User talk:129.19.6.125

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

School IP address Attention:

This IP address, 129.19.6.125, is registered to Colorado State University and may be shared by multiple users of an educational institution. If the institution uses proxy servers, this IP address may in fact represent many users at many physical computers.

For this reason a message intended for one person may be received by another. Similarly an innocent user may be blocked for another user's vandalism. If you are editing from this address and are frustrated by irrelevant messages, you can avoid them by creating an account for yourself. In some cases you may temporarily be unable to create an account due to efforts to fight vandalism; if so, please read our advice on this situation.

Caution should be used when blocking this IP or reverting its contributions without checking - if a block is needed, administrators should consider a soft block with the template {{schoolblock|optional comment}} as the block reason.

Note: In the event of persistent vandalism from this IP address, anonymous editing may be disabled for up to 1 year at a time. Abuse reports may also be forwarded to your school administration for investigation.
School staff who want to monitor vandalism from this IP address can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.


Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions.

Currently, you are editing without a username. You can continue to do so, as you are not required to log in to Wikipedia to read and edit articles; however, logging in will result in a username being shown instead of your IP address (yours is 129.19.6.125). Logging in does not require any personal details, and there are many other benefits for logging in.

When you edit pages:

  • Please respect others' copyrights; do not copy and paste the contents from webpages directly.
  • Please use a neutral point of view when editing articles; this is possibly the most important Wikipedia policy.
  • If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
  • Do not add unreasonable contents into any articles, such as copyrighted text, advertisement messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Adding such content or editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism.

The Wikipedia Tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. For now, if you are stuck, you can click the edit this page tab above, type {{helpme}} in the edit box, and then click Save Page; an experienced Wikipedian will be around shortly to answer any questions you may have. Also feel free to ask a question on my talk page. I will answer your questions as far as I can! Thank you again for contributing to Wikipedia. From: (→Netscott) 18:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Where to discuss

Greetings, I've removed that talk you added on Wikipedia talk:Attribution. If you'd like to discuss such matters I would direct you to the village pump. Thanks. (→Netscott) 18:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

No, I realize that you may not be experienced on Wikipedia and given that is true you may not be familiar with how talk pages are supposed to be used. I would recommend you read that page and then you'll likely better understand why I've removed your comments from Wikipedia talk:Attribution. Your points are valid but just expressed in the wrong forum is all. I realize that this may be annoying but we do our best to keep talk pages on track relative to what they concern. Thanks. (→Netscott) 18:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The discussion on that page, as far as I could ascertain, was about the attribution policy. I am pointing out that moving first-person primary source material to a second rank from attributed material puts wikipedia at the position of becoming nothing more than a link-receptical. The whole beauty of allowing open editing of an article is to bring people into the operation that otherwise would not participate... including anyone who has firsthand knowledge.

It looks to me that instead of doing the effort necessary to build a system that has verification, or even a dispute marking system, the idea is to remove the problem by making a policy that renders the content of any given article either completely banal or built on a foundation of old-media resources. So then what's the point?

The vision of having some common-ground method of arriving at useful information (truth) is thereby discounted completely.

You'll probably be interested in this discussion as it rather relates to this. I invite you to post back on Wikipedia talk:Attribution but do so with unmistakable wording as to how the policy can be modified to improve it... essentially say what you're saying but also say that "such and such" section could word things this way. I suspect that's not what you want to do though as what you are talking about is the fundamental nature of how that policy actually is. When you're talking about fundamentals like that then the Village pump is where you want to be addressing yourself. Here's what I recommend you do. Make a post on the village pump and then provide a brief explanation of what your talk is and a link to your village pump discussion from Wikipedia talk:Attribution. Doing this is a fairly common practice as it allows for folks involved in a give policy to discuss it fundamentally. One thing you'll want to be sure and do is when you finish typing your comments to add four tildas like so: ~~~~ at the end so that what you've said will be "signed". If you have any more questions don't hesitate to drop by my talk page again. (→Netscott) 20:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


Thanks, I appreciate your patience with me. I have spent too much time on this, but it is an interesting subject. I found a link to a discussion about physical verification (something about a guy who went and looked at a covered bridge). The reason all of this came up was the Dead Runners Society page. I have added something about the issue on the talk section of the page. Sorry, I don't know how to link to it directly. It seems very strange to have to justify one's existence just because there's never been a newspaper article about it. Even after the research, I still think there is something wrong with the policies. It looks to me like the whole thing has been hijacked by people who are stuck in the same ruts worn out by old-media methods and practices. 129.19.6.125 22:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)