User talk:74.234.39.218

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1 NOT ALL ANONS ARE VANDALS
2 Beyond Sanctorum
3 HP SPaM
4 Clueless comments from Zenlax
5 For the record
- 5.1 HP SPaM
6 For the amusement of anyone actually paying attention: A Comment on Personal Attacks
- 6.1 For the record
7 "the exchange of ideas is one of the highest level uses to which a human can apply their mind"
8 Copying entire conversations to other talk pages
9 This IP bloke is slightly right- don't block him yet
10 HP SPaM
11 Hi:)
12 April 2008
13 Jonathan Edwards
14 Civility in edit summaries

[edit] NOT ALL ANONS ARE VANDALS

As the entries below demonstrate, I have twice been assumed to be a vandal and had my edits reverted within seconds, without so much as a moment's consideration. Yet in both cases, I was totally vindicated. Please think about that before you slam me with another warning, buddy.

Archiving previous discussions, with ill will from both sides. Click [show] at far right to see the whole discussion, but perhaps it's better to move on instead.

The following is a record of previous discussions. Please do not modify it.

I think, in all honesty, that some clues are needed on both sides of the fence here. It appears that you are making edits in good faith, but the way that you are making some of these edits are putting big red flags on them for other people that watch for vandalism. To avoid snap judgements that your edits are vandalism, it can help a lot to be careful to avoid actions that appear on the surface to be vandalism. Some of those things are blanking large quantities of text without an edit summary, or even with an edit summary with a lot of all-uppercase words in it.

There are proper ways to go about getting articles removed that you believe are false. Blanking them in general is not the right way. Good editors, even anon editors, should know about these ways and use them. Now, a new editor probably isn't going to know about these techniques, and we do try to avoid biting the newcomers. But sometimes a new editor will get bitten. It happened to you when I bit you. You complained, and rightly so. In my reply I indicated how you can avoid that happening in the future by sticking a deletion template on the article rather than blanking it.

Seemingly you ignored that advice and continued blanking, judging from the template collection you racked up shortly after that. I'm not sure what that says. Are you making a point of some sort by performing actions that you have been told look like the actions of a vandal, and then complaining that you are not? Or do you just want to avoid using the methods that other editors use to avoid looking vandalistic?

And while we try to avoid biting the newcomers, it should be noted that not all anon editors are newcomers. You display quite an ability to deal with page formatting, and seem to know your way around quite well for someone who has been editing Wikipedia for less than a day, including seeming to know how to watch pages. Many of us are likely to conclude that you are probably someone that has edited before, and thus, you should probably know something about how the place operates. If you seem to know how the place operates, and yet you seem to not want to follow those operating principles, what are we to conclude?

A number of us are more than willing to offer help and advice on how to go from here. But please when we offer advice or suggestions on how to do something, either take the advice, or at least do things in some way other than the ways that got you bit in the first place. Loren.wilton (talk) 02:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Beyond Sanctorum

You were indeed absolutely correct in your removal. Please accept my apoligies. Try keeping in mind what I've written clearly in my talk page, with a big "Important" header ;-). Don't be angry, everybody makes mistakes, I'm sure you're fully aware of that. Reverting vandalism at high speed is unfortunately error-prone, but it's also a vital task in keeping the encyclopedia running. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 18:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] HP SPaM

Hi, the recent edit you made to HP SPaM 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. Loren.wilton (talk) 14:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Please see the note that I left on your userpage. In fact, what I was doing was exceptionally constructive; I was fighting a major vandal, which is what you purport to spend your time doing. 74.234.39.218 (talk) 14:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe the fact that that link became a redlink so quickly vindicates my actions. Apologies accepted. 74.234.39.218 (talk) 15:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I have restored this article because, upon the request of the article's creator, I found sufficient evidence to make it reasonable to me to assume that the topic actually exists. I suggest that if you still have problems believing in the existence of this entity, the way to go would be to submit it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a note. Accounting4Taste:talk 18:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

What sources? There are none listed in the article. Oh wait, there's one external link, and in the article it links to, there is not one single solitary reference to HP, Hewlett-Packard, SPaM, or anything like that. This is total bullshit, and you're being scammed, giving some punk vandal the laugh of a lifetime. 74.234.39.218 (talk) 19:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Clueless comments from Zenlax

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to HP SPaM. Your edits appeared to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Zenlax ^T ^C ^S 19:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Get a clue, and read some article history before you start making accusations. 74.234.39.218 (talk) 20:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to HP SPaM, you will be blocked from editing. Df747jet (talk) 20:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

[edit] For the record

I am not a vandal. Is it possible that some of the other editors out there not only have the ability to read, but that they actually exercise this skill before throwing around accusations of vandalism? Please read this sequence of posts:

[edit] HP SPaM

I believe the fact that that link became a redlink so quickly vindicates my actions. Apologies accepted. 74.234.39.218 (talk) 15:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Please take a look at what you're reverting. This article is a nonsense article created by a vandal, and I was just calling a spade a spade. Who's the vandal, the guy who does the graffiti or the guy who washes it off the wall? 74.234.39.218 (talk) 14:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Hum. It is a very well done spoof, but on reading more than the first part it becomes obvious that it is a put-on.

Blanking the article is really not the right solution here, since that tends to look like vandalism at first glance (and why I bit you by mistake here). The thing to do is either request speedy deletion by putting a {{db-nonsense}} tag on the front of the article, or by proposing deletion of the article with a {{prod}} tag and a description. This article is perhaps a little large for easy consumption as nonsense, so I'll try for prod and nonsense both. ~~~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Loren.wilton (talk • contribs)

I'm not a dedicated editor. I'm a reader, and only take action when I see something obviously aggregious like this. I have absolutely no idea what the procedures are for getting an article deleted, nor do I have the time or inclination to learn. You, however, are supposedly an expert, with superpowers. Isn't it your job to take care of people so obviously vandalizing this encyclopedia? 74.234.39.218 (talk) 20:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

So, you're walking. Thanks for sharing -- I don't really need you to tell me what my job here is. By the way, the word you were looking for is "egregious". Accounting4Taste:talk 20:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Get a clue, and read some article history before you start making accusations. 74.234.39.218 (talk) 20:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to HP SPaM, you will be blocked from editing. Df747jet (talk) 20:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

* Notice that none of these Johnny-come-latelies has provided that they actually read the content of the discussions that preceded my edits. One editor's thoughtful response consisted of correcting my spelling error on a talk page. How petty can you get? Talk about avoiding the real issues. Another of these "editors" took the time to remove my reply from his talk page--I guess he doesn't like it when discussions get "intense". I will give Accounting4Taste credit for at least pausing and thinking about the issue, even if he did get totally punked by this vandal. But everyone is calling me a vandal, when I'm the one removing the graffiti. Could you people please get a clue and look into things before you label someone a vandal? I'm the only one here actually defending the sanctity of this encyclopedia; the rest of your are mucking around in procedural crap while you allow this vandal to make a laughingstock of you all. 74.234.39.218 (talk) 20:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] For the amusement of anyone actually paying attention: A Comment on Personal Attacks

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive comments.
If you continue to make personal attacks on other people as you did at User talk:Zenlax, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. iMatthew 20 08 21:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

This is blatant hypocrisy. I am the one who has been trying to get others to talk about content, and what has agitated me is that they have been completely ignoring the content issues. I'm being labeled a vandal for trying to remove a piece of crap nonsense article, and almost everyone is completely ignoring the issue. One editor admitted I was correct, another has admitted I'm probably correct but too fucking bad we don't really know for sure, and the others have all just ignored the issue of this incredible vandalism on the encyclpedia. Has everyone got nuts? How am I being chided when I am the only one who is trying to correct this situation? 74.234.39.218 (talk) 21:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

[edit] For the record

The comment below is the one that supposedly constituted a personal attack.

Get a clue, and read some article history before you start making accusations. I am no vandal. 74.234.39.218 (talk) 20:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Can anybody explain this to me? I may come across as harsh, but why should I not be when I have been falsely accused of vandalism? All I do is make a terse suggestion that the editor do some more investigation before accusing another of vandalism. This is a "personal attack"? What is going on here? 74.234.39.218 (talk) 21:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I deleted the comments and did not reply because I think your comments are absolutely ridiculous, and I have no words for them. If I said what I'd like to say, I would probably be blocked, so I'll just walk away now. iMatthew 20 08 21:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

That is not true, I just prefer not to have complete nonsense on my talk page. iMatthew 20 08 22:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "the exchange of ideas is one of the highest level uses to which a human can apply their mind"

I saw this comment by you, and therefore would like to take you up on it. Clearly there seems to be some issue surrounding HP SPaM that you think is pure nonsense or a hoax. Equally clearly a number of other users are becoming frustrated by your edits. And clearer still you are becoming frustrated in turn. How can I assist you? Pedro : Chat 22:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Copying entire conversations to other talk pages

Hi. In the future, please refrain from copying entire conversations from other pages onto my talk page, including warning templates -- or make VERY clear that you are copying from another place. Thank you. Loren.wilton (talk) 02:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] This IP bloke is slightly right- don't block him yet

About the HP SPaM article. I wouldn't quite say it's a hoax, no doubt HP have a SPaM group, but the only mentions of such a group on line is it being mentioned in two people's resume summaries. It is not notable and should be redirected to HP or to any page we have about SPaM. Not only that, the references don't mention the group, in at least 2 cases. special, random, Merkinsmum 11:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

He is understandably angry as he is trying to draw attention to a page which has subtle serious problems, and no-one is looking at the sources or searching for its non-existent google news entries. special, random, Merkinsmum 11:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Rather than deconstruct what happened yesterday, I've archived the whole discussion. Anybody willing to start from scratch? --barneca (talk) 13:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] HP SPaM

The article now has several new references. A glance at the current references shows that this is not a hoax; HP SPaM appears to be real. Whether it is notable or not is another question, one I don't know the answer to at the moment. If you want to challenge its notability, AfD is the way to go. If I understand right, IP's can't create a new AfD page, so if you want to create one, place what you want in it below and I'll make it for you. --barneca (talk) 13:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

hey "74.234." I would suggest not going to AfD but to try and ask for the info to be merged into the Hewlett Packard article. Though I agree some of the refs are "misleading." :) Some of them don't even mention the SPaM, as you have pointed out. Merging would create a redirect, for instance looking for HP SPaM (not that anyone ever would) would simply redirect people to the main HP article. This is also much less aggro for you/me/whoever does it, than an AfD. special, random, Merkinsmum 17:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hi:)

I was wondering if you had thought of creating an account? I ask just because then it would be possible for you to receive email from other users if you wished it, and stuff like that, as well as not getting as much of people making assumptions about you. Which hopefully has stopped somewhat now, anyway.:) special, random, Merkinsmum 19:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] April 2008

sorry, wrong button... J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 00:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

That would be great, except that if you look at my contribs, you would find very few instances of that happening. I do make mistakes, but I would estimate that I may get one mistake in 250 edits, which is roughly 1% corrections, so out of my 15000 edits, 150 are correcting my mistakes. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 01:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I have neither the time nor the inclination to go through your contributions. If you were possessed of a bit more humility you would acknowledge that, to one visiting your page for the first time ever, and visiting under the circumstances I did, it looked a bit malodorous. A statement admitting mild embarrassment might have been impressive and earned you another fan. But you apparently have enough adulation going on already. 74.234.39.218 (talk) 01:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I was not asking you to go through my contribs. You effectively accused me of "statpadding" my edit count, so I defended myself and exhibited evidence to support my claim [that I am not "statpadding"]. When I accidentally warned you, I reverted myself (which means I knew I was wrong), removed the warning from your page, and apologized. Since I do not frequently make erroneous reversions, I see no reason to be "mildly embarrassed" and I am not looking for "another fan" nor am I seeking "adulation". I made a mistake, so I fixed the problem and apologized. I fail to see what further action I should take. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 01:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Look, I know what happened. I'm not a total idiot. I'm just saying that it was an ironic juxtaposition; me finding four edits from you inside of two minutes that didn't change anything anywhere. And looking at your page, where people are fawning all over your impressive edit count, it just looked a bit off-key. Like I said, you could have recognized the situation for the mild irony that it presented and made a humourously self-deferential comment. Instead I get a sermon. It's all in the attitude, buddy, and you're just a bit too defensive for my taste. Go on and chill now; you need to take yourself less seriously, in my most humble opinion. 74.234.39.218 (talk) 16:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, you are right. I am sorry for being so defensive. I often do that even in the real world, so it is not surprising I would do it here. You were correct that I need to take myself less seriously. I do not agree that people are "fawning" over my impressive edit count, (btw, it is not impressive. What is impressive is a human user who has nearly 175000 edits. I can't remember his name) but I do understand where you were coming from, and I apologize for making this into a problem when it was intended to be ironically funny. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 16:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

We cool. I'm out. 74.234.39.218 (talk) 16:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jonathan Edwards

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we must insist that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not on Jonathan Edwards. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Each of these edit summaries are uncivil and don't assume good faith. (The consensus discussion I mentioned can be found Talk:Jonathan_Edwards_(theologian)#Requested_move here.) Flex (talk/contribs) 01:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I DID assume good faith, until I went to the talk page and saw that there was nothing there. I problem is not what I didn't assume, it's what YOU DID assume, namely, that I'm a fucking mind reader. Jesus fucking Christ, Flex, I feel sorry for whoever is sleeping with you (that was a fucking joke, dipshit, not a personal attack. Don't get your panties all bunched up. Shit.) 74.234.39.218 (talk) 02:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah, and I took care of that shit so no one else will have to go through what I did. Do you always make total strangers do your laundry? 74.234.39.218 (talk) 02:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Civility in edit summaries

Please try and be civil in your edits summaries. Comments such as these [1] [2] [3] [4] don't exactly endear yourself to your fellow editors or promote good faith. Please refrain from making personal attacks. Thanks! Redrocket (talk) 02:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I must admit that you have a good point. It's just that I feel that most people do not pay enough attention to grammar these days; more of them seem to care about spelling, which to me is far less important. 74.234.39.218 (talk) 02:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I know just how you feel sometimes. Because of the way edits overlap, some articles wind up looking like a train wreck, and it can be frustrating. Thanks for understanding my comments, and good luck! Redrocket (talk) 02:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

You are one funny guy. I'd like to party with you, bucko, if my two-headed llama didn't keep me home at nights.74.234.39.218 (talk) 02:16, 17 April 2008 (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]

User talk:74.234.39.218

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] NOT ALL ANONS ARE VANDALS

[edit] Beyond Sanctorum

[edit] HP SPaM

[edit] Clueless comments from Zenlax

[edit] For the record

[edit] HP SPaM

[edit] For the amusement of anyone actually paying attention: A Comment on Personal Attacks

[edit] For the record

[edit] "the exchange of ideas is one of the highest level uses to which a human can apply their mind"

[edit] Copying entire conversations to other talk pages

[edit] This IP bloke is slightly right- don't block him yet

[edit] HP SPaM

[edit] Hi:)

[edit] April 2008

[edit] Jonathan Edwards

[edit] Civility in edit summaries

Views

Navigation

Interaction

Search