User talk:190.161.182.12

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome to Wikipedia![edit]

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:

You are welcome to continue editing without logging in, but you may want to consider creating an account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits such as the ability to create articles. For a full outline and explanation of the benefits that come with creating an account, please see this page. If you edit without a username, your IP address (190.161.182.12) 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! BracketBot (talk) 13:20, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

August 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Centrepoint (charity) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • and the teaching of life skills. Centrepoint also runs volunteering schemes, such as mentoring], which pairs a person with a young person for 12 months. It currently works with almost 100

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:20, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Tom Leherer[edit]

You adamantly ("don't revert for no reason") reverted an edit that I had reverted perviously there months ago. OK, I didn't revert. But why? The line stated he was known professionally as Tom Leherer-- the name of the article. Why wouldn't we make some reference to why he is named Tom? Yes it seems obvious, but in a lede like this, we explain everything. Yes my revert of an IP edit was reflex. As an IP editor, your edits immediately come under suspicion. But normally I'd revert this again as it makes no sense for this kind of statement not to be here. So please explain yourself. Trackinfo (talk) 17:30, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

He's not known "professionally" as Tom Lehrer. That would imply that apart from when he's working he's known as Thomas Andrew Lehrer. WP:BIRTHNAME says that the article title should be the name by which someone is commonly known, that their full name should be given on the first mention, and thereafter they should be referred to by their surname. Nothing else is required, which is why I removed the "known as Tom Lehrer" with the fairly clear edit summary "redundant".
If your "reflex" is to not look at the edit summary, not consider the merits of the edit but simply revert without leaving any explanation, don't be surprised if the person who made the edit and already took the time to explain it gets pissed off. I find it staggeringly rude when this happens, and it happens all the time. 190.161.182.12 (talk) 19:52, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
There is nothing in the MOS that specifically proscribes the note that you disagree with. "Not required" does not mean "not worthwhile", and while the guideline you reference says "It is not always necessary to spell out why the article title and lead paragraph give a different name", that logically implies that it may sometimes be necessary, and it certainly does not say that such content is unacceptable. That being said, if you'd prefer "Thomas Andrew "Tom" Lehrer", in line with the guideline's Bill Clinton example, that would be fine with me, but I don't quite understand why you find it so problematic to include his nickname, which he most certainly is professionally known by (and that does not imply that he is *exclusively* known that way). --Fru1tbat (talk) 13:09, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree, there is nothing that specifies. Therefore the unidentified IP editor is actively enforcing something the MOS does not cover. The edit in question does not remove his proper name, it explains his professional shortening of the name. Now knowing that I am not alone in this opinion, let me warn the IP editor that if you revert this a third time you will violate the WP:3RR. Further, I would suggest if you are going to be part of the MOS enforcement police and aggressively push your interpretation of the MOS, you ought to get a registered user name and be prepared to participate in the debate. When you make edits like this, which might be controversial or even questionable, don't be so easily offended or surprised. You didn't explain your edit. Even on trivial stuff like this, we talk things out and come to a consensus. At the moment, two to one, you are losing that argument. Come up with something stronger than "nothing else is required." Trackinfo (talk) 16:50, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
And so you resort to slurs and lies.
  • I am no more unidentified that you are
  • There was nothing controversial or questionable about my edit
  • I explained my edit quite clearly; you did not bother to explain yourself when reverting, and you already admitted that you reverted just because it was an IP edit. Your barefaced lie demonstrates again that you're acting in bad faith.
  • You're arguing a nonsense. "Tom Lehrer" is his name. It is not a nickname. There is no "professional shortening" as you bizarrely claim.
  • You need to understand WP:3RR better. You will be breaking it before I will.
  • Everyone can contribute to Wikipedia, regardless of whether they choose to register 190.161.182.12 (talk) 01:27, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
You have a pretty harsh interpretation of reality here. Specifically to my real name, true. However, by having a registered name, I have a long edit history and pattern of responsible edits. I'll guess I've reverted a thousand edits or more. I think each one is justifiable. A blank IP blends in with all the other blank IP addresses. Most vandalism comes from IPs or less often from new names with virtually no edit history. Very, very few editors with a history will make a vandalism edit. Your edit (removing someone's simplified stage name), in quick analysis, looked stupid, so I readily admit I reflex reverted stupidity. Which generally covers point 2 and 3. There is no lying involved here and I resent the insinuation. I'll note the first time you tried, that was two months ago, back in May. When you reverted my edit two months later, you included edit notes directed it at me, drawing my attention, bringing on my good faith efforts at conversation. I have not made a second revert, the edit history is there to prove it. I am in no danger of violating 3RR. Fru1tbat made the same revert I did. He expressed the exact reason for his revert above, I'll shorthand; it looked wrong. Both of us came here for an intelligent conversation. That is the action of responsible editors. You made your second revert. When you replied with your justification, the guideline you cited DOES NOT COVER what you did. And I am arguing nonsense? Now, I am not saying you cannot edit wikipedia as an IP. Frankly, I've learned more new information based on something initiated by IP edits. So I like them. I check new information when it makes sense. But (looking at your history) the edits you make aren't providing new information. They are nit picky, technical, guideline oriented in nature (though you obviously do not understand the guidelines that well). I made the suggestion in the context that if you were to edit as if you were part of the team, helping wikipedia, that you do it with a user name. Go ahead, keep editing with an IP. I'm not going to troll you. But if you make an edit to an article I watch that looks stupid, I'll revert it again with the same lack of consideration. I would have no way of guessing there is an intelligent brain behind the edit. And I would suspect most other editors would do the same. Trackinfo (talk) 08:19, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
You claimed that I did not explain my edit. I did when I made it, and I had re-explained it when you asked. So you were lying. If you resent being called a liar, don't lie. The MOS clearly lays out how biographical articles should treat the name of the subject, so I have no idea why you would claim that it doesn't. And you simply keep on repeating the falsehood that "Tom Lehrer" is a "simplified stage name", although I've explained several times that it's not. You reverted without explanation and added incorrect information to the article. Difficult to think there's an intelligent brain behind that sort of editing, isn't it?
As to your stated intention to continue reverting edits without reading them: don't be a dick. 190.161.182.12 (talk) 11:47, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Might we not get distracted by semantics here, please? "Tom" is a nickname. It happens to be a nickname by which he is known to the public (hence the title of the article). As with examples provided in the guideline, it is perfectly reasonable to include it for clarity. It does not need to be mentioned, but nowhere does it say it should never be mentioned. The guideline makes suggestions and recommendations in this area; it does not strictly require one or the other. You are very narrowly interpreting the guideline when there is no need to do so. I would kindly request that you quote the exact part(s) of the guideline(s) that you are following here, so I/we can understand why you're so adamant. And while I don't want to get mired in a tangential debate, I question your statement above, "There was nothing controversial or questionable about my edit." Clearly, if two independent editors disagree, then by definition, there is at least something controversial about your edit, however minor. The term applies when editors disagree; it does not depend solely on one editor's opinion. --Fru1tbat (talk) 12:23, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
The only controversial thing, apparently, was that it was made from an IP address. Tom is not a nickname, nor a "professional shortening" nor stage name, any more than "Bill" is as used by Bill Clinton. It's simply the form of his name by which he is known, and it is included by virtue of being part of the article's title. You can look at the examples listed on WP:BIRTHNAME and see that none of them use the form "X Y Z, known as X Z", though you seem to be claiming that they do. What is it that you think the opening sentence should say, and why? 190.161.182.12 (talk) 12:40, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I think you are using the term "nickname" in an overly narrow way. "Tom" is a nickname for "Thomas" just like "Bill" is a nickname for "William". But again, let's please not get mired in semantics. I also did not claim that the guideline included examples of the form you used above. What I claimed was that it did not specifically proscribe it (which is true, and please keep in mind that the examples in the guidelines are not necessarily exhaustive). The fact is that the man named "Thomas Andrew Lehrer" is known to the world at large as just "Tom Lehrer", i.e. his common name, hence the article's title. It may be self-evident to you that the nickname (or variant, or shortening, or whatever you want to call it) "Tom" comes from "Thomas", but first of all, not every reader is a native English speaker, and second, there's really no harm in clarifying it anyway. The guideline says "It is not always necessary to spell out why the article title and lead paragraph give a different name", not "it should not be spelled out". I'm honestly still not sure why the inclusion of a clarifying note of some sort is such a problem that we're still discussing it, but you should know that similar debates have taken place several times (just search the WT:MOSBIO archives), and there has always been disagreement about whether the explicit inclusion of a shortened version of a name is appropriate; it is not a self-evident or obvious decision, and it should not be treated as one. --Fru1tbat (talk) 16:07, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

In the same perspective as Fru1tbat I don't understand why you are so adamant. I have a pretty thick skin, so I don't normally call people on Civility, but you've called me a liar multiple times and now a dick. I've told the entire truth. Your one word edit note for the one edit I reverted, two months ago, was redundant. I reacted quickly, that's a stupid edit. Its not productive. I assumed ill intentioned vandalism from an IP, hit the button and moved on. And that is my common reaction to stupid edits. I'm not being a dick, I'm trying to protect valid wikipedia content. Vandals put in some creative edit notes to justify stupid edits, your edit played into the same mold. If it quacks, its a duck. Piling on to what Fru1tbat said; I did not put the phrase in in the first place (that was done by an IP editor on May 11), so it was initiated by the first editor, protected by my revert and then protected again by Fru1tbat's edit. That makes three editors who have voted in the affirmative for the phrase. Frankly, and maybe this is the appropriate compromise, the stable version of this for the last 9 years was to put it in with his name first in parenthesis for two years, then in quotation marks for the last seven years. All this has stripped that out. So, can we go back to having the quoted Tom and be done with this? Trackinfo (talk) 20:08, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
User:Trackinfo: I called you a liar because you said something unambiguously untrue to try to discredit me. I said don't be a dick because you said, and you've reiterated, that you assumed bad faith, reverted an edit without reading it or considering its merits, simply assuming it was vandalism, and would do so again. That's not "protecting valid wikipedia content"; that's just being disruptive and incredibly rude. If it quacks, it's a dick. And now you even say the fact that I left an edit summary made you assume it was vandalism? I can hardly believe the stupidity of that. Your attitude is immensely damaging. I assumed you'd posted here in the end to discuss the matter but now it seems you're only here to attack me. You seriously don't understand why your behaviour pissed me off?
As for the article, you also haven't explained what motivated your incorrect claim that "Tom Lehrer" was some kind of stage name.
User:Fru1tbat: "I'm honestly still not sure why the inclusion of a clarifying note of some sort is such a problem that we're still discussing it" - if only User:Trackinfo had bothered to read my initial edit, or at the minimum had bothered to give a reason for reverting it, instead of assuming bad faith, we'd have had nothing to discuss.
I see no problem with what the MOS recommends, but if you really think people can't understand that the article title is the common name and that the full name is given in the lead, then by all means put "Tom" or (Tom) there. Putting "known as" is verbose and unclear, and putting "professionally known as" was just plain wrong. Whatever you do, just imagine that someone comes along and reverts without any explanation - would that piss you off? 190.161.182.12 (talk) 12:42, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm sure most readers won't find it ambiguous, but obviously, previous editors have thought it worthwhile to include clarifying text in some form. In general, I prefer a few extra words for clarity myself, as long as it's not overly unwieldy (which is subjective, of course). In this case, I will leave it to another editor to add back, if someone wants to.
As for your last point, I completely understand. It seems to be regarded as fact that IP edits are generally less constructive than registered ones - I would be interested in seeing the actual statistics, but frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if they support the perception. Ideally, every edit should be considered on its own merit (and I try to do this), but realistically, many editors are much quicker to judge IP edits, and less prepared in advance to assume good faith. I would suggest that if your strong desire is to remain completely anonymous, then this may be a problem you are forced to live with, rightfully or not.
--Fru1tbat (talk) 13:35, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

September 2014[edit]

Information icon Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to Hanjin Venezia, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. emerson7 19:01, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Sockpuppet investigation[edit]

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/190.44.133.67, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

SummerPhD (talk) 17:05, 4 September 2014 (UTC)