User talk:64.238.172.212

March 2008

Tornado watch

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Tornado watch. Your edits appeared to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 18:42, 7 March 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.

Response: I am sorry. This is the first and probably last time I made an unconstructive edit. I should have noted the talk page for suggestions of missing content. -- Andrew

California Cuisine

The addition has been sourced. --evrik ^(talk) 17:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Thus far I believe you have only sourced facts for "Fusion cuisine is accepted and popular in California" and perhaps "openness to new eating experiences" but I believe most people are open to new eating experience, even if they do not live in California (what defines a "Californian" BTW? Someone born there? Someone who current lives there? Someone who has lived there, but does not currently reside in California? The Governator was born in Austria... is he considered a "Californian?" The article does not state he is.64.238.172.212 (talk) 03:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• Why don't you register as a user? This anon ip stuff gets old. If you don't like the sentence, why don't you propose an alternate? --evrik ^(talk) 13:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

NOT A SHARED IP

• Per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Blocking_IP_addresses#Shared_IPs an IP address assigned directly to a residential subscriber of a broadband service (e.g.: Verizon FIOS) is not considered to be a "shared" IP address. My internet connection functions no diffrent that any other broadband service. The provider, GRUnet has set asside a specific block of IP addresses ("GRUnet Apartment Ethernet") for this very purpose and thus there should be no confusion as to the nature of the use of this IP address. I don't know why anyone thought this was a shared IP to begin with.

• SEE: http://ws.arin.net/whois/?queryinput=!%20NET-64-238-168-0-1
• Notice:GRUNet Apartment Ethernet

• See: http://www.gru.com
• Notice: "GRU: More than just energy"

• See: http://www.gru.net/services.jsp
• Notice: GRU provides INTERNET SERVICE. GRU IS MY INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDER. I AM A PRIVATE USER IN A PRIVATE HOME WITH A CONNECTION THAT IS NOT SHARED. SAME AS IF I HAD BEEN USING VERIZON FIOS OR AT&T YAHOO! DSL

In reply to the statement which you have just removed....

Actually, we did used to have issues with AOL users, because they did have randomly assigned IP addresses. Fortunately, America Online was willing to cooperate with the Wikimedia Foundation and set up an X-Forwarded-For system which helps us prevent vandalism. See Template:AOL for more information.

I'm also editing from what could be considered a shared IP - whenever I go on the internet, I have to log into my University's server to gain access. It seems like your system is set up the same way. Editing from a shared IP isn't saying anything deragatory about you, it's just letting us know that if we ever need to do anything in regards to you IP, to treat it as though other people could also be using it.

If you would like, you are always welcome to create an account. This will hide your IP address from other editors and allow you more privacy. It looks like you're making useful contributions, and I'd hate to have you turned off by the shared IP banner. Would that work for you? Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

And by the way, the blocking page you cited does not say that. Please do not remove the banner while we are having this dispute. I'm trying to be as civil as possible, but it is difficult when you repeatedly ignore everything I say. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• AOL uses a proxy server for their HTTP traffic. At least they used to. That means that the HTTP traffic from thousands of subscribers might be funneled through a single IP address. This is not the case in this matter. 64.238.172.212 is the IP address assigned to my router and has been for about a month when I installed this new router.
• Universities also tend to use proxy servers or NAT (network address translation). NAT allows you to connect more than one computer at a time to the internet with only one public IP address. The computers behind the NAT router are assigned private IP addresses.
• I never said that it was derogatory. I am a network admin. I know how things work. Just as I don't want incorrect information on an article I don't want incorrect information on my talk page. I'm just that kind of person. Today I was working on disputing a parking ticket from 6 months ago? I could care less about the $25 its just ht principle of the matter. I did not violate anything and I want my name to be cleared of that. I am persistent, too... if you haven't noticed.
• I've said it in the past ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Callelinea#209.136.11.40 ) that I don't want to create an account... another password to remember? I love using the site www.bugmenot.com. Again, matter of principal. I have no use for an account and would prefer not to create one. That's what I like about wikipedia 1) you can edit and correct things without an account 2) as you can see (referring to the both of us) we are passionate about it too.
• Regarding http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Blocking_IP_addresses#Shared_IPs do you have a better source of documentation regarding "Shared IPs?" That is all I could find and that is why I used it. Notice the use of the phrase "belongs to a school or proxy server" what is implied there is that the IP address is simultaneously shared by multiple users, e.g. at a company or school that is employing NAT to share an internet connection or a government agency that passes all its traffic through a proxy server. I don't believe this is supposed to be targeted towards the typical home user.

Hello again, sorry for the delay in responding.

While I am sure you know what you're talking about (I do admit that you know more than I do), we have no way of knowing for certain that your IP address can't end up reassigned to someone else in the block. I have this little saying that goes "computers, when left to their own devices, will always contrive to do the most frustrating thing possible." While I would love to be able to rely on the fact that your router will never get another IP address, bugs do happen and tend to be wildly inconvenient. I do see your logic with the policy page (and no, I don't know of anything more specific), but again, I'm just going off of what I see on the whois, which seems to imply that one IP address does not necessarily mean the same person over a given period of time.

I do thank you for being willing to discuss this civilly - it's much better than simply reverting your page over and over again until it has to get protected. While I don't think we've come to any sort of agreement, hopefully I've made my case fairly clearly - you certainly have with yours. If you choose to remove the header at this point, I won't put it back up (although I can't say the same for other editors). I do ask, though, that you not remove this discussion from your talk page, so that if (in the unlikely event) any action does need to be taken, an administrator will be able to make their own judgment on the matter. Again, thank you very much for your time, and happy editing as always. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I think what needs to happen is that Wikipedia's policy on what exactly a "Shared IP" is needs to be clarified. I didn't try to dig too deep but the page on blocking IP is the closest I can find. I really don't know my way around Wikipedia all too well so when something like this comes up I tend to search on Google and it generally shows the results I need. I tend to think that generally quite a signification portion IP addresses that aren't shared amongst multiple users are of the same nature as my IP address -- they can change or be assigned to another user. Is there any way to petition the "higher powers" to clarify the policy?

After writing all that I found this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:SharedIP Very ambiguous. Refers beck to the source I had been using. Most of the discussion on that page is regarding schools and vandalism.64.238.172.212 (talk) 22:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there is a way. One of the good things about Wikipedia is that (except in some rare circumstances) there is no higher power (often jokingly paraphrased as "there is no cabal") - most policies and guidelines are drawn up based on consensus of the community. If you post on that policy's talk page (at Wikipedia talk:Blocking IP addresses) I'm sure you'll be able to start a discussion amongst some of the established editors who check that sort of thing and possibly work towards some positive change. I should warn you, though, that you may not be taken completely seriously at first since you don't have an account, and it may also be a very long time until you actually get a response. If there is no response for a week or so, you may want to put up a {{RFCpolicy}} template just above your post there to drag in some more attention. As for the first concern, as long as you handle things in a civil manner and follow the talk page guidelines, I'm sure that won't be a problem. Let me know if you have any problems; I'll be happy to help. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Havarti

Was that it? Two or three revisions of the word "cheese," used correctly? Basketball110 02:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Mistake, sorry. Thanks for the un-do. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 02:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

RE: WHY

I have reveiwed your edits and they appear to be legitimate and for that I appologise. At first glance, your edits appeared to have been an attempt to hide the fact that you were warned. You may wish to consider archiving your talkpage if you ever have an account instead of just removing it. However, please be more calm on your comments and try to assume good faith.--Sunny910910 ^{(talk|Contributions|Guest)} 02:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:V

I believe you are misinterpreting the verification policy. Verification means that a source needs to be cited that backs up the statement. This source might be on the web that we can link to or it might not. A scholarly journal, magazine article, newspaper articles, books, etc. can be cited to veryify something whether it is posted somewhere on the web or not. If wikipedia only used linkable citations it would be a very incomplete encyclopedia. If you still question what I'm saying you can inquire about it on the WP:V talk page. Thanks. MrMurph101 (talk) 21:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

re: I think your mixing up the link with the source. The source is the newspaper article. There is a link because that is the standard way to source in most cases which is probably improperly done in this case. The verification of this source would be citing the date and title and author of the article with no link. You could go find this article in the newspaper's archives to get your verification. This would take longer than having a direct link but you could still obtain said article. By the way, I'm not really editing this article but once mentioned it on the talk page because the writer mentioned this wikipedia article and some of the things he thought were incomplete about the article. Someone else inserted the source into the article who was working on it. MrMurph101 (talk) 03:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, it's always good to double check sources and no one can be faulted for that which is a good thing. You may also want to check out WP:DEADLINK to clarify some things. I think you should really start your own account and be able to do more with it but if you don't that's cool too. Good luck. MrMurph101 (talk) 03:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

April 2008

Hi, the recent edit you made to Overdraft has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Overdraft. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. This being said, you for using the edit summary function this time AirOdyssey (Talk) 02:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

What part do you consider NPOV 64.238.172.212 (talk)

Thanks for responding. In this edit, the expression "unjust enrichment" appears to represent the author's opinion only and does not appear to be supported by other facts. Feel free to further discuss the article's neutrality on the talk page. AirOdyssey (Talk) 02:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

If the bank makes an error "in your favour" you have been unjustly enriched. Per the article Unjust enrichment is a legal term in English law and in several other jurisdictions, denoting a particular type of causative event in which one party is unjustly enriched at the expense of another, and an obligation to make restitution arises, regardless of liability for wrongdoing. I think that is pretty relevant and not at all bias. If the bank adds $1000 to your account that should not have been then you have been unjustly enriched and are responsible to pay it back! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.238.172.212 (talk)

Thanks for the tip. This being said, please do not direct attack to other editors as you did on your edit summary for Overdraft. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. AirOdyssey (Talk) 03:13, 19 April 2008 (UTC)