User talk:212.200.243.116

Welcome

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might like to see:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

You are welcome to continue editing articles without logging in, but you may wish to create an account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits. If you edit without a username, your IP address (212.200.243.116) is used to identify you instead.

In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on this page. Again, welcome! --Elonka 03:54, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

You probably figured out I'm not new to Wikipedia, so I don't see the point of this template. 212.200.243.116 (talk) 14:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, in regards to your asking of me to Please consider using a logged-in account?, please consider that I probably considered that option already in the past, and that there probably are reasons for me not to use a logged-in account, and that your and others continuous reminders are in fact not received as friendly notices, but irritating ones. Also if it really bothers you so much that others don't login, consider leaving this project and finding the one where login-in is required. 212.200.243.116 (talk) 14:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

You are correct that editors do not need to login to use Wikipedia, in most cases. However, when an anonymous account shows up at a powderkeg article and starts making inflammatory comments such as "rural minds are inferior"[1] or other confrontational statements, that anon is going to be asked to leave. So, if you would like to continue in the discussion with occasional civil and collegial comments, that's fine. One more inflammatory comment though, and your account access may be blocked. See also Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Discretionary sanctions. So please, simply stay civil and keep your comments focused on the article, with an eye towards finding a compromise, and there should be no further problems. --Elonka 19:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

It was an obvious sarcasm aimed at other editor's comment which was derogatory of rural doctors. Or maybe you think that comment was somehow O.K.? I find sarcasm and humor to be better "weapons" in exposing certain absurdities, then falsely "polite" arguments presented by few other editors. If you think that sarcasm was inflammatory, than I guess you come from different cultural background than me. You can ask any 'anon' to leave, and I personally don't give a damn about that -- Wikipedia is not yours, as as far as I'm concerned, you can leave. 212.200.243.116 (talk) 19:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

You write that there "probably are reasons for me not to use a logged-in account." Well, whatever your reasoning, it has the effect of violating a fundamental principle at Wikipedia, and that is transparency. It is forbidden for editors to seek to evade the scrutiny of other editors:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOCK#Avoiding_scrutiny
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/SPI/Guidance#Examples_of_forbidden_uses_of_multiple_accounts_or_meat-puppetry

You may have your own reasons for "why" you are not logging in, but the effect of your actions still makes it hard for other editors to understand ("scrutinize") your actions, and thus you are violating their trust. Be open. What's there to be afraid of? Just use your proper username, or get one if you want to be taken seriously. If your contributions are dubious, then they can get ignored or deleted on sight. -- Fyslee (talk) 20:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

1) You should first read and understand the sources that you provided, and explain how they have any relevance to me.

2) If you think I am a WP:SOCK, than take it to relevant noticeboard, and stop bothering me here.

3) Maybe this project isn't for you either.

212.200.243.116 (talk) 20:07, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Your confrontational, impolite, and uncooperative style aren't helping you, but hey, you have the shovel in your own hands. If you really want to bury yourself, keep digging. You're doing a pretty good job. -- Fyslee (talk) 21:10, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Thus spoke wise Fyslee. 212.200.243.116 (talk) 21:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

whois 212.200.243.116 "Serbia And Montenegro Telekom Srbija Adsl Users " is not a fixed IP address.

From your comment on Wikipedia_talk:Editing_policy "NJGW, you seem to have a difficulty understanding what a sockpupet account is. Why am I not surprised." it seems that you are an experienced editor with a caustic turn of phrase, have you ever edited under a user name? If so what names have you used? --PBS (talk) 18:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, you will need to cite me a policy by which I am required to answer you to that question. (btw, you need to translate to me caustic turn of phrase into simple english.) 212.200.243.116 (talk) 18:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

January 2009

Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. [2], [3], [4] NJGW (talk) 20:46, 28 January 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.

You want to say that you are not stalking my edits? That you were not harassing me with requirement to create an account? That your logic was valid in the example given? Maybe I can show you some forums for kids so that you can see how they argue about things? 212.200.243.116 (talk) 20:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, yes, yes. On those forums, do they call eachother children? NJGW (talk) 20:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's start with your logic. Prove now any of the claims that you made to which I replied here [5] I pasted them below. 212.200.243.116 (talk) 20:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Interesting... 212, aren't you the one who persisted in hounding SA after "vanishing", kept trying to get Jehochman sanctioned for doing his job (and even followed him around enough to pop up again later), and tried to get a retired user "preventatively" indef blocked. As for DHCP, I don't think it's too much to ask (though clearly you do) that regular editors stick to one account to avoid confusion and misunderstandings. NJGW (talk) 06:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Still not talking about the content? It's a pretty simple policy. What were the childish forums you were talking about? Maybe you would have more fun there. NJGW (talk) 20:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

But I am responding to your second accusation reference above. I want to show you how your logic was indeed on the level of a child. 212.200.243.116 (talk) 21:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

When you tell me my edits are biased, that is somehow not a personal attack, and when I tell you your logic is deficient, that somehow is. 212.200.243.116 (talk) 21:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh good, you're learning. NJGW (talk) 21:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Point by point:

• Interesting... 212, aren't you the one who persisted in hounding SA after "vanishing", kept trying to get Jehochman sanctioned for doing his job

first, I never vanished, so you are making conclusions from invalid premises. second I did this after SA did this ("hounding" by me?) and Jehochman therefore didn't do his 'job'

• (and even followed him around enough to pop up again later),

It was advertized all over WP so no need to 'follow' anyone

• and tried to get a retired user "preventatively" indef blocked.

That "retired" editor WP:OUTINGed at least two other editors. How could he do that if he was "retired"

• As for DHCP, I don't think it's too much to ask (though clearly you do) that regular editors stick to one account to avoid confusion and misunderstandings.

How can one stick to one IP on DHCP? What other account did I ever use? You are talking nonsense.

212.200.243.116 (talk) 21:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)