User talk:94.65.32.228

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Crowley[edit]

That's now veering into a misunderstanding of WP policy on sourcing, which is where I thought we might end up. I am reasonably certain Crowley did not self-define himself as a philosopher, and therefore, any characterization of him must be derived from secondary sources independent of the subject. It has nothing to do with a consensus we as editors establish, because that would be considered original research. Even in a basic Google search, there is very little considering Crowley to be a philosopher; he is much more widely considered in reliable sources to be a mystic, occultist, or writer. Many sources that claim him as a philosopher are mirrors of other sites, or contain some errors (such as "writing ritual for the Scottish Rite", which is not strictly true). MSJapan (talk) 19:01, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Unblock[edit]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

94.65.32.228 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Greetings! I fixed a mistake that existed in quite a lot of articles and didn't need discussion because it was already prohibited by Wikipedia's rules of styling. I used the same edit summary at each edit and a bot thought that I was a bot (!) and blocked me from editing. Can you unblock me some way?

Decline reason:

Per allegations of socking by a banned user below. — Daniel Case (talk) 16:37, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

}--94.65.32.228 (talk) 15:42, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

--PBS (talk) 15:46, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you would like to appeal this block, please add {{unblock}} to your talk page and explain why you should be unblocked. You will also need to convince the community that there won't be any more problems with this account. -- PBS (talk) 15:46, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have more to say but I am posting this first, and will explain the reason for the block in the next few minutes. However that you know what to do before I had had time to place a template on this page suggests that you are not a new user. What user names have you used in the past? -- PBS (talk) 15:46, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I hav been using IP addresses since October 2010. I never had a registered account. I knew what to do because when I went to edit another page, it said (among others) "ask for assistance as described at Help:I have been blocked."--94.65.32.228 (talk) 15:53, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My reason for blocking you account is that you are using an automated process to change dozens of articles and I want to check at WP:PEERAGE whether you assertion is true. If your edits are acceptable then a pause of 72 hours (or less if there is consensus sooner that the edits are OK) is not a problem. But if your edits are against the consensus then such edits are disruptive. -- PBS (talk) 15:51, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't use any automation. I just openned many pages together. And, anyway, just to delete the word "Sir" and paste an already copied edit summary, isn't a difficult thing to do.--94.65.32.228 (talk) 15:55, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is from WP:PEERAGE:

"Sir" is not used before the name of a peer who is also a knight or a baronet. --94.65.32.228 (talk) 15:58, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The edits you made were far from the type of edits that new causal editors to Wikipedia make. You have not answered my question about whether you have edited under a different user name. Do so or I will extend the block and take it to a check user. -- PBS (talk) 16:04, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the mean time for this specific issue about style see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage#Peers aren't styled "Sir." If you want to past anything here that you would like to appear on that project page I will copy it over. As I will do for the comment you have just posted here about peerage -- PBS (talk) 16:04, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've already answered your question. Scroll up and you'll find the answer.--94.65.32.228 (talk) 16:07, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have been using IP addresses since October 2010. I never had a registered account. I knew what to do because when I went to edit another page, it said (among others) "ask for assistance as described at Help:I have been blocked."--94.65.32.228 (talk) 15:53, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

What other IP addresses have you edited under? -- PBS (talk) 16:37, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
By my calculations you made about 100 edits in under an hour. (14:27-15:20 September 2012) this is an unusual edit pattern and I find it doubtful if you did that by opening 100 pages and editing them before closing them on one screen. By what method and using what tool did you sect the target pages? -- PBS (talk) 16:37, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, but as it is at WP:PEERAGE, why is debate done?--94.65.32.228 (talk) 16:21, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am putting the question to the wikiproject members, because if they agree then the edits can stand if not then they will have to be reverted. Before you make any more edits to articles space I would like conformation that the edits are acceptable from a content point of view. -- PBS (talk) 16:37, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the mean time I am trying to find out more about you. If you are going to make mass edits of this sort you really need to create a user account see Wikipedia:Why create an account?, because otherwise editors have little chance to discuss the changes with you because as soon as you reboot you router you will be using another account and other editors will have difficulty finding you to ask you questions. -- PBS (talk) 16:37, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support block. Please check whether User is Vintagekits. Kittybrewster ☎ 16:27, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks -- PBS (talk) 16:37, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, however, the first line of an article, is about how the person was styled when died, or how is currently styled. Wikipedia rules say, that whether or not someone was a knight or a baronet before becoming a peer, he stops using the style of Sir upon becoming peer. It is written at WP:PEERAGE at the section called "Content"--94.65.32.228 (talk) 16:40, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I always inform people when my IP address changes.--94.65.32.228 (talk) 16:42, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where? and what was the last IP address that you used? -- PBS (talk)
I meant that I inform someone only when I have an open conversation with them. My last IP address was 94.65.40.162 and if you want, you may check the history of the talk page of User:MSJapan. You will notice that I changed the signature of the last post by the old IP, so that when he answered he would click my new talk page.--94.65.32.228 (talk) 16:50, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On your automation question: I didn't use automation. I will tell you step by step what I did, just wait till I finish writing it.--94.65.32.228 (talk) 16:53, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When the idea came to me I did a very simple thing: I searched for "sir baron". As you may see if you try it, it gave me loads of pages with Barons styled "Sir". As you may know, in Google Chrome (which I use), when you click a link with the mousewheel, it opens in a new tab. So, I set the list to show me the 500 first and started clicking with the mousewheel. When I had opened about 20 tabs, I stopped clicking and started editing. Honestly, it is very simple to click edit, delete a three-letter, paste an already copied edit summary and click save in less than 20 seconds, especially with a good browser. If you notice, sometimes I forgot to put the summary or fixed a typo, or something like this. At some point, I got bored of it (basically because I couldn't imagine how many they were) and just left it. Finally, when I went to do a completely unrelated edit at Polyglotism, I realised that I was blocked and appealed. --94.65.32.228 (talk) 17:04, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello?--94.65.32.228 (talk) 17:40, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to unblock the IP address, because the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage#Peers aren't styled "Sir." was in agreement with you edits. However, I have opened a Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vintagekits Sockpuppet investigation. Leave the sockpuppet notice on the user page of this IP address until after the investigation has ended.
If you are to continue editing Wikiepdia at more than an occasional edit, then you should create an account. If you do not do so, then to avoid future accusations of sockpuppetry I suggest that log all your IP address changes on this page. -- PBS (talk) 20:05, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The account is now unblocked. -- PBS (talk) 20:07, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Attitude[edit]

I want to commend you for the remarkable good humour you've shown over this incident. I think I am more upset about it than you are. I do recommend that you create an account. Accidentally not using an account is not a bad thing. In fact, intentionally not using an account, or even using a second account, is not a bad thing so long as it is not done for nefarious reasons. For instance, using a second account to avoid getting caught for WP:3RR violations or voting in straw polls and the like. There are very few legitimate reasons for using a second account (running a bot) and fewer still for being logged out (not wanting to enter your user info on a public computer). You can read more at WP:Sock. If you do start an account, drop me a line. -Rrius (talk) 20:59, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You asked me a question on my talk page "If I create an account will I have the right of not using it, or having-an-account-but-using-IP-instead-without-intending-to-harm is considered shockpuppetry?" See what Rrius wrote above, but why would you want to create an account and then not use it?

You made a statment on Rrius's talk page "Secondly and most significantly, I feel very weird that I was a suspected shock-puppet of this Vintagekits guy and not of John K who did this edit [1] ten days ago."

Because John K has had an account for may years, and consequently his reputation is well known to me. I know that making 100 of changes using a IP address is not his style. This is one of the most important side effects of using an account, other users begin to recognise you editing style and to know what your opinions are on various Wikiepdia issues, (the good the bad and the ugly). -- PBS (talk) 22:17, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PBS states one good reason for getting an account and demonstrated another earlier. Many editors (and admins, who should know better) will assume that if you are an IP, then you are up to no good. If I had made the series of edits you did, no would have thought anything of it. But because you edit without a user name (and because you had the misfortune of having your IP reset, leaving PBS vulnerable to assuming you had never edited before), the worst was assumed.
You said that you value your anonymity, but I actually know more about you than I know about PBS. We learn four things about logged in editors: choice in user name, editing history, willingness to log in (as in, they may well have some dedication to the project), and whatever else they choose to tell us on their user pages. A logged in editor who doesn't share tells very little in particular about him- or herself. IP editors tells what their IP addresses are, consequently, their physical locations, IP provider (sometimes this tells the employer), etc. It also provides information to hackers. I don't know if that is something that really happens to IP editors, but it is far more likely for them that for logged in users. The choice is, of course, yours, but it is hard to see the value you receive in return for being assumed guilty until you prove yourself innocent (as happened today) when all you've done is take on some truly tedious editing. And by the way, another benefit to logging in is the ability to use AutoWikiBrowser, which makes projects like yours of earlier today easier by allowing you to just click "SAVE" for each page instead of click tab, select, delete, click the edit summary box, CTR+V, Save page. -Rrius (talk) 02:54, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brothers in arms[edit]

In these two edits (a and b) you raise another problem. If your brother uses an account and edits similar articles to you, you are doing him no favours editing from the same IP address: See WP:SOCK. You should not share your brother's account see WP:ROLE. The best strategy is to create an account, use it and place {{User shared IP address}} on your home pages. -- PBS (talk) 07:51, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:94.65.32.228&oldid=1139876944"