User talk:72.75.74.236
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
My reasons for not registering are not a topic for conversation ...
I will simply let my edits speak for themselves ... besides, registering with a username, such as The Bipolar Anon-IP Gnome (talk · contribs), will not make me any less anonymous ... so please, just cut a "recovering wikiholic" some slack, and MOVE ON.
And, yes, until the recent service interruption, my Verizon DSL IP address (and thus my username) was 72.75.96.83 (talk · contribs).
Happy Editing! —72.75.74.236 11:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Watchlists and Sandboxes
| Watchlists |
|---|
|
My current Primary Project is helping a newbie employed by the Victoria and Albert Museum … they came to my attention when their recent contributions were being discussed at the WP:COI/N#Victoria and Albert Museum (2):
We are currently being assisted by:
Associated editors:
Editors to watch (sockpuppets?):
After numerous personal attacks by User:867xx5209 on Talk:Jing Ulrich and Talk:Gary Coull, I have decided to file this report on Suspected sock puppets. —72.75.85.234 14:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
|
| Sandboxes |
|---|
|
See User talk:68.239.79.82/sandbox for full list [edit] Protocols for deletion warnings
These were accidentally created under IP:72.75.100.232 and need to be deleted (D'oh!)
[edit] Essays regarding my draft protocols for deletions
[edit] Background information essays
[edit] Miscellaneous work in progress essays
|
My current sandbox
[edit] Request for comments on protocols and templates for proposed and speedy deletions
| Request & replies | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
I have revised my proposed and speedy deletion warning protocols, and I am requesting comments from the following administrators, with whom I have had contact in the past on the topic of moderating the proposed deletion and speedy deletion processes: Introduction: I believe that sometimes the deletion of newly created articles can occur Too Quickly, often with negative consequences. The current process is to tag an article for deletion, and then to notify the author with a very impersonal Proposed solution: I believe that New pages patrol, Recent changes patrol, and Counter-Vandalism Unit activities should adopt the following simple protocol:
To make the first two steps easier for editors, I have created two boilerplate message templates, Field testing: To test their use, I have identified two articles that have been around for a while, but would probably not survive an AfD, or would be deleted upon the expiration of a PROD:
The first article (that I discovered while doing cleanups after a vandal) is about a website that is not notable enough for an article of its own; at best it only deserves a brief mention in the existing article for its parent organization. The second article (that came to my notice on the Conflict of interest/Noticeboard) is about a pornographic actor. It asserts their Notability, but fails to provide any Verifiability for the assertions; I have not objections to it being retained if they are provided. (The bulk of the previous edits to it, including those by the subject, were additions to a Very Long list of their film appearances that I deleted and replaced with links to IMDb and IAFD.) Because of the infrequency of contributions by the articles' authors, I plan to follow the protocols using a PROD rather than a CSD. I'm requesting that you (a) add the two articles to your watchlists to monitor what happens, and (b) comment on the templates either on their Discussion pages or in this section of my Talk page. Epilogue: Needless to say, I have undergone an "attitude adjustment" and am much less of a deletionist than I was six weeks ago (notice the placement of "proposed" before "speedy" whenever deletions are mentioned), mostly as the result of two events; the first one was when my account was briefly blocked from editing as a result of my new pages patrol activities, and the second was an epiphany about the lack of any Attribution in newly created articles that is best summed up by this quote:
I realize that what I am proposing is nothing less than a paradigm shift, and (like any change in direction) it will face resistance, but I also think that upon due deliberation, most will agree that it is a Good Thing ... I suppose that the "proper" way to present these modifications of the proposed and speedy deletion processes to the community would be as an Essay (that might evolve into a Guideline accepted by consensus), but there is still much work to be done and experience to be gained before it is ready for general discussion ... OTOH, if there is some reason of which I am unaware that makes this entire enterprise a colossal waste of time, I wish that someone would let me know before I expend any more energy in this direction. :-) Happy Editing! —72.75.70.147 02:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC) [edit] general commentsBefore we get to details I want to comment both on the current situation, & strategy. My views are altered a little by, first, my experience of my first month as an admin, second, the decision of a number of excellent active edits to stand for adminship, and the bursts of activity that results, third, the evidence that there is not really total agreement among WPedians amount the stringency of the N & V standards, both in general and in all sorts of special cases.
But this discussion and the more general one should take place in WP space, not user space. DGG 20:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] next roundWhere to go: What I think you are saying is that we need another classification scheme--and my current model is 3 groups.
eliminate prod--the only good use is abandoned and dubious though people do use it in the hope it will go under the radar. -- there is no good reason to use a prod on something that someone is likely to care about. Most go to the new class 2, some to class 3. (half of the present use is abandoned user pages, which can really have a separate speedy procedure since they should not be controversial)
finally, an easy appeal mechanism. But there is one big type of stuff that does not fit.
and three disputable points that not everyone will agree
And two overall problems
and an overall problem
How to get there. 1. I strongly advise against an explicit overall policy change as step One. It will probably get rejected and set things back half a year. The way to try to change consensus is inch by inch. 2. I continue to recommend small changes that would fit into the present system so that people get used to things. 3. Continuing to refine notices is even easier. Detail: PeerTrainer will survive AfD, because of the NYT article and the People article, and CBS. It's been improved and is shown to be notable. not a good test case. Definitely needs a number of cuts, to make it less of a how-to-do-it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 09:01, 15 June 2007
[edit] AlternativesOK, I've gone back and re-read Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Processes (something I didn't even know about two months ago :-), and had some time to digest your comments above, so let me see if I can restate both your points and mine to make sure we're on the same page:
I feel very strongly that one of the things provided by my protocols/warnings is a higher level of documentation (paper trail) for use during the deletion review process, either by a sole admin or by consensus discussion ... some cases are "obvious," but it's the not-so-obvious ones that I'm concerned about. I'm still Too Distracted to respond more right at the moment, but I wanted to get these thoughts posted ASAP. —72.75.70.147 11:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
|
[edit] Your "new IP"
Hello. I do not have anything personal against your edits -- everyone is welcome to Wikipedia to make edits. However, no matter what the situation, you really do need an account in order to prevent confusion of this sort. I learned that before I became a Wikipedia editor, when I blanked my "previous" IP's user page, and I was placed for Vandalism. In short you need to be careful if you're going to stay unregistered, because modifying User pages that are obviously not yours, can cause trouble and confusion. As long as you know what you're doing, I suppose your fine. I'll try to make a note in your defense if I see you pop up on the Admin reports page again. Cheers, JoshEdgar 12:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- Please see User talk:72.75.70.147#So surreal... and some of the other threads on that talk page from June 3-25 ... that's the kind of thing that I leave behind when my IP changes ... I've adapted to "life on the edge of the shadows" by creating a user-id that I can use to create User pages for new IPs and Nothing Else (well, I had to use it to edit , because it was semi-protected) ... some Admins are monitoring me, and I make myself known to them every once and a while, usually by following one of their edits or comments ... hey, if I had used The Bipolar Anon-IP Gnome (talk · contribs) to make that edit the first time, you probably would not have reverted it, which is why I used it the second time ... OTOH, you could have checked the history of the IP User page first, and not just the Talk page ... Happy Editing! —72.75.74.236 01:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- While you may have this IP going and the admins know about it, it can be confusing. If you want to deal with this confusion for the life of your Wiki-editing, then that's fine, but expect to get some vandalism notices from editors that don't know about your situation. Using WP:TWINKLE, it automatically adds the vandalism note to your Talk page. Thus, we don't see your User page, and you can't really expect us to go User page hunting for every IP just to make sure it's not a bipolar-whatever-gnome-thingy. Cheers, JoshEdgar 17:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- This is the life I have chosen to live in this space ... as long as I do not engage in Vandalism, I should not attract the attention of any other editors or bots ... you saw a Very Big Deletion of an anon-IP talk page by another anon-IP, and did the "rvv" thing ... commendable, but counterproductive in this instance ... by using my registered account to effect the very same change, the confusion was removed ...
{{User Alternate Acct}}was created for a reason, i.e., editors like myself ... this way, I don't have to archive my talk page periodically, because it "evaporates" frequently enough. —72.75.74.236 17:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- This is the life I have chosen to live in this space ... as long as I do not engage in Vandalism, I should not attract the attention of any other editors or bots ... you saw a Very Big Deletion of an anon-IP talk page by another anon-IP, and did the "rvv" thing ... commendable, but counterproductive in this instance ... by using my registered account to effect the very same change, the confusion was removed ...
-
[edit] Help
Hello - advice needed...I need to delete some images I added last week but can't see how to take the jpg out. I've deleted the text but can't get the image out, is there a way I can do it or do I need to wait for wikipedia to do so. I've had 2 warnings on my talk page that they will be deleted on 31 Aug, but would rather they were taken off earlier. VAwebteam 15:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- Wait, wait ... I know this one ... it happened to me a few months back :-)
- I'll have to research it and get back to you, but you might try:
- leave a message on the talk page about it being an orphan that you'd rather see deleted
- stick
{{Db-author}}on it with a comment "See talk page"
- That's off the top of my head while in the middle of doing something else ... I know it's a different tag for images, but I can't remember at the moment ... the point is, that tag will place it in a queue (albeit the wrong one) and an administrator will look at it and Do The Right Thing.
- Happy Editing! —72.75.74.236 17:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- Thanks I've tried this, shall wait to see what happens. VAwebteam 15:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Posted on wrong page, I think
[1] Tyrenius 21:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- Nope, it's correct ... I've been calling that editor "Grasshopper" since I started working with them as a newbie several months ago ... see previous posts (under different IP accounts) on that same page ... it's one way that they can recognize me in spite of address changes. :-) —72.75.74.236 23:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- Ah. However, an easy mistake for me to make, I'm sure you'll agree. :) Tyrenius 23:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] New IP address
Well, it changed again ... see you on my new user page! —72.75.65.41 (talk · contribs) 23:53, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Ironman Live
no need to risk 3RR--it will be taken care of. DGG (talk) 00:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 | This is the discussion page for an anonymous user, identified by the user's numerical IP address. Some IP addresses change periodically, and may be shared by several users. If you are an anonymous user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other anonymous users. Registering also hides your IP address. [WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • Traceroute • Geolocate • Tor check • Rangeblock finder] · [RIRs: America · Europe · Africa · Asia-Pacific · Latin America/Caribbean] |
