User talk:87.127.44.154

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Account

I've read your reply and about the Wolves edit and I believe you when you say it was a mistake, don't worry we've all been there (Someone broke a template that affected thousands of Computer & Video game articles a while back - ahem).
Have you thought about getting an account on Wikipedia? As well as the benefits of having your own user page and discussion page you also get other options like setting dates and measurements to display how you prefer . Also it makes people a little less jumpy about your edits, Anon IP edits (how you are editing Wikipedia at the moment) are responsible for the bulk of the vandalism and so the genuine tend to get tarred with the same brush.

If you ever need any help with anything at all just drop me a note on my discussion page. - X201 08:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for this - I've explained on the Wolves FC talk page that the vandalism came about because of the JahJah addon for Firefox. the user:Dreaded Walrus sussed that all six-digit numbers were being stripped off pages that I edited and I tracked it down to this addon which is now disabled and deleted. 87.127.44.154 06:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Connie Talbot

Hi,

Sorry it has taken me a few days to get back to you -- it's a busy time of year! A "no consensus" has the same effect as a "keep" (it is sometimes called a default keep, because one cornerstone of WP's deletion policy is, "if in doubt, don't delete.") The only real difference between a no consensus and a keep is one of etiquette: an article that is kept outright at AfD normally shouldn't be relisted for at AfD for at least six months, whereas it is considered polite to relist a no consensus close after only one month. An immediate relisting of a closed debate is bad form.

It is not really unusual for two AfDs to result in "inconsistent" closes like this. For one thing, the articles might be more different than they seem: one contestant might have had more post-show success, or one of the two articles might be better sourced, which obviously would help sway commenters at an AfD. If you really want to, you may nominate one of the articles for deletion review, although you would need either new sources or a process-flaw for the DRV to have a serious chance of success -- as I said, "inconsistent" sets of closes happen all the time. Best wishes, Xoloz 23:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for this very helpful summary. I'm busy learning the ropes and responses like this are extremely helpful. 87.127.44.154 06:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Genderfuck

As you are unregistered and cannot create pages, I completed the AfD nomination on your behalf. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genderfuck, where you may want to keep up on the debate. --Dreaded Walrus t c 10:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for coming to my rescue yet again. I shall get round to registering properly in due course! There appears to be three types of Wikipedians. Newbies like me who haven't a clue what we're doing (hence the number stripping (oops); then there are single-issue Wikipedians who, while working accross WP, seem here mainly to ensure there pet subjects are treated as they want (and woe-betide anybody altering them); and then there are people like you who seem to want to help people, regardless of whether you agree or not! So, thanks again. 87.127.44.154 12:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the compliment, much appreciated. Unfortunately there are single-purpose accounts, often ones which have a conflict of interest with regards to their area of editing (either for or against a particular subject), and there are also vandals. And, for some reason, most of them don't sign in. Probably assuming that it enables them anonymity, whereas the opposite is true, of course. If it wasn't for my British English spelling, and the occasional mention of my real life on here, no-one would be able to make any guesses as to who or what User:Dreaded Walrus was. Not where I was from, not how old I am, or anything like that. Whereas with you, for example, a simple WHOIS lookup for your IP address (located at the very bottom of your, and every IP's talk page for convenience) will usually give either the user's general location, or that of their ISP, and it usually provides a place to report abuse, too.
And then, as you say, there are people who try to be helpful to others, like myself. I admit I'm absolutely awful at contributing to articles - I've got probably around 5,000 edits here, yet I haven't created a single page that wasn't a redirect, or AfD and the like. So instead of contributing directly to articles, I try to offer assistance where required, and chip in with discussions regarding things now and then, and if I can help someone, then I'm happy.
But there's also a fourth main type, as well as the three you mention above. And that is the type that goes around adding fully cited material to articles, and creating articles themselves. An immediate example, at random, off the top of my head, would be User:Dale Arnett, who has created many articles on American football, our football, ice hockey, e.t.c. There are many people like him, and it is essential these users are valued as highly as they currently are.
But to me, for all their lack of knowledge about the way Wikipedia works, it is new users like yourself, who are truly willing to make a positive contribution to this project, and improve it, who are most important, which is why I am against the subject of disabling anonymous editing when it regularly comes up. I started off here as an anon, just making little spelling fixes here and there, and it was only after 50 or so edits across multiple IPs I decided to actually create an account (Tiscali's dynamic IP system made it difficult for people to contact me about my edits). If it wasn't for allowing anonymous editing, I probably would not have felt the urge to fix those typos enough to actually create an account, you know?
And as for whether or not you should register yourself, well it's up to you. As User:X201 says above, it makes people a little less suspicious of your edits (pretty much any time I see either a red-named account or an IP address making an edit on my watchlist, I check it out just in case it's vandalism), but it also makes it a bit easier for people to remember who you are. It's a lot easier to remember words than it is to remember a bunch of numbers (hell, I can't even remember my phone number and I've been living here for three years now. :) Perhaps one reason to register is it's not nearly as much hassle as it could be. All you need is to enter your username and password, and that's it. You don't even need to enter an email address.
Regardless of whether you decide to or not, if you ever need any help or assistance in any way, or you just have some questions, do feel free to contact me via my talk page, and I'll get back to you as soon as you can, either on my talk page or, at your request, on this one. --Dreaded Walrus t c 13:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and sorry for the long, long rant. I do ramble at times. :P Dreaded Walrus t c 13:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] American Express, User:Darkieboy236 e.t.c.

Just a quick courtesy call to let you know I've responded to your question on my talk page, as you don't have a watchlist to find out normally. Sorry I took so long to reply. :) --Dreaded Walrus t c 23:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)