User talk:70.71.22.45

To edit, please log in.

Last edited:
Last edited by:

06:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Shell Kinney (talk · contribs)

---

Editing by unregistered users from your shared IP address or address range may be currently disabled due to abuse. However, you are still able to edit if you sign in with an account. If you are currently blocked from creating an account, and cannot create one elsewhere in the foreseeable future, you may follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Request an account to request that volunteers create your username for you. Please use an email address issued to you by your ISP, school or organization so that we may verify that you are a legitimate user on this network. Please reference this block in the comment section of the form.

Please check on this list that the username you choose has not already been taken. We apologize for any inconvenience.

Comments: Those with accounts can edit from this IP. Expires 27 June 2009.

Blah blah blah, Oregon COTW

Hello to members of the WikiProject o' Oregon. Once again it is time for the Collaboration Of The Week. A thank you to everyone who participated in the Semi-annual Great Oregon Picture Drive, we added a lot of pictures. For this edition we have by request Mr. Maurice Lucas of the Blazers, and a maintenance type project with the Dab Patrol. For the later, pick any Oregon disambiguation page (mainly common city names) and use the "What links here" feature to find any stray incoming links and direct them to the correct article. Again, click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. Peace out! Aboutmovies (talk) 07:32, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Help listing a page for AFD please

{{helpme}} I tried to list a page for AFD because it has been suggested that the page is a POVFORK... after reading WP:POVFORK i am not sure that it is though, but thought that the community should discuss whether or not it is a POVFORK and whether the article should be deleted... but then it doesn't allow me to created the discussion page for the AFD... and now it says i have to be logged in to nominate an article for deletion... 70.71.22.45 (talk) 02:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I guess I should mention that the page is Chiropractic controversy and criticism... 70.71.22.45 (talk) 02:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I would be willing to create the discussion page for you, if you provide the text you want. It will look like this upon creation:

Chiropractic controversy and criticism

Chiropractic controversy and criticism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

It has been suggested that this article fails WP:POVFORK, and WP:Criticism says "Creating separate articles with the sole purpose of grouping the criticisms or to elaborate individual points of criticism on a certain topic would usually be considered a POV fork", as well as "Don't make articles entirely devoted to criticism of a topic that has or should have its own Wikipedia article.". In addition, the creator was told by an admin NOT to create an article entitled 'Critical views of chiropractic' as it would be a "classic pov-fork".[1] - procedural nomination for Ip 70.71.22.45--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:04, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

However, creating an account takes about 30 seconds, is completely anonymous, and you will immediately be able to then create the discussion yourself. Having an account has many benefits over editing from your ip address.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:04, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I put my text above. thanks... i dont want to use an account but thank u for the offer 70.71.22.45 (talk) 03:29, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Kite Man Says beware of powerlines

Hello to those who participate in WikiProject Oregon. Once again it is time for the Collaboration Of The Week. A thank you to everyone who participated in the Dab Patrol and improvements to Maurice Lucas. For this week we have Oregon company FLIR Systems, and a maintenance type project with the FA Update Drive. For the later, pick any Oregon FA class article and read through it to make sure it is still up-to-date. Again, click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. I like frogs. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:45, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Moved RFC

Discussion moved to Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_page_indexing. Gigs (talk) 18:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: How can I get my computer to display your name properly?

It's in Unicode. Make sure your browser supports it to read it properly. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 02:44, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Boz rates the day a Perfect Ten

Greetings and salutations to members of WikiProject Oregon. We hear bye announce another Collaboration Of The Week. Thanks to anyone who participated in updating any FA articles and for the improvements on FLIR Systems. This week we have two requests: former Blazer Sidney Wicks, and a key historical event with Oregon land fraud scandal. Again, click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. Aboutmovies (talk) 09:37, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User page indexing

Please note Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User page indexing has been repurposed from the standard RFC format it was using into a strraw poll format. Please re-visit the RFC to ensure that your previous endorsement(s) are represented in the various proposals and endorse accordingly.

Notice delivery by xenobot 13:55, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

July 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Chiropractic, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you believe there has been a mistake and would like to report a false positive, please report it here and then remove this warning from your talk page. If your edit was not vandalism, please feel free to make your edit again after reporting it. The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Chiropractic was changed by 70.71.22.45 (u) (t) deleting 10808 characters on 2009-07-11T04:01:26+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 04:01, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

The recent edit you made to Chiropractic constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to remove content from articles without explanation. Thank you. ZooFari 04:30, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Struck simply because there was a discussion going on. ZooFari 04:47, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, 70.71.22.45. You have new messages at ZooFari's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ZooFari 04:42, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Chiropractic. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Shell ^babelfish 07:22, 14 July 2009 (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.

Signing

You have made some excellent points here. Please consider signing your comments. -- ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ ^ssnɔsıp 03:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Editing at Chiropractic

Its been suggested by more than one person that you have mentioned that you have an account. Could you please verifty for me whether or not that is the case? Shell ^babelfish 07:17, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

yes i made an account... i used it for one day and decided i dont want to use an account... i dont even remember the name as that was a few months ago... 70.71.22.45 (talk) 07:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Here's the thing, working in Chiropractic is likely to come with some controversy as you've probably noticed. I'm sure you've seen the concerns raised that you may be participating more than once in these discussions; since as an anonymous IP, you appear and support a certain viewpoint including performing the same reverts as other editors or always agreeing with them, you behavior attracts attention. Since there are several accounts who have been banned from Wikipedia or topic banned from Chiropractic, whether or not you are trying to circumvent one of those instances becomes a concern as well. I'm going to look into things a bit more, but I wanted to let you know that you may be asked not to edit anything related to Chiropractic unless you're using a named account. Shell ^babelfish 08:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

that doesnt seem fit with WP:LOGIN though... is this just an attempt to get rid of me?? 70.71.22.45 (talk) 18:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

70.71.22.45, you know I'm not here to get rid of you, and have defended you as I felt some accusations were unjustified. However, in this instance, I'm with Shell. Even though you have a static IP, to any of the regular editors, you are going to look like another fly-by IP editor. People just don't remember 8 numbers and dots, all IPs get lumped together as "anonymous IPs", and that is because many (probably most) IPs are anonymous, and not static, but picked up from Hosting company IP pools everytime someone in an area connects to the internet. So, one user might connect with several IPs, and one IP can be many users. So, as long as you participate with an IP - this is how you will be viewed. Unless people remember the numbers.. which most people won't. I still have to check everytime to make sure it is you. Yes, WP:Login says anyone can edit, but if you are going to be a regular editor.. and you want people to remember who you are and your opinions on an article, then please register and get a "human" handle. And don't make the mistake I did - creating a handle no one can pronounce - but make a name that you like and people can remember you by.

Why don't you want to use an account? I'll help you if you have any problems registering or setting up your user space. What is the problem? --stmrlbs|talk 19:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

i dont want an account because i feel that it violates the idea of wikipedia... that is that anyone can add to the project (whether they have an account or not)... oh... and i pronounced your name steamerpounds... or is that saintmisterpounds? 70.71.22.45 (talk) 20:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

No, its not an attempt to "get rid" of anyone, simply an acknowledgement that Chiropractic is a contentious area already under ArbCom restrictions - with that comes an additional set of rules to wade through. This would not affect any editing you may wish to do elsewhere, but these issues are a problem in this particular topic area. You'd find the same problem if you showed up to edit on other similarly troublesome areas such as articles related to the Palestine/Israel dispute. Shell ^babelfish 19:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

What additional rules are you referring to? (I probably should read them!) --stmrlbs|talk 20:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

where can i see this additional set of rules? are they more powerful than the basic premise of wikipedia? 70.71.22.45 (talk) 20:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

The most relevant bit would be at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Discretionary_sanctions. Another bit relevant to this particular situation is Wikipedia:SOCK#Avoiding_scrutiny. Shell ^babelfish 20:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

i dont see how either of those are relevent... the first doesnt mention anything about having to have an account and for the second... im not a sockpuppet! 70.71.22.45 (talk) 20:56, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you've said repeatedly that you're not a sockpuppet, but if you'll read some more of that page, it might explain why many people think you may be that or a banned editor returning to the dispute. The part that's important is about the attempt to avoid scrutiny and that's my main concern here. And as for the first, no, you probably won't find any "rule" on Wikipedia that says you must have an account, but as that link says, there are additional expectations if you edit in one of these controversial areas; if you don't feel comfortable with them, there's about 3 million or so other articles on Wikipedia that could use your help too. Shell ^babelfish 20:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

if people think that i am a sockpuppet they can take me to WP:SSP... i dont see how i am avoiding scrutiny or how it can even appear that way... as for the additional expectations... i didnt see any expectation that to edit in controversial areas you should have an account... 70.71.22.45 (talk) 21:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure you've seen the concerns raised that you may be participating more than once in these discussions; since as an anonymous IP, you appear and support a certain viewpoint including performing the same reverts as other editors or always agreeing with them, you behavior attracts attention. Since there are several accounts who have been banned from Wikipedia or topic banned from Chiropractic, whether or not you are trying to circumvent one of those instances becomes a concern as well. I'm going to look into things a bit more, but I wanted to let you know that you may be asked not to edit anything related to Chiropractic unless you're using a named account.

i dont see how having a named account would help any of that... people may still say that i appareat and support a certain viewpoint including performing the same reverts as other editors... people could still say that i was an account who had been banned (i was twice already) or topic banned and is circumventing it by using a different account... couldnt they? i may not know everything about wikipedia but i know that this is wrong! 70.71.22.45 (talk) 21:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

70. (I'm going to call you this for short, because I get tired of trying to remember all those numbers) - you seem to be trying to prove some point that people should look at you individually as an regular committed editor because you have a static IP, and that you shouldn't have to register to do that. The problem is.. no one remembers you as an individual editor if you continue editing with an IP. You can't expect people to remember your IP, and you shouldn't take it personally if they don't. You can't blame them.. people just don't remember a bunch of numbers and dots. To most people, IPs look like xx.xx.xx.xx - you can't expect them to treat you as something "special", because most of them don't have time to memorize your IP. --stmrlbs|talk 22:12, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

im not saying that wikipedia should look at me any differntly than any other IP editor... does it matter if an editor is committed or only visits once a month? does it matter what an editor says and does or does it matter if other editors recognize their name? i dont take it personally if people dont remember me or my exact IP address... there are lots of IP addresses that edit wikipedia and all of their contributions should be respected (unless they show a reason not to such as vandalism... but then hey my edits have been described as vandalism too... see above) 70.71.22.45 (talk) 22:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

no, it shouldn't how active either an IP or a registered use is, as to assuming good faith. I wish for world peace, too. I agree goals are something people should always have in mind, and should strive for - but the problem is, real sockpuppets do use IPs because people don't remember IPs, and they want to remain anonymous. Another point that Shell made is that when a user is banned, they can still edit as an IP. So, the probability that a sockpuppet will use an IP is greater than the probability that a sockpuppet will register.

When someone like QuackGuru, BullRangifer, etc. accuse editors that doesn't agree with their POV, people outside the group are going to look first at the IPs. It is just the nature of the beast of sockpuppets. It is harder to accuse someone that is recognizable as an individual - and that is a person with an easily recognizable handle. If you are in a room full of people, and there are people walking around in their own clothes with faces you recognize, and a group with black robes and masks hiding their faces, and tin speakers, but with a number printed on their forehead.. you might try to treat them all with respect, but would you remember what any individual black-robed member said? or would they all blend together? Who would you gravitate to? --stmrlbs|talk 23:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

i didnt know that when someone was banned that their ip wasnt banned as well... this doesnt make much sense to me... why dont they do an ip ban as well when they ban a user? but if that banned user created a new account couldnt they use that? so again is there a difference between using an ip and having an account? as for people looking first at ips i think that isnt really assuming good faith... either way... i didnt really know that there a bunch of people that were banned from editing at Chiropractic until now... anyway unless he can show me somewhere where it says i must have an account im not using one... and if he does show that... then i think it proves that the fundamental idea of wikipedia - that anyone can add content - is broken! 70.71.22.45 (talk) 23:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Not everyone has a static IP. A lot of hosts will have a POOL of IPs, then when a person connects to the internet, they are given an IP from a pool (the user doesn't see this, it is done automatically). I have one userid, but when I have checked my IP, it changes. Several users in an area can edit with one IP if they all have the same host and get their IPs from the same pool. Even if a user is banned with a static IP, they just go to the library and edit on wikipedia. For that matter, even though you have a static IP now, you might change hosts, or move or whatever.. and your IP will change with your new location/host. Then another person out of the blue could use your old IP and really be a vandal. And to anyone looking.. it will look like you are the vandal. As for people forcing you to have an account, I was trying to help you avoid problems that can be easily avoided, but I'm beginning to think I'm whistling in the wind. Just some friendly advice, choose your battles. Save your energy for something that will make a difference. With that, I think I will follow my own advice. I'm outta here. --stmrlbs|talk 23:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

thank you for your explanation and for your advice... but as before i would prefer to remain an ip user. 70.71.22.45 (talk) 23:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Hot outside, so stay inside working on the Oregon COTW!

Hello to WikiProject Oregon folks, and get ready for another Collaboration Of The Week. Thank you to those who worked on the land fraud scandal and Mr. Wicks. This week we have one by request, Central Oregon, and a gnomish task, the Great Infobox Drive of '09. For the infobox drive, just find some articles without infoboxes and add one. People and companies are two prime areas as many do not have infoboxes, yet infoboxes exist for those areas. Again, click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Restrictions for Chiropratic under Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience

A checkuser recently discovered that you have used your account User:WinrarWinner and this IP address to avoid scrutiny and continue edit warring without triggering a 3RR block. Since as described above, editing in controversial areas requires more care, if you wish to continue editing any Chiropratic-related articles you will be required to create a single account and use it for any edits to these articles. Any further disruption by editing logged out in these areas will result in either a topic ban or a block from editing. Shell ^babelfish 06:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC)