User talk:24.6.66.193

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Attention:

This host, c-24-6-66-193.hsd1.ca.comcast.net, is registered to Comcast, an Internet service provider through which numerous individual users may connect to the Internet via proxy. This IP address may be reassigned to a different person when the current user disconnects.

For this reason, a message intended for one person may be received by another. 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, in which case, please see here.

If you are autoblocked repeatedly, we encourage you to contact your Internet service provider or IT department and ask them to contact Wikimedia's XFF project about enabling X-Forwarded-For HTTP headers on their proxy servers so that our editing blocks will affect only the intended user.

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

Note: In the event of vandalism from this address, abuse reports may be sent to your network administrator for further investigation.
IT 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.


Contents

[edit] Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia! You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, but creating an account is quick, free and non-intrusive, requires no personal information, and gives you many benefits, including:

We hope that you choose to become a Wikipedian and create an account. Feel free to ask me any questions you may have on my talk page. By the way, make sure to sign your posts and comments with four tildes (~~~~), which will let others know who left it. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Altering signed comments

Please do not alter other people's signed comments, such as you did to Talk:Adrienne Barbeau. If you are actually the original author of those comments, please accept my apologies. Also, you are more than welcome to correct mistakes in articles, it's only signed comments (therefore, outside of articles) that I am referring to here. Thanks. --Yamla 19:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


Well, that's something I almost never do, for obvious reasons. Normally, it would be inappropriate to alter other people's signed comments, making it look like they said something that they in fact did not. However, that's really not what I did. I merely corrected a couple of obvious spelling or typographical errors; nothing more. For example, the word "bosom" is spelled "bosom", not "busom". Likewise, "breasts", not "breats". And the phrase "I have know idea" is clearly wrong; it was obviously intended to be "I have no idea".
Being a newbie, I'm not exactly certain how you "discovered" these corrections, but apparently the page in question must've been on your watchlist. In that case, you MUST have seen that all I did was correct the [mis]spelling of "busom" and the obviously improper use of the word "know" instead of "no". (And in the only other instance -- "Her quote about not knowing that her winnebagos was the center of attention were the center of attention was so disingenuous..." -- I simply deleted the repeated text, which, again, was an obvious typographical error.) Not sure why you would want to revert my corrections to these obvious errors. I would never alter someone else's comments to change the meaning -- or even the tone or style -- of those comments. But correcting simple, obvious misspellings and typos seems not only harmless, but beneficial -- both to the original commentator (by making him look less dimwitted and careless) and anyone trying to read what he wrote.
Cordially, "24.6.66.193". 24.6.66.193 13:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
The problem is that other people signed those comments and then you changed them. I understand that you were acting in good faith to make your corrections but please leave signed comments as they were originally posted. We need to leave them as an accurate depiction of what was originally stated, even with the errors in tact. This is similar to placing a quote into an article. We would quote exactly what was said, even if it does not make grammatical sense. Unless they are your signed comments, that is. Your corrections would be most appreciated for any articles that have blatant errors like this, however. --Yamla 13:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
With all due respect, I disagree. I'm not directly quoting anybody, I'm merely editing for typographical (not factual) accuracy. Doesn't change anything about the comment other than the readability of it. If you write a Letter To The Editor of a newspaper and it gets published, I can guarantee that the editor will edit for typographical and grammatical mistakes. Moreover, the editor will also edit for space (i.e., delete parts of the letter) if he/she deems appropriate (which I would never do in the context of a Wikipedia discussion). 24.6.66.193 07:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] November 2007

The change I made to that article WAS constructive, and was NOT "vandalism" (as your accusation stated in the edit summary). The article defined such radiation as that produced by the acceleration of a charged particle, when in fact it is produced by the deceleration of such particles. So I made the change. Note that the article itself calls Bremsstrahlung radiation "braking radiation" or "deceleration radiation".
Respectfully submitted, 24.6.66.193 15:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Oh, OK. The reason why I made the accusation was because your edit was misleading, changing only the first part of the link and not the second (the edit you made was from acceleration|acceleration to acceleration|deceleration.) I have edited the page to make it so that the link takes any readers to the right page - along with my apologies. I will have the noticed removed promptly, thanks for pointing it out. :) --Terra Xin (talk) 15:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] January 2008

Hi, the recent edit you made to Talk:Surrender (Cheap Trick song) has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. Alexfusco5 02:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mercury(II) fulminate

Hi there

I previously removed your edit, noting on the edit summary to refer to the talk page: Talk:Mercury(II)_fulminate#.22Popular_culture.22. Have you considered my arguments against including such information, before re-adding it? --Rifleman 82 (talk) 07:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] April 2008

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:IEEE 802.11n. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. -- KelleyCook (talk) 20:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Jeez, just trying to help. Or did you intend the subject heading to read "monkier" and not "moniker"? 24.6.66.193 (talk) 01:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi, correcting the typo, would have been fine (though it is usually discouraged on Talk Page -- read Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Editing comments). The mistake was you didn't actually correct the typo, you changed the header to explicitly point out the typo. See the edit you did.
Well, part of the reason I did that was to avoid the accusation of editing (changing) others' comments. (See the long discussion on this topic at the top of this user page in regards to the discussion page of the Adrienne Barbeau article -- it seems like I just can't win.) Normally I wouldn't even bother, but when it's a highly visible heading in LARGE TYPE, well, it just screams out at you.
Also on another note, I highly encourage you to register a username, if you wish to continue wiki editing. A user account is actually more anonymous than an IP address and it gives you access to nice features such as WatchLists (which for example alerts me if you respond to this comment).
Yeah, I've been meaning to do that for a long time, but never completely got around to doing it. And the one time I actually did attempt to do that, my preferred choice of username was already taken. <frown> When I think of a good second choice, I'll try again.
And since almost all vandalism comes from Anonymous IP accounts, long time editors tend do immediately think negatively when they see edits by IP addresses. -- KelleyCook (talk) 13:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I know. In my own experience (such as, but by no means limited to, the case at hand) and perusing other users' talk pages, I've noticed a tendency of certain longtime editors to overreact or react too quickly to legitimate edits made by people whose only "crime" is not to have created a user account. It seems that these editors take the position of assuming guilt until innocence is proven, instead of the other way around. Often, if these self-appointed cops would just look at the actual edit itself, its legitimacy would be readily apparent. 24.6.66.193 (talk) 10:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)