| Revision as of 04:48, 6 April 2022 edit142.105.159.178 (talk) Added note that sha256 "0)" has been used and can't be used again.← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 04:51, 20 April 2022 edit undo142.105.159.178 (talk) Removed faked "warning", which was actually only a trumped up power move made after just two ordinary BRD cycles. The responses induced by it would be left without context, so I removed them also. | ||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
| 5) 3a0e6abb1c002cd3db7a66cfa58e93fc0b6720f037c1492cb9aa3c06ca64ca03<br> | 5) 3a0e6abb1c002cd3db7a66cfa58e93fc0b6720f037c1492cb9aa3c06ca64ca03<br> | ||
| --> | --> | ||
| == April 2022 == | |||
| ] You currently appear to be engaged in an ]  according to the reverts you have made on ]. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to ] with others, to avoid editing ], and to ], rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. | |||
| Points to note: | |||
| # '''Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;''' | |||
| # '''Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.''' | |||
| If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's ] to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an ] or seek ]. In some cases, it may be appropriate to ]. If you engage in an edit war, you '''may be ] from editing.''' ''<br> | |||
| === Added note=== | |||
| As you say in your looong and snippy , "pay attention" - we don't debate content disputes via back and forth edit summaries attached to repeated reverts. That is what the talk page is for. If you have an issue with an edit, discuss it on the talk page. Additionally, edit warring is not tolerated on WP. To justify all this disruption, and your non-collegial attitude, you're gonna need a very *good* reason to meet that bar. So you post it on the talk page buddy, and maybe someone will support you :-)''<!-- Template:uw-ew --> - '']'' 06:22, 4 April 2022 (UTC) | |||
| {{Block indent|''If this is a ], and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider ] for yourself or ] so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.''}}<!-- Template:Shared IP advice --> | |||
| ===A fair comment. :-) === | |||
| Yeah, "pay attention" was slightly aggressive. At the time, it was justified in my mind based on the fact that it didn't look like you were fully engaged in that particular edit. Maybe you were moving quickly to another edit or something. I don't know. But anyway, "Its sourced" struck me as kurt, dismissive, and contrary to my comment that the source was actually inadequate. "Its sourced", as your only reason for reversion, made it look like you were detached from what was going on right in front of you. I probably shouldn't have actually said it, but in the moment I thought you ''needed'' to pay some more attention. So, there it is. Sorry, man. | |||
| I like Wikipedian encyclopedic writing to be straightforward, ''tight'', on topic, and easy to read -- generally the way they like it in all that great guidance in ]. I guess I don't apply that to my edit summaries though, which are often looong like you say! Usually, I think all that explanation helps to ''prevent'' conflict, but sometimes not. So again, sorry about that. | |||
| I do understand how edit warring works and I wasn't going to go beyond the 3RR without going to the talk page. In fact, before I pushed the matter further I wanted to verify that I had my facts in order. I looked closer at that particular source and there was one place where it alluded a little bit to "female empowerment". I think that particular source is still quite vague about it and a real stretch to support such a bold claim, not to mention that the claim is currently in the lede section only, and looks a lot like POV-pushing. But, I digress. Lots of good stuff for the talk page. See you there! ] (]) 08:03, 4 April 2022 (UTC) | |||
| :This isn't really the place. The notice was placed here becuase it was about your editing behaviour, but anything to do with article content should be discussed on the article talk page. (fyi) - '']'' 08:21, 4 April 2022 (UTC) | |||
| :: An IP's talk page isn't the same as an article's talk page (where you ''do'' need to keep mostly to a controlled topic). Plans for future engagement on some article's talk page are a fine topic for an IP talk page. ] (]) 00:36, 5 April 2022 (UTC) | |||
| ===tag+=== | |||
| Thewolfchild, with regard to the initial shared-IP tag: | |||
| :1) By posting the template originally, you exposed an editor's approximate ''physical location'' (mine!) to be plain to see. You had to go through something of a special effort to look up the location and generate the string. Although much lesser in magnitude, that's ''akin'' to outing an editor's real name and address. A physical security hazard imposed on your fellow editors. It can be easily interpreted as an aggressive move if some caution is not taken. | |||
| ::You are mistaken in several ways. Click in the "geolocate" link in the box at the bottom of this talk page and you'll get , accessible to ''anyone'' on the Internet. It does ''not'' take any "special effort"; lookup sites like these have been available online for years as there is a legitimate need for many website operators to know to what provider an IP address is registered, particularly when abusive or disruptive behavior is coming from it.<p>You therefore have ''no'' ] over who your ISP is and where the server you use is; it is equivalent to, say, the identity of your telco and where the switch you call from is. It does not matter whether your IP is dynamic.<p>For that reason it cannot be considered "outing". Our ] policy ''specifically'' does not mention ISP and server location in its list of personal information that it protects where the user has not disclosed it publicly here or linked to such disclosure elsewhere.<p>As a practical matter, also, where and to whom your IP address resolves hardly constitutes a threat to your privacy, much less your safety. It may indeed be static, but the name and address associated with it are not public information and usually it takes a search warrant to get (and that assumes ] would not resist one). We do not have the authority to get one, obviously, and there has been no allegation of criminal activity that would trigger the necessary police report.<p>Moreover, ], to where the IP resolves, is a pretty big community, with a population of over 35,000 at the last census. And that's just where the server is ... you could for all I know live in ] or somewhere else in a broad area north of Albany. I could get there myself in an hour and a half, but your IP address by itself is ''useless'' for me to try and find you with.<p>In short, your fear for your physical safety over the revelation of your ISP is irrational. ] (]) 18:03, 5 April 2022 (UTC) | |||
| ::: You're right that the actual direct threat is low. No big deal there. I had tried to make that clear with phrases like "approximate", "although much lesser in magnitude", etc.. The idea I ''should have'' gotten across was that the content of the string ''became'' a contributing creepy/invasive factor in the context of their other actions as they developed. ] (]) 19:10, 5 April 2022 (UTC) | |||
| :2) You should take more care to ensure it's actually a ''shared'' address next time, before pushing such a tag so hard on to some IP's talk page. ] (]) 00:36, 5 April 2022 (UTC) | |||
| ::Every Misplaced Pages user has the right to do that. I think it was a little premature here, as there is no block history on this IP, but it was not a policy violation by any means.<p>And there is AFAIK no way of telling, even with more technical tools available, how many users might or might not share an IP, especially given the prevalence of dynamic IPs. We usually just make an educated guess from the edit history, knowing full well it might be wrong.<p>Now, it is true that within a couple of months we will institute a protection whereby the actual IP addresses of unregistered users will only be visible to admins like myself. It may be possible then that what you are complaining about ''will'' be a violation of privacy policy. But until then, it isn't, and really even then you will be on firmer ground protecting your privacy by actually registering an account. ] (]) 18:03, 5 April 2022 (UTC) | |||
| :::Neat! :-) ] (]) 19:10, 5 April 2022 (UTC) | |||
| Thewolfchild, with regard to your continuing defacement of this page (vandalism) with the shared-IP tag, etc.: | |||
| :1) I've tried to ] with you, but you have no more credibility on that front. No assuming is necessary now, you're plainly operating on ''bad'' faith. You're obviously "]" to cooperate civilly on an encyclopedia, rather just to troll and harass. | |||
| :2) Anything else posted by you (or any suspected crony) on this page other than the most sweet gracious groveling without the ''slightest'' of foul smells -- will be unceremoniously deleted. ] (]) 00:36, 5 April 2022 (UTC) | |||
| == User ZZ142 == | == User ZZ142 == | ||
Latest revision as of 04:51, 20 April 2022
User ZZ142
User ZZ142 is the same single person as has operated on IP 142.105.159.178 from November 2020 until at least the present, which is currently 5 April 2021. So, beware: Edits here from "me" might end up being signed by either. 142.105.159.178 (talk) 02:18, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
Yup! ZZ142 (talk) 02:19, 6 April 2022 (UTC)