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

PROTIP
Don't brag about wandalism here. Most of us are still sensitive about the whole "vandal site" business and we strongly condemn vandalizing other sites. 00:16, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I did not know.--Toasterstrudel64 (talk) 01:59, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't take it to heart or let Blue's vaguely Nazi-esque attitude get you down. We were all newbies at one point or another. AceModerator 02:08, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks.--Toasterstrudel64 (talk) 02:29, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The mixed messages probably confused you. "We strongly condemn vandalizing other sites" is achieved via making exactly that statement, while the RW mob generally lauds wiki vandals (there used to be a "how to" manual for it here somewhere). Notice that Blue never actually condemned your vandalism, but told you not to brag about here.  I'mm pretty sure it's more about avoiding any legal ramifications than about an actual ideal.
 * Oh, another thing. Please don't vandalise aSK. LowKey (talk) 23:44, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll reiterate Bradley's sentiment. Please don't vandalize aSK.  But what "legal ramifications" could there be?  FBI involvement?   23:50, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Philip is pretty high up with the local Melbourne constabulary. And LowKey, don't be a douche-bag - save that for aSK. Blue never actually condemned your vandalism =/= Blue thinks you vandalism is awesome, just don't mention it here. AceModerator 23:53, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * By legal ramifications I was referring to the principle in some places that incitement confers complicity. And Ace, I was specifically pointing out that Blue never actually condemning vandalism =/= "we strongly condemn vandalism".  Your "just don't mention it here" is exctly my point.  RW-website "condemns" vandalism, while RW-community often lauds it (or at least did back when I was more tuned in).  I am saying that is understandable that Toasterstrudel thought that vandalising and then pointing to it here was okay. LowKey (talk) 01:12, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * So, every time someone turns up with some vandalism we should say "We strongly condemn vandalism here...as such I strongly condemns yours right now" in order to be clear we don't condone it? Not to mention from what I read (which wasn't much to be honest) the vandalism consisted of inserting the current scientific consensus on creationism. AceModerator 01:15, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe not that exact wording but, as a matter of fact, yes. Having said "we condemn it" should not then be backed up by "so don't mention it".  Either say "so don't do it" or let the statement about condemnation stand on its own.  I know you are not usually this obtuse by nature.  I am saying that there is a disconnect between the website's official position and the practice of its membership, and Toasterstrudel's misunderstanding is reasonable. LowKey (talk) 02:22, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * RW is not a site wherein we advise people on how they should act anywhere else except RW. Hell, if someone wants to go an vandalise Wikipedia that is their prerogative but don't bother telling me about it here because I don't condone it. I think you are getting a little hung up on the word mention. But creationists do that also searching for meaning in information and breaking every little part of a sentence into it's smallest morsel. AceModerator 02:40, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I've been using this site for years, I edit it every day, and I vandalize CP at least once a week. (Not using my normal account for plausible deniability--we have to maintain the illusion that this site opposes vandalism!) LongStandingUser (talk) 02:53, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed, which kinda proves my point that you say thins using a sock as opposed as your actual account. Secondly RW doesn't ban or discipline others for what they do on other sites (as has been pointed in the recent brx case). AceModerator 02:59, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * but was it vandalism, or simply inserting some proper statements to offset the preconceptions of the article ? in the case of aSK it amounts to the same thing  though. Hamster (talk) 04:06, 6 June 2012 (UTC)