User talk:88.166.32.210

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers

Please explain - don't think have vandalised anything!88.166.32.210 (talk) 00:25, 16 January 2012 (UTC) 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:

You are welcome to continue editing without logging in, but many editors recommend that you create 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 (88.166.32.210) 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!   Will Beback  talk  05:43, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

PS: If you register an account you can edit more articles yourself.   Will Beback  talk  05:43, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
The Template:Whois I posted above has nothing to do with reporting you as a vandal per se. It's purpose is to provide information about your IP address and where you are located.
As others have suggested, you should create an account in order to post what you want on your talk page. How does anyone know that your IP address is not shared and you are the only person using it? Otherwise, others are going to assume it is a shared IP and will remove your edits. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 00:33, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! However I don't understand why people would want to remove my edits - IP signature visible - from my IP talk page without explanation.88.166.32.210 (talk) 00:39, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
As I said, others may assume this is a shared IP address. So they blank it as a courtesy to the next person who is assigned this address. Zzyzx11 (talk) 00:44, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Guidelines say you should discuss with ME before editing my user talk page, and make no mention of paintings! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_pages#Editing_of_other_editors.27_user_and_user_talk_pages88.166.32.210 (talk) 00:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
That painting is purely disruptive (it's an image of the wrong kind of thing) and not allowed, and that's not just for talk pages. Because, especially as your IP address can change, you don't own this page, you cannot put whatever you want, only things related to Wikipedia like the shared IP notice.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
"Wrong kind of thing"? What weird censorship is this? It is one of the most important paintings of the C19! The guidelines clearly state that you should consult me (*or us if was a shared IP) before deleting my posts from my page.88.166.32.210 (talk) 01:01, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Gaming the system, I see. Simply, if it isn't related to Wikipedia it doesn't belong. You'll have more leeway if you click that link to the upper right and actually get an account.Jasper Deng (talk) 01:04, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
I used an image of a famous painting from wikipedia to decorate my talk page- why not! I really don't understand what you mean by Gaming the system. A polite discussion rather than rude deletion is quite clearly called for by the guidelines!88.166.32.210 (talk) 01:11, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Gaming the system means using those policies in bad faith, like you obviously are with that comment (You don't get to have it just because the rules say so if the community doesn't). Why not? Simply because it's off topic from building an encyclopedia and some users find it objectionable.Jasper Deng (talk) 01:14, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I objected to people deleting content I added to my talk page without discussion, citing irrelevant guidelines, while failing to follow the relevant ones. If a future user of this IP adress wished to delete the painting I would have no problem, but why anyone else would wish to do so repeatedly, I do not understand.88.166.32.210 (talk) 01:29, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
No, the guidelines cited by Seb and Zzyzx are relevant here. You know the community is not interested in the image being here, and that it's disruptive (I don't care about its fame), but you don't seem to grasp it. If you don't understand, it isn't my fault. No discussion is necessary to remove purely disruptive and/or off-topic material, period.Jasper Deng (talk) 01:32, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
I am sorry to disagree, but I do not see how posting on my talk page disrupts anyone else, and the guidelines clearly say "On others' user pages

The best option if there is a concern with a user's page is to draw their attention to the matter via their talk page and let them edit it themselves, if they are agreeable. In some cases a more experienced editor may make non-trivial edits to another user's user space, in which case that editor should leave a note explaining why this was done. This should not be done for trivial reasons. If the user does not agree, or does not effectively remedy the concerns, or the matter is unsure or controversial, then other steps in this section can be taken including uninvolved user opinions or proposing the page for deletion.

If the material must be addressed urgently (for example, unambiguous copyright, attack, defamation, or BLP reasons, etc.), the user appears inactive, the edit appears unlikely to cause problems, or you are quite sure it is appropriate, then remove or fix the problem material minimally and leave a note explaining what you have done, why you have done so, and inviting the user to discuss if needed. If the entire page is inappropriate, consider blanking it, or redirecting the subpage to the userpage, or to the most relevant existing mainspace or project space page." and they left no note!88.166.32.210 (talk) 01:36, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

That's the kind of comment that's called gaming the system here. That last paragraph also includes removal of a purely disruptive (this page is part of the community, others see it, it's not your space, its the community's, so you're disrupting the community) image, and we don't have to explain it to you when it's blatantly obvious. . I won't discuss this further until you get the point.Jasper Deng (talk) 01:39, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
You don't seem to get the point - the edit was made with no info in the edit summary, & no note on this page. It may be blatantly obvious to you that you don't need to follow the guidelines and explain your actions, but to me it looked like vandalism.88.166.32.210 (talk) 01:49, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
100% the other way around. You are the one who's not listening. Stop wikilawyering and using policies to achieve disruption. We can ignore rules if we need to improve the encyclopedia. And, vandalism is far from just deleting a gross image from a user talk page. You should know better than post such an image when no-one else likes it. Treat them like you want to be treated. You're making too big of a deal over this. Drop it, now.Jasper Deng (talk) 01:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I checked community as you advised - first line is " Some people think that user categories that serve no real collaborative purpose, games, images of Wikipedians, WikiLove pages, et cetera, need to be deleted because they are not useful when building the encyclopedia." There must be a difference between wikilawyering and referring to general wikipedia policies that contradict your argument. However the point I am making, is that it is wrong to delete material without an edit summary and preferably a note describing WHY. You claim that the painting Origin of the World is gross. In that case why don't you remove it from wikipedia.88.166.32.210 (talk) 02:06, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
It's OK when limited to the relevant topics. No, read the wikilawyering page again: the spirit of the user pages guideline is to prevent userspace disruption. Adding the painting is gaming the system. No, it's correct to delete without an edit summary (your point is invalid) if it's disruptive, as it was here, and you can't seem to get it.Jasper Deng (talk) 02:09, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Please explain why it is "correct" to delete without an edit summary if you believe an edit to be disruptive. I am sure an edit summary is advised in ALL circumstances. I do not why the Origin of the World is not relevant to my talk page - I was born of woman, and I like the painting - text on it's own is so boring! I would like to point out that recent attempted censorship by facebook has been reversed.
Edit summaries are not necessary when the reason for the edit is obvious, especially when it's a revert of a disruptive edit. As for your edit summaries, you don't have to copy/paste every word of your comment! Basically, regardless of your interpretation of policy your picture is not allowed.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:25, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Also, because your image is inappropriate, how it was removed is irrelevant.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:28, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

January 2012[edit]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, you may be blocked from editing. You certainly know about this because of the section on the talk page of Rick's article. Therefore you won't get any more warnings. Jasper Deng (talk) 02:00, 16 January 2012 (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.
Please provide diffs. I don't know what you mean by deleting or editing legitimate talk page comments.88.166.32.210 (talk) 02:06, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
You'd better explain this then.Jasper Deng (talk) 02:06, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for providing the diff! I guess it was one typing error. Saw it - but thought it was you sorry! :)88.166.32.210 (talk) 02:10, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Then why were you even typing in my comment?Jasper Deng (talk) 02:11, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Cut and paste, with an extra paste! - look at the diff! 88.166.32.210 (talk) 02:22, 16 January 2012 (UTC)