Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests

Archives

Nouns vs. verbs as article titles (good indexing from general to granular)

Stress test (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Question related to article titles and what is preferable. Specifically on the article Stress test

Right now Stress test (newer article) co exists with Stress testing (older article) and one or the other clearly should be deleted. 100% of the content of the old article exists verbatim in the newer article and the newer more granular articles. Zero content is lost if the older article Stress testing were to be deleted. The newer article also has additional content.

"Stress test" has radically different content at finer levels of granularity (e.g. software, hardware, mechanical, financial, etc). A general "Stress test" article must therefore be about the commonality across all the various sub-types.

Alternatively, all granular content might be moved to granular pages and the page "Stress Test/Stress Testing" (which ever survives) could carry ONLY the content now in Stress test (disambiguation).

See:

• Stress test vs. Stress testing
• Stress test (software) vs. Stress testing

see also:

• Stress test (disambiguation)
• Stress test (financial)
• Stress test (hardware)
• Stress Test (television)

To me it seems like the choice is obvious, however I'm open to different interpretations if it's not just and open and shut case. Would love to see this "indexing" area cleaned up. Rick (talk) 01:09, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

It looks to me, on a quick review, as if someone has deliberately created a fork of the article for no very good reason. As there is new material in the new article they should probably be history merged but this is only possible if there is no significant overlap in editing. I don't have time to do it this morning, but will take a look later today to see if it is possible. In the meantime it would be helpful if everyone refrains from editing it as that is only going to make it more difficult to do. SpinningSpark 07:30, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Spinningspark, appreciate your help. I moved Stress testing to Stress Test then proceeded to add content, and move some of the more granular content down to individual, more specific articles: Stress test (hardware), Stress test (software), Stress test (financial), and Stress test (disambiguation). Prior to the title move and the creation of the more specific articles I reviewed the entire proposed naming scheme with a highly experienced Sysop who gave his thumbs up. At that point "Stress testing" became a redirect page to "Stress test".

Someone then reverted Stress testing from the redirect back to its original form as an article.

With the move Stress Testing to Stress test and creation of the granular articles 100% of the prior Stress testing content was preserved verbatim, however some of the more granular content was moved out to the individual, more granular pages. Each topic area (hardware/materials), (software), and (financial) is huge in itself, and there is nill crossover between them once a specific interest is identified. Coverage in the hardware and software areas seems spotty, a bit dated, and needy for better Wikipedia organization. However they are useful as starter class, with some very valuable content. Also, the financial stress test as a "science" area is receiving worldwide attention, massive R&D spend, and is likely to grow substantially over time. Sorry for my role in this, I was executing an organizational plan that seemed to make a lot of sense and had a thumbs up. As I understand it, using straightforward simple nouns as article titles has many benefits, not the least of which is cleaner foreign language mapping (wikidata Interlanguage links). Very much appreciate the "top down" expert review to set things straight here. Rick (talk) 15:54, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Rick, I have replied on your talk page. SpinningSpark 17:17, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Spinningspark, thanks for your note. I apolgise for the copy-paste error. I understood why you purged all content from Stress test and made it a simple redirect. Not quite sure why your move was then immediately reverted as it, at a minumum, solves the blatent dual article problem, as only the prior Stress testing article then left standing.

With "Stress test" blanked there is nothing to merge, so that discussion could conclude.

Goal #1 has to be to finalize the name. Then, if need be, the related article names (hardware, software, financial and disambiguation) could also be changed to all align with that final naming decision. I've expressed my opinion on naming (which I had run by an experienced Sysop prior) so leave it up to the sysops/others to make that call.Rick (talk) 19:45, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

A user named Ratemonth is continuously vandalizing the article "Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution."

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

We had written an additional entry based on the Classical Liberal view on the Ninth Amendment of the Constitution.

First he deleted our article for no real reason, then he deleted it again accusing a collection of works by Law professors a "bunch of Jibberish."

Then he went through the sources and said that the "content was not present" in our sources, but that's because he's obviously NOT a Libertarian (Classical Liberal) and has absolutely no idea of how to read those sources, or disagrees with them fundamentally (one of his edit reasons was "biased source). Ultimately, he is practicing censorship and disguising it.

Of course the source is biased towards Libertarianism, because WE ARE EXPLAINING THE LIBERTARIAN INTERPRETATION (BIAS).

NinthAmendment (talk) 05:39, 22 March 2013 (UTC)NinthAmendment

NinthAmendment's writing is not encyclopedic. Most of it is not based on any sources. Some is based on unreliable sources. I was able to salvage one sentence, and have put it in an appropriate section of the article. Ratemonth (talk) 05:42, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

You are either very ignorant of Libertarianism (unqualified to edit) or greatly opposed to Libertarianism (censoring information). Amazing that you took an 84 page PDF source and made the instantaneous judgement that the source was "biased", that speaks wonders. The Ninth Amendment itself is Libertarian declaration, of course any colonial era sources will have a bias, they just recently freed themselves from England.

NinthAmendment (talk) 05:49, 22 March 2013 (UTC)NinthAmendment

First of all, we do not settle content disputes on this page, although we can advise where to find help on this. However, the first step in any dispute is for the editors involved to discuss the matter on the article talk page and try to resolve the issues amongst themselves. I don't see your name on the talk page, or anything that looks like this issue. Secondly, repeatedly inserting the same material after it has been challenged is considered disruptive. When this happens the article should be left alone and discussion opened, see WP:BRD. There is a policy against edit warring which can lead to editors being blocked regardless of who is right or wrong in the dispute. Finally, please do not accuse good faith editors of vandalism, especially in headings - which should always be neutral. It is not going to help achieve consensus and we reserve this term only for things like schoolkids inserting offensive words or gibberish into articles. SpinningSpark 07:49, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I think I've found a company editing their own page.

Hi there, I don't have much experience with editing Wikipedia, but I think I've come across a page that has been edited for PR purposes. The page is full of unneeded detail and promotional language that glorifies the company while minimizing any mention of criticism. Looking at the edit history, most of the PR edits have been made by accounts whose only purpose is to modify the page - one of them even had the name of the company in it and referred to itself as "we."

I added {{Advert|date=March 2013}} and {{Cleanup-spam|date=March 2013}} to the page, but I'm not sure where to go from here, and how to report the suspected sockpuppets. Any tips?

Thanks! JakeMates (talk) 01:22, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

You might post a notice at the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:52, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

"Flagship universities"

I could use a few more eyes and opinions in an increasingly circular discussion concerning the 1) propriety and 2) wisdom of including a putatively definitive list of "flagship universities" in the Flagship article. Whether I'm right or wrong I've already spent too much time on the discussion without making much of a difference, and some fresh thoughts & perspective would be welcome. The relevant discussion can be found at Talk:Flagship#Listing_.22flagship_universities.22_is_a_bad_idea. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 04:20, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Template listing reference sources in categories

Hello,

This is a dispute about Wikipedia:Categorization policy. I created two categories: Category:Process philosophy and Category:Process theory. Immediately Gregbard added {{Philosophy reference resources}}, a list of external reference sources to the categories. I reverted the template and Gregbard instantly reverted me.

I asked at the Village pump/policy - Policies about Categories. The four editors responding supported my position, saying categories were for navigation only and should not contain lists of reference sources.

I tried to discuss these templates with Gregbard on his talk page[1][2], my talk page User_talk:Star767#Removal_of_Reference_resources, but he told me to "desist". He asked Vegaswikian his opinion[3] who said: "categories should not include references. I also believe that as I stated, categories are for article navigation and should not be used to provide reference sources, like this template does, in a category. That is something that belongs on a project page."[4] Gregbard responded: "Much of my effort in organizing categories has been toward making them consistent with PhilPapers, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, and Indiana Ontology Project, as provided in those links listed in {{Philosophy reference resources}}."[5]

I feel this is very much against the policies/guidelines of Wikipedia and is POV because only Gregbard is deciding the sources used to organize these categories - over sixty that his reference sources link to. (Note: one link Process philosophy in the template is dead.) And there a many more such templates he is using on other categories.

Can you give me advice on what to do next? Star767 (talk) 18:29, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

The discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Policies about Categories still seems to be ongoing. There is no advantage in opening a new thread here. If the discussion does not seem to be getting anywhere, then open a WP:RfC on that page with a definite (and simple) proposal that people can respond to as either support or oppose. SpinningSpark 13:51, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Feature Phones

I am looking for assistance with the Feature phone article. The article is in generally bad shape but one editor is making it difficult to make any progress. User:Limefrost Spiral continually reverts the article to contain false information. He/she cites some sources, but said sources don't support his claims. He/she erroneously claims that Nokia's Lumia Phones are feature phones, not smartphones, simply because of their price point. He/she also slips in praise for the iPhone, something that is completely irrelevant and obviously not neutral. Limefrost makes reverts without explanations, and does not engage in discussion on the talk page.

I would very much like some assistance to clean up this page because I feel that if I go it alone I will just as guilty of edit warring as the person I accuse.

Thanks in advance. Ropo153 (talk) 04:28, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

You need to make a good faith effort to engage this editor in dialogue before going anywhere else with this. I do not see much evidence of that happening on either the article's or user's talk page. From what I can see of this editor's behaviour it probably will not do much good, but you do need to try very hard first. If they do engage, then try to reach a compromise, and if that fails see WP:DR for your options. If they do not engage, then state on the article talk page what you intend to change and why, leave it for an appropriate time to see if it attracts any commnents (a week say) and if still nothing happens make the changes. If you still get reverted without comment after that, then report the editor to WP:ANI, or if you prefer, you can contact me directly (I am an admin). Please note that admins can only take action on the editor's behaviour - it is no use complaining to admins that the edits are wrong, admins are not authorized to adjudicate on content disputes. SpinningSpark 14:05, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice. It seems that we have finally started a dialogue on the article's talk page. I don't know if the article's subject is of interest to you, but I welcome you to join the discussion as a third opinion. Ropo153 (talk) 18:01, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Problem at Talk Sparta

Hi. I posted on the Talk:Sparta about a discrepancy. I've posted. No one responds. Then, they change the item and I ask for references to that. No one responds. I'm just curious about the product you produce here at Wikipedia. I'm I stupid? It says on its own article that Sparta had a "Mixed government" yet in the sidebar it used to say it is an "Oligarchy". When I complained, they put Sparta as a "Dual Monarchy". I then asked for references for doing that. No response. You can check my homepage and I'm a published author on Sparta especially on her form of government. Yet, I don't get any response. I would like to know who is in control of the article. That would be nice to know. I would like to know their credentials. Second, I just want an answer to why there is a discrepancy between what the article says "Mixed government" but then the sidebar says something completely different! Do you agree with me that you can't write it has "mixed government" in the article but then in the sidebar you classify it as Oligarchy or Dual Monarchy. I mean do you people stand for this crap? For three weeks now, no answer, no feedback, no references posted. I wish somebody with some freakin' credentials correct the article! Is that too hard? Can you have a little consistency. I mean people read that and you are all looking like the laughing stock. Logic requires consistency. WHEELER (talk) 01:20, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

To answer the who is in charge question first; no one is in charge, on Wikipedia anyone who wishes to edit has equal status regardless of academic qualifications, or anything else. Decisions are made by consensus and we expect editors to discuss disagreements in a collegial atmosphere. I presume you are referring to this edit. There is no evidence that the editor made that change in response to your talk page post - they may possibly not even have seen it. There is nothing stopping you going ahead and editing the page directly. You may instead, however, wish first to mark the disputed text as suspect and wait a bit to see if anyone responds to it. There are a number of tags available to mark disputed text. The most widely used one is {{cn}} which will mark the text as "citation needed". It should be placed immediately following the suspect passage. You should then explain your reasons on the article talk page. I advise starting a completely new thread to do this, your last post on the page was not helpful. First of all it is WP:TLDR and second of all a sarcastic rant is not moving towards consensus in a collegial atmosphere. Finally, I would advise you that citing your own stuff is considered poor etiquette here. It would be advisable to find an independent source for the changes you wish to make. If you cannot find another source, you might want to consider the possibility that your views are not the mainstream view of scholars in the field. Please don't take offence at that, I really have no idea whether or not that is the case (I am an electrical engineer). If you really have to use your own publications it might be better to post the change you want to make on the talk page and leave it to others to insert in the article. If you take the trouble to format it exactly as it is to appear in the article then you can use the template {{request edit}} to attract the attention of another editor. It is important to format the change so it can be done with a simple copy and paste operation: editors who service these requests do not necessarily have subject matter knowledge and will be unwilling to make complex changes. SpinningSpark 15:05, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. The page is locked. You have to post what you want to change on the talk page, and they change it. That is how that page has operated for years. Prof. Paul A. Rahe has written a three volume work describing Sparta as a republic. They declined to pay attention to it. Anyway thanks. WHEELER (talk) 23:53, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

There may be a misunderstanding here. Your account (WHEELER) is autoconfirmed, so you are able to edit the Sparta article. People with newly created accounts, and people who are not logged into an account, will not be able to edit the Sparta article, so would need to post edit requests on the talk page. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:28, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I will not edit it because like much of what I do around here gets deleted. All I want on the page is that what is talked in the article-----should match what is on the sidebar. Plain, simple, consistency. I know what I am talking about will never be accepted. On the page they talk that Sparta has Mixed Government. Then on the Sidebar, they had "Oligarcy". Then, they changed that to "Dual Monarchy".

Either change the damn article to read Sparta is an oligarchy and have Oligarchy in the sidebar OR Sparta is a Dual Monarchy in the article and have Dual Monarchy in the Sidebar. What is in the Article should match what is on the Sidebar. All I'm asking for is consistency. The people running that page can't figure that out! You have a glaring INCONSISTENCY. Fix it! I won't. WHEELER (talk) 06:41, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Listen. This sentence, from Wikipedia Sparta Constitution The Doric state of Sparta, copying the Doric Cretans, developed a mixed governmental state. comes from MY paper, MY work. That appears nowhere in Paul A Rahe, nor anywhere else, nor from Paul Cartledge nor anybody! I am the only person that uses this phrase "Doric state of Sparta". Moreover, I am the only person anywhere that connects the Spartan form of government with the Cretan. I DID NOT put that sentence in the article! That is MY work.

What is Mixed government then? Is it Oligarchy? or is it Dual Monarchy? Here is a freakin' college textbook: Richard Dagger, 2nd ed, HarperCollins College Publishers, l995. pg 267. 1.Mixed constitution (or government)—The republican policy of combining or balancing rule by one, by the few, and by the many in a single government, with the aim of preventing the concentration of power in any person or social group. Political Ideologies and the Democratic Ideal, pg 265. I don't know how many times I have referenced this---and have been ignored! I am still being ignored! I did not put my own work in that article that is UNATTRIBUTED. No reference. I post countless references, and nothing is done! And then the stupidity show up calling Mixed government an Oligarchy and now a Dual Monarchy. Is this scholarship? Is this Political Science which requires accuracy in detail. NO. YOU figure this out. I post a college text reference--It does no good. I post Paul A. Rahe--it does no good. You lift my work and tell me I can't use my own work as a reference! Mixed Government is Republican Government! Mixed = Republic. Rule of the few = Oligarchy. Rule of kings = Monarchy. Which is it? Look, I did not write or put anything in that article. But you have stuff reported there that is INCONSISTENT. Do Something! This is NOT my reputation at stake----It is YOUR REPUTATION and ACCURACY that matters. In this case, Get a freakin' professor. Obviously the knuckleheads editing over there can't get it done---going on years now. In this instance four weeks. What is it going to take. WHEELER (talk) 14:46, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

If I had realised that you were a POV pushing edit-warrior, I would not have wasted so much time trying to advise you. This is not the complaints department and is not the place to let off steam about how awful Wikipedia is. Nor are we a free resource to do your editing for you. SpinningSpark 17:57, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Problem with Flag for Cote d'Ivoire

Hi. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_Cote_d%27Ivoire.svg was moved to http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_C%C3%B4te_d%27Ivoire.svg (great). Except the mover did not edit Template:Country data Côte d'Ivoire to reflect the name change, so now every page that uses flagicon for CIV has a broken image in it. As country data templates are editable only by admins, can somebody please fix that template? Cheers Geregen2 (talk) 18:44, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done by User:Tide rolls.--ukexpat (talk) 15:10, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I believe that a user is a repeat offender of hoaxes

I have just noticed a user who's talk page is full of speedy deletion requests and they are all focused on one issue. This issue is Eritrea. It seems that all are hoaxes or otherwise misinformation. I do not know how to proceed to get this user (Tron9698) stop abusing Wikipedia. He does not seem to reply on his Talk Page. Any help is appreciated!

Merhawie (talk) 16:55, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Tron9698 has not edited since December so there is no immediate problem that needs dealing with. A page full of warnings like that is not good, but it does not necessarily mean that the user has not done anything constructive. If that were the case they could be blocked as a vandalism only account, but that is not obviously so from a quick look at their editing history. You need to wait till they start editing again before taking this further. Obvious and straightforward disruption can be reported at WP:AIV (please read the prerequisites on that page carefully before reporting). More complex cases can be raised at WP:ANI. The latter will expect you to provide WP:DIFFs to examples of the problem behaviour. SpinningSpark 18:15, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

removal of a reference while an article is at AfD

Summary: I believe that this issue needs to go to AN to request other admins to explain that referencectomies and informationectomies are not considered good practice during an AfD.

I originally created North Louisiana Historical Association as a redirect, and the redirect was soon made into an article that I helped develop.  I added a reference/citation/bibliography here that was mostly behind a paywall.  The portion that was available for free showed a limited amount of content, but when I looked yesterday is entirely behind the paywall, which makes the quote preserved from April 2011 more important.  Note that there is one explicit newspaper article included in the selected quote.

The article has recently been posted at AfD, and immediately this reference became a target for removal of the AfD nom, and soon thereafter a delete !vote.  The situation was under control until an admin became involved and claimed a consensus was "emerging" based on the desire of the nom and the delete !vote to remove the reference.

The issue here could get involved with diffs starting from last Saturday involving myself and the admin and myself and the delete !voter.  While ad hominems are not necessarily off-topic, and there is relevant ad hominem material to discuss, I think that the principle here needs no such elaboration.  If an AfD deletion argument is sound, it is not improved by removing references from an article that is worthless.  I think it should be obvious to the most basic principles of why we are here that admins should not be helping delete !votes to get an article deleted that would not have been deleted if the references were still in the article.

As for why I am asking for assistance, the admin is channeling words such as WP:COMPETENCE, AN, ANI, Boomerang, and "topic ban"; the admin has issued a warning on my talk page; and the delete !vote is joining in tag-team grumbling on two user talk pages.  Also, my experience has been that trips to AN or ANI are not effective, for reasons that I've not been a Wikipedian long enough to understand.  I can take this to AN by myself if I at least have someone to agree that such is reasonable. 

I have discussed the issue with the admin here and here.

Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 01:25, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

A link to search results is not a reference as you have been repeatedly told, and is a breach of WP:EL#EL6 and WP:EL#EL9. That the item has been removed four times by three different editors should be telling you something, and repeatedly reinserting it is WP:EDIT WARing so I would stay well away from ANI with that one. How can you possibly claim those results are WP:Verifying the article when they are behind a paywall and you haven't read them? They might do, but really, you have no more idea whether they do than me. SpinningSpark 07:11, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

• SpinningSpark, As per the article on argumentum ad populum, "the mere fact that a belief is widely-held is not necessarily a guarantee that the belief is correct."  As per WP:Citing sources, "A citation, or reference, is a line of text that uniquely identifies a source".  The "Bibliography" section in this example is a synonym for a WP:MOS "Further reading" section, and as per WP:Manual of Style/Layout#Further reading, "Publications listed in Further reading are cited in the same citation style used by the rest of the article."  Q.E.D., a "Further reading" entry may be known as a "reference".  The "Further reading" entry goes on to explain, and is the most specific reply to your question about WP:V, "This section is not intended as a repository for general references that were used to create the article content."  The notability guideline WP:NRVE states, "Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article."  And WP:EL states, "this guideline concerns external links that are not citations to sources supporting article content."  I hope this responds to your technical points.

Discussion about the specific example, and advice that EW can result in blocks, doesn't help me with the general topic "removal of a reference while an article is at AfD".  Another example is here.  The two key sentences of my OP were, "If an AfD deletion argument is sound, it is not improved by removing references from an article that is worthless.  I think it should be obvious to the most basic principles of why we are here that admins should not be helping delete !votes to get an article deleted that would not have been deleted if the references were still in the article."  You thought that ANI would not be productive, but what about WP:AN, since that is for issues specifically affecting administrators?  Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 05:44, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

• More or less as Spinningspark posted above. The warning was well deserved as you had already reached 3RR (and the other party was likewise warned). If you were to read any of the links I gave you, or even the edit warning which you admitted to not reading, or admit to being wrong when you write RfD instead of AfD, or listen to feedback when you perform an out-of-process non-administrator close and patently ignore people who tell you it was wrong, no one would question your competence to edit. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:18, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

• Crisco 1492, WP:EA states, "Editor Assistance is intended as an informal method of requesting one-to-one advice, feedback, and counseling from another editor who may be more experienced about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and how they may apply to the issue or situation that you are experiencing."  I request to refactor your post to your user page.  Thank you, Unscintillating (talk) 05:44, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

• You have had one-to-one advice but have chosen to ignore it and replied with wall-of-text wikilawyering. Links in an article to search results are not acceptable. The removal was justified. Your attempts to reinsert it are not. Arguments for keeping the article belong on the AfD debate page, not in the article. I am not going to waste my breath replying to all that point-by-point, just please accept that the opinion of the community is that you shouldn't do this. SpinningSpark 06:40, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

• I don't think you need to reply to that point by point: WP:CONSENSUS. Make a new one with extended discussion, if you disagree with the current one. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:58, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Personal Attack: What to do?

User:Beyond My Ken accused me of sockpuppetry on my talk page. It's pure invention, and consequently he has no evidence whatsoever.

What would be the best way to dissuade him from making further personal attacks against me and other IP editors?

(Note: I'm on a dynamic IP and I might have a different address tomorrow.) --91.10.58.188 (talk) 02:26, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Here's what he accused you of: "Editing with an IP when you have an account to avoid scrutiny of your edits". Your use of a dynamic IP and obvious experience in Wikipedia will bring such accusations, true or false. If it's true, use your username. If it's untrue, get a username. No, getting a username isn't obligatory, but it's a good way to avoid what you interpret as "personal attacks", and avoidance of them is what you say you want. -- Hoary (talk) 02:37, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

That awfully sounds like I would have to go out of my way to avoid being falsely accused.

Do you think his behaviour is acceptable? --91.10.58.188 (talk) 09:18, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

In view of the ease with which an existing user ID can be employed (unless of course it has been blocked), the ease with which a new user ID can be made and used, your obvious familiarity with certain by-ways of Wikipedia, and what appears to be a boneheaded insistence on the letter of MoS on your part, I'd say that the out-of-the-way-ness is trivial and Beyond My Ken's behavior is acceptable, yes. I wonder if you're here in order to construct an encyclopedia or merely in order to waste people's time and/or be the center of attention. -- Hoary (talk) 09:36, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Hoary. I don't mind IPs editing as a "try before you buy" way of dipping your toe into Wikipedia, but for experienced editors, it usually indicates they have a problem with authority or have something to hide. As you say, "I'm on a dynamic IP and I might have a different address tomorrow" - it might be an IP that's never edited here, it might be one that a banned or indeffed user has previously used. We just don't know. Ironically, I can do a whois lookup on 91.10.58.188 and see it's registered to a domestic Deutsche Telekom AG address, but get an account and I wouldn't be able to get that. Alternatively, you can create your own free encyclopedia and try and encourage everyone here to edit it, then you'll be able to do as you please. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:35, 3 April 2013 (UTC)