User talk:

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


Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:

  • Respect copyrights - do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
  • Maintain a neutral point of view - this is possibly the most important Wikipedia policy.
  • Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced to multiple reliable sources.
  • If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
  • Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Deliberately adding such content or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism, doing so will result your account or IP being blocked from editing.

The Wikipedia Tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! tedder (talk) 03:40, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

July 2010[edit]

25px|alt= Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to List of Intel Itanium microprocessors, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. The reverted edit can be found here. Thank you. Whisky drinker | HJ's sock 23:59, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

25px Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at List of Intel Itanium microprocessors. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. The reverted edit can be found here. Thank you. Whisky drinker | HJ's sock 00:04, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you'd like to elucidate on how my edits are unconstructive? I was just updating the entries to match the things in the Intel ARK database and adding links for reference as is done on all the other Intel processor list pages. (talk) 00:07, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about the template bombing- the messages are automatic. The problem with your edit is that you're repeatedly adding an external link which is frowned upon and looks like spam. If it's not spam. then please accept my apologies, but bear in mind we have fairly strict guidelines on external links and where they go. Thanks, Whisky drinker | HJ's sock 00:12, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Well these are not spam and I am well aware of the external link policy. If This is in violation of the external linkage policy then virtually all of the other Intel processor list articles are as well (and have been for a very long time). I am curious how you find this looks like spams since these are pertinent on the topic in the same form as already exists on other pages. Please check articles before you go off half-cocked on a reversion spree. (talk) 00:22, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

25px Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at List of Intel Itanium microprocessors, you may be blocked from editing. The reverted edit can be found here. Thank you. Whisky drinker | HJ's sock 00:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

30px This is the final warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at List of Intel Itanium microprocessors, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. The reverted edit can be found here. Thank you. Whisky drinker | HJ's sock 00:09, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

HJ, I don't see this as "vandalism". mono 00:10, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Can these reversions be reverted so I can complete adding these details (and links)? Or does we need to wait for some sort of decision on the matter? (talk) 00:32, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
I'd wait, or else it might be considered "edit-warring". I'll poke HJ Mitchell again. mono 00:34, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
yes this is why I figured I would ask for help in getting Whiskey's reverts reverted. It is considered edit warring if one person/account reverts too many times in a row but if someone else does it that put Whiskey more at risk and makes him have the burden of proof not you or I. I am aware of the edit warring rules as well. (talk) 00:38, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm still not entirely sure why you would need to have that many external links there, but feel free to re-do your changes. You needn;t worry about edit warring- worst case scenario, I'll log in and unblock you. Best, Whisky drinker | HJ's sock 01:00, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. (talk) 01:02, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

OK! now User:5 albert square is reverting the reversion I just did of User:Whisky drinker's reversions...*sigh*...what is wrong with people today? (talk) 01:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that, that's my fault. She's using a similar script and they both tell each other who's being reverted. Re-do your change, but provide an edit summary- say you have the agreement of HJ Mitchell- most well-established editors know my name (or at least know that I'm an admin). Whisky drinker | HJ's sock 01:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
I am a well-established editor (thousands and thousands of edits from many IPs going back to 1994 at least) and though I have heard your name this is the first I have run into you much. (talk) 01:15, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
I meant the people who tend to get involved in the behind-the-scenes stuff like reverting vandalism. 1994? Are you sure? Wikipedia has only existed since 2001. :) Whisky drinker | HJ's sock 01:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
You are right. I looked up my first edit and I meant 2004. Incidentally I revert lots of vandalism junk too. Perhaps not as much as you as I do not use any special tools to do such however. (talk) 01:20, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
I have an account. I choose not to use it for most edits as I see no need for attribution and methinks IP edits should be well represented. You might try it sometime. (talk) 01:32, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
I was about to suggest the same thing, but fair enough. I would try it, but I can't stand the vector skin! ;) Besides, I like all the extra scripts and things I have on my account (well, accounts, me being a blatant sockpuppet!) Whisky drinker | HJ's sock 01:34, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
FYI, the vector skin is no longer the default. (talk) 01:37, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Having an account can also allow you to have access to extra vandalism fighting tools such as the "Rollback" user privelage, which enables you to use Huggle (Which is an EXTREMELY powerful vandal-fighting tool!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barts1a (talkcontribs) 01:40, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
This is true--I have used "Rollback" myself before. It also allows other simple things like renaming/moving articles too (except to black listed names of course which I have had to get overridden a few times). I would like to see powerful vandalism fighting tools developed for IP users. (talk) 01:45, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
It would be great if we had something like that for the "good" IPs like yourself, but the vast, vast majority of people I revert with Igloo are IPs. The rest are usually idiots with just enough braincells to register or throwaway accounts. The code for the scripts is all freely licensed, though, so you could try modifying it to work for you without logging in if you have the technical expertise (I don't!). Whisky drinker | HJ's sock 01:51, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
I actually probably do have the expertise to go ahead with such. Sadly I doubt I have the time and commitment to such a cause (it is enough work to do edits as an IP where my edits are often more cumbersome and perhaps over scrutinized). What bothers me is that scripts would be poorly written in such a way that such an amount of work needs to be done in the first place. Yours and others comments just go to show how bias people are against people that choose anonymously (IPs) donate their time, effort, and content to making Wikipedia better. As you can see there is all the more reason for what you called "good IPs" to keep going as it is an uphill battle against the antivandals (there are actually IP antivandals too you know) as well as the lack of other useful features. (talk) 02:10, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Just a quick reminder of WP:BEANS Barts1a (talk) 02:03, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
I am curious how suggesting an IP's usage of an antivandalism tool compares with WP:BEANS. Are you trying to discourage anonymous antivandalism? (talk) 02:10, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
I think there are IPs out there that do deserve anti-vandalism tools, but Wikipedians are generally so biased against IPs that they won't let them have them. Surveys showed that anonymous users (IPs as you know) are some of the main builders of Wikipedia. I've seen vandal fighters bite anonymous users unfairly many times, even though Wikipedia has a policy against it. I've also seen a lot of new contributors end up in the hoosegow (in this case indefinite block) because of unfair treatment, or biting. It's time we Wikipedians respect anonymous users, and give them the tools they need to help make Wikipedia the best encyclopedia out there. It's actually already there, but there's still room for improvement ;) Raptor Let's talk/My mistakes; I mean, er, contributions 22:26, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
That is good to hear. Thank you, Raptor. (talk) 20:09, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I am pleased to hear anonymous contributors (aka IPs) are statistically some of the main contributors here. Methinks the only reason there is such a bias against IPs has to do with the difficultly in blocking (the few but flagrant) offenders from this group of contributors. (talk) 23:59, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

That sounds plausible--you are probably right. Thanks! (talk) 20:09, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
That's the trouble, isn't it? Stereotyping. It happens all the time in the real world, so obviously it's going to happen on Wikipedia. Because a high percentage of Wikipedia vandals are anonymous, editors just assume that all anonymous editors are vandals. As I said before, I've seen constructive IP edits get rolled back, and I've even seen one or two cases where a good IP gets blocked. It's time we stop stereotyping and remember to assume good faith in all cases, including the cases of anonymous editors, such as yourself and many others I have seen. Raptor Let's talk/My mistakes; I mean, er, contributions 22:31, 15 July 2010 (UTC)