| Revision as of 05:06, 25 July 2009 editJayron32 (talk | contribs)105,509 edits rv. Not sure why this IP is copying some one elses talk page here. Strange behavior.← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 09:45, 1 September 2022 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Removed stale messages from inactive IP talkpage. (Task 13)Tags: AWB Replaced | ||
| (36 intermediate revisions by 13 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Blanked IP talk}} | |||
| {{sharedip|Applied Research Associates}} | |||
| {{older}} | |||
| == April 2009 == | |||
| <div class="user-block"> ] {{#if:|You have been ''']''' from editing for a period of '''{{{time}}}'''|You have been temporarily ''']''' from editing}} in accordance with ] for {{#if:for sockpuppetry - see ]|'''for sockpuppetry - see ]'''|repeated ]}}. You are welcome to ] after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may ] by adding the text <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx" argument. -->{{tlx|unblock|Your reason here}} below. {{#if:true|] <small>(])</small> 15:02, 24 April 2009 (UTC)}}</div><!-- Template:uw-block2 --> | |||
| :''If this is a shared ], and you didn't make the edit, consider ] for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.'' | |||
| {{unblock reviewed|1=My edits are substantive and not to avoid any policy.|decline=Same response as to other IP addresses used today. Log in to your main account and request unblock there. ].].] 03:30, 25 April 2009 (UTC)}} | |||
| ], is there a reason that you can't just log in before editing? That would solve the problem very simply. -]<span style="font-size: smaller;"> (] · ])</span> 16:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :I grab edits, on different PCs, between jobs I'm running. Others here, I believe, do similar. The main issue for Admins should be whether this behavior is to avoid policy (which it is not, or, if occasionally occurring, is inadvertent.) Please note, too, that editing from multiple IPs reduces protection from 3RR, since no stable ID goes with the edits, so with convenience comes a price. Ultimately, the substance of the arguments should (and generally does) prevail. Until WP changes its policies on anonymous edits, the reasons for allowing them should still count. -] (]) 17:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :You have been extremely evasive about your multiple identities, using them to support each, pretending to be different editors, etc., while repeatedly adding unsourced interpretive material that others object to, as detailed at ]; to clear this up, you need to edit under one identity for a while, and stop the edit warring against policy. ] (]) 17:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::The issue of pretense is untrue. It's simply that with anonymity comes no need to identify oneself; that is, after all, what anonymous means. You should respect that, without assuming any pretense, either cloaking yourself or projected onto others. Realize that pretense is much more often inferred than intended. You should admit and withdraw the messes you've made and stop burdening others with them. -] (]) 19:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::When you log out and edit, especially when you encourage others to think that you're not one person but several, you will find that other users consider you dishonest. It's hard to work together with people who consider you dishonest. When you know that anonymous editing makes other people distrust you, if you want to work together with others, you adjust your editing so as to get along well with others. When you don't, you present the impression of a person who doesn't want to work cooperatively. Which is a problem, because cooperation is at the very heart of the way Misplaced Pages functions. There's no actual law against my walking around with dead fish tied around my neck. I don't do it, not because it's illegal, but because I want to get along with the people I meet in my journey through life. If I loudly insisted on my legal right to wear dead fish around my neck, I'd be able to do that- but I wouldn't have a job or any friends, and I wouldn't be able to accomplish anything useful that requires the help of others. -]<span style="font-size: smaller;"> (] · ])</span> 19:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Hmm, problem is he doesn't like my dead fish, and I don't like his. What Dick thinks is sensible is some model other than the one sourced (as he details ). Any notes to make the current one more useful by avoiding a common error is something he opposes (ibid). Could you review the following and render an opinion or find someone who will? Thanks, ] (]) 20:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| # ] (This is not affected by the 3O given earlier by ]. That model has since been sourced to a book, ending that controversy, as discussed at ]). Rather, it has to do with a common misuse of that type of model, for which the only source, so far, is an error on a forum, and its simple algebraic correction. See also the . 19:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::No, I'm not willing to help with your dispute. You see, I think that it's dishonest of you to edit anonymously instead of logging in, and so I'm not willing to help you with your problems. Do you see what I mean, about how editing anonymously makes it hard for you to edit as successfully as possible? -]<span style="font-size: smaller;"> (] · ])</span> 20:56, 24 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Working backwards, yes of course, esp. w/ certain personalities, but it shouldn't be so, and it shouldn't be considered dishonest to edit anonymously instead of logging in. Setting up an account shouldn't trap you into having to edit from it. -] (]) 21:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| {{unblock reviewed|1=... as per ], above. -] (]) 16:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)|decline=Your main account is clearly unblocked, so that's not an issue, and I see ''nothing'' in the above discussion that would make me sleep well after granting this. — ] (]) 20:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)}} | |||
| {{unblock reviewed|1=This shared IP has more than one editor and is not used to circumvent policy. That issue appears to have been raised as a diversion during an edit war, as has happened previously.|decline=Actually, policy has indeed been circumvented; ]'s contributions as a so-called "third opinion" at ] are either not "third opinions" (as they are the same person), or they are collusion by colleagues or friends; this is not acceptable. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 15:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC) }} | |||
| {{unblock reviewed|1=What is the difference between collusion and agreement? If you can't say clearly (and I doubt you can) you should unblock this. Do inclusionists or deletionists collude? It is not collusion to agree.|decline=This isn't a semantics class. Use your main account, as you've been advised above. <b>]</b> 17:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)}} | |||
| {{unblock reviewed|1=Making this request after logging in, as advised, had no effect. There is no policy defining collusion that is itself verifiable and unambiguous, and lack of one causes . Also, activities of a new editor should not close down an established one, even if it's a shared IP.|decline=Wikilawyering is not a valid reason for unblock. Continued use of unblock template will result in block of other accounts. <b>] ]</b> 19:15, 28 April 2009 (UTC)}} | |||
| :I, too, am gravely concerned by the edits from {{user|Rotwechsel}}. The entire purpose of the "third opinion" construct is to get an independent, neutral party to offer an opinion other parties can generally depend upon to be, again, independent and neutral. You've asked above out the difference between agreement and collusion; only one of those is made from an ]. When you're using multiple identities, it's hard for for people to trust you; when you're doing that ''and'' pulling in friends from off-site, it gets even harder; when those friends use the same IP as you on multiple occasions, it starts to look pretty bad. – <span style="font-family: Garamond">] (])</span> 19:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Don't know of anyone giving a 3rd Op or doing an end run on the 3RR in support of me from this IP (if from other IPs I can only guess), and I recall edits from this IP that weren't mine. Violations must be from an unshared IP or an ID, o/w they're iffy. All such accusations during an edit war, are equally likely to be self-serving, overblown bunk and, therefore, require solid evidence from an ID or an IP that is unshared, which can never be assumed. No violations came from here, even though shared. They are assumed from Rot, though I don't see it. So, this gets blocked? -] (]) 21:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Perhaps I should clarify, then: I am gravely concerned ''as a checkuser''. If an IP is shared between only two editors, what would you have me assume? If multiple, dynamic IPs are shared by those same two editors, exclusively, what would you have me assume? Using multiple identities is itself gray territory; bringing in a "friend" who does the same to participate in disputes you're in is, again, starting to look pretty bad. – <span style="font-family: Garamond">] (])</span> 23:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Within 100yds of my house live several college and grad students, some sharing land lines, 3 professors and 3 others, engineers, with some of whom I've discussed what I'm doing here. In my house are 4 adults, 2 of whom are students, one in engineering. I could 1.be more careful about using IPs (thought I was, like with this one) and 2.have a talk. (Please delete the ''Rotwechsel'' account. Not mine, no one can use it, so shouldn't be tagged with my ID.) -] (]) 16:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 09:45, 1 September 2022
Unregistered editors using this IP address received messages on this talk page years ago. Since users of the IP address have likely changed, these messages have been removed. They can be viewed in the page history.