Misplaced Pages

User talk:89.176.230.207

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by CorbieVreccan (talk | contribs) at 20:24, 12 October 2021 (→Moving IP posts from user talk to IP user talk: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 20:24, 12 October 2021 by CorbieVreccan (talk | contribs) (→Moving IP posts from user talk to IP user talk: new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Misplaced Pages!

Someone using this IP address, 89.176.230.207, has made edits to Dances with Wolves that do not conform to our policies and therefore have been reverted. For more information on this, see Misplaced Pages's policies on vandalism and limits on acceptable additions. If you did not do this, you may wish to consider getting a username to avoid confusion with other editors. If you'd like to experiment with the syntax, please do so in the sandbox rather than in articles.

You don't have to log in to read or edit pages on Misplaced Pages, but creating an account is quick, free, requires no personal information, and has many benefits. Without a username, your IP address is used to identify you.

Some good links for newcomers are:

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and a timestamp. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask the Help Desk, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Again, welcome! - CorbieVreccan ☼ 19:12, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Per your blanking of informational policies and your comment, 'I have been editing Misplaced Pages for years and I am not interested in your "welcome".'... I was being polite about the fact that you were violating the sourcing policies. I chose to offer you information on sourcing, rather than immediately begin the process of increasing penalties towards blocking you for your violations, as you may have made these mistakes in ignorance. As you only have a few edits under this IP, no one knows you've "edited here for years". But yes, it's now obvious you are trying to preserve inappropriate content you've added earlier. If you have a named account, I suggest you read WP:LOUTSOCK. We all have to follow policy here. But as an admin, I am also tasked with enforcing these policies. Best, - CorbieVreccan ☼ 21:22, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

@CorbieVreccan: All right; I would want to comment on this. First of all, I apologize for blanking out the talk page and making that comment in the edit summary of it; I was in a very bad state for unrelated reasons, and it was a poor impulse and wording. For what it's worth, I apologize about that, and I've restored the original content on this page. Even though I have been editing Misplaced Pages for a couple years, I did, in fact, make a mistake in ignorance, or maybe rather in negligence, not realizing that it would be in breach of a policy. I also did not realize that I was breaching policy in blanking my page. I admit that I can lose track of policies at times, and when I do, I try to do my best to correct what I've done wrong. I realize you don't have to accept my apology, but I offer it nonetheless.

About the subject matter at hand: I understand your point, I think, but I don't think this is "inappropriate content that I've added earlier". That forum post has been discussed years before I came around, as you can see from the talk page; all that I did was post an archive link of that. You said that it doesn't belong in the article, and after thinking about it, I agree, yes. But I don't understand what's wrong with putting the archive link on the talk page. I added it to give context to the discussion taking place there, which was discussing this very post. - You said that it is "inappropriate" to take a screenshot of a private post and post it elsewhere, but I didn't do that. That's not how the Wayback machine works, it only archives information that is actually publicly accessible; I cannot insert my own content into the Wayback machine. There are countless instances on Misplaced Pages of archived content that is no longer accessible through the original link; that's what the whole archive template is for.

Your comment that the source isn't WP:V can very well be valid, and I don't think it couldn't be on the talk page also. But I don't see why the post itself needs to be removed. I don't think WP:V applies to the talk page itself; in fact, it seems to me that talk page guidelines specifically say "Share material: The talk page can be used to "park" material removed from the article due to verification or other concerns, while references are sought or concerns discussed." That seems to be exactly this case.

I'm not going to push for this exact material to go in the article; I would like to keep looking for other references that will pass policy, but I do think that this material is specifically useful on the talk page, because this is what is being discussed there (and it's been referenced - and linked - by other people long, long before me). I don't want to just push an edit; I would like to ask you if we can please reevaluate this, and let the archive link stay on the talk page, so that people know what is being discussed. 89.176.230.207 (talk) 00:38, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Moving IP posts from user talk to IP user talk

Keep this on your own page. These are repetitive and aren't addressing the policies. I'm not interested in debating this with you. Content below moved here from my user talk. - CorbieVreccan ☼ 20:24, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Talk notice

Hello; I left a message in response to yours on my talk page. I don't mean to rush you to reply; it's just that I don't know if you are aware of it. If you know about it, and have been planning to reply later, or not at all, just a few words to that effect will do. Thanks! 89.176.230.207 (talk) 04:42, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I saw it, but it doesn't change the issues with the sourcing policies. Why aren't you using your named account? Per your recent comments, I once again, strongly suggest you familiarize yourself with the WP:LOUTSOCK policy. - CorbieVreccan ☼ 18:51, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
The sincere answer is that I never really felt the need for it. I can't even remember the last time I logged in (I'm not sure if I could even dig out the credentials still). The bulk of my edits over the years has been rather random; I read an article, saw a problem, or something I could improve, and did it, and that was it; the vast majority of that never got reverted or commented on, so I just saw no advantage in logging in, and instead preferred the convenience of being able to edit from anywhere, anytime, without worrying about credentials. As far as I know, this is fine if done without deception, which I never had any reason to attempt. I've read WP:LOUTSOCK, and none of that seems to even remotely apply to me. If I ever needed to interact with someone in the same context from different IPs, I would consider it automatic to inform them that I'm the same person - but I don't think this ever happened. I could create an account to talk to you if you preferred (although honestly, even now it doesn't feel necessary, as I think I'll be able to stick to this IP for a while, and if for some unlikely reason I couldn't, I'd be open about that). - I wonder why you keep bringing up WP:LOUTSOCK; do I actually remind you of someone else you encountered before? That would be a big surprise to me. I'm quite certain I never interacted with you before. - Anyway, if for whatever reason you feel like you want more scrutiny, I have no problem with that.
About the edit - I have more to say (and I would want to go by the book about this and prefer discussion in an attempt to reach consensus or compromise) - but before saying more, it feels like I should ask you if you'd prefer to carry on here, or some other page. 89.176.230.207 (talk) 23:30, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
I only now noticed your contribution at the Teahouse page. The claims that you are making about me are false, and I would like to ask you to stop bringing this dispute to places where it doesn't belong, and to not make personal attacks against me. I never personally attacked you (I did write one unfriendly line, I apologized for it, and I apologize again, but even that wasn't a personal attack against you, as it didn't claim anything about you at all), and I ask that you don't do this either while we discuss, and focus on resolving the apparent dispute about my edit instead. I am absolutely, 100% certain that I didn't, even accidentally, use any other IP or any named account to make any edits in any way related to any of this. I have no idea why you are claiming this, and if you think you have any basis for claiming this, please explain yourself. 89.176.230.207 (talk) 09:28, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

It's not a dispute. You tried to circumvent the very clear sourcing policies, then you tried to forum shop, where you misrepresented your edits. There is already consensus on the policies. WP:RS is clear. There is nothing to be debated. - CorbieVreccan ☼ 18:15, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Adding diff from Teahouse: For the record, On an IP with only a few edits, the user blanked a welcome message with the edit summary: 'I have been editing Misplaced Pages for years and I am not interested in your "welcome"', and inserted text into an ongoing discussion to preserve an edit added by an IP in the same region. That IP had edited a comment made by the named account that first added the link this IP added the wayback version of. Phrasing and POV on named account and two IPs is the same. No one else on page fits pattern. - CorbieVreccan ☼ 18:26, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I am truly speechless. Trying my best to follow policy and guidelines religiously, so that I wouldn't do another wrong thing that I would regret (like the blanking of the page with an unfriendly comment, for which I apologized no less than three times now), I did EXACTLY what is recommended in WP:DISCFAIL to make sure that what my edit wasn't in violation or any policy or guidelines: If you are unsure about the relevant policies, feel free to ask a general question at the Teahouse. Do not mention the dispute itself or others' behavior. Frame your question like this, "I want to do X and I'm afraid that doing that might violate some policy. Will it?" - I followed this instruction carefully, not mentioning anything about the dispute or anyone involved - and I get accused of forum shopping?? For doing my best to follow WP instructions? This is incredible. I have no other explanation than you seeming extremely bent on assuming bad faith in everything that I do. Your claim that I "misrepresented my edits" is appalling, especially considering that I was asking for general policy guidance, and not for opinion on the specific edits.

I have been editing Misplaced Pages for years, yes; the oldest edits of mine that I can find are over 16 years old. During all this time, I never found myself treated like this; this is nothing less than shocking to me. Your evidence for me using multiple accounts to circumvent policy is that some other person - by looking at the edit history, apparently you mean 109.80.168.206 - NINE YEARS BEFORE ME (!!!) contributed from the same country (of 10 million people!!!) as I? I absolutely, categorically deny that I made any of the talk page edits made on 2 October 2012‎. Based on its location, I am absolutely certain that I never used the IP address of 109.80.168.206 (I haven't visited that city in over 20 years), and I absolutely, categorically deny that I would have anything in common with users Waglutapi or TheOldJacobite - I have absolutely no idea who these people are. My own named account (which I haven't used in years) is completely different, and I am willing to disclose it privately to an uninvolved admin, as well as cooperating fully to establish - as well as I can manage - my editing history over the years. - Has it ever occurred to you that the "phrasing" might be vaguely similar (I have no idea what makes you claim that the phrasing is "same", as it clearly isn't) because all these people were paraphrasing the SAME SOURCE? Has it ever occurred to you that I edited this section precisely because THIS IS THE SECTION WHERE I LEARNED ABOUT THIS IN THE FIRST PLACE?

I think your comment above makes it clear that you have no intention of discussing my edit (which I have repeatedly and politely asked for), and are instead exclusively focusing on smearing me with made-up accusations based on misconstrued evidence. I would understand if you perhaps had suspicions, and raised your concerns with me, and allowed me to respond. But instead, you publicly stated your shoddy (and false) speculations as facts, and you haven't shown even the slightest willingness to assume good faith on my side (indeed, you refuse to participate in a debate where I would even have a chance to explain good faith), and are instead interpreting every single action taken by me in the worst possible light one could think of. This seems to make it impossible to reason with you in any way. I am abhorred that I am seeing such conduct and blatant disrespect for a fellow editor, zero attempt to assume good faith, and plain refusal of repeated invitations to resolve things by debate - coming from an administrator, of all people. 89.176.230.207 (talk) 20:04, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

User infoThis is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.