User talk:97.102.205.224

What are the implications of being a long-lasting IP contributor?

You clearly have years of familiarity with Wikipedia jargon and practices, and yet you edit with an IP (that changes regularly). What are the advantages of this style of contribution? I assume the temporary aspect of it, perhaps the anonymity if a VPN is involved, but that's just rough guesses. CodemWiki (talk) 16:50, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

@CodemWiki: Originally, because my parents require me to share my online service account passwords with them so I can't in good faith promise to obey WP:NOSHARING. I remember when I first explored Wikipedia, this was point #4 in a list of requirements one had to agree to to create an account, but Special:CreateAccount seems to have changed so it's no longer up front. Nonetheless, WP:NOSHARING is currently a WP policy.

Since then, I've grown to like it. I'd rather have my edits examined critically; among other things, it encourages me to write better edit summaries. (I guess I do miss the ability to mark an edit as minor when I remove a space before a <ref>, change a hyphen to a dash, or something equally inconsequential.)

In regards to your section title question, the main implication is that I have no access to my own edit history. I don't notice when my IP address changes unless I look at Special:MyContributions and observe it's been truncated. I've fixed a lot of dead links in WP articles well outside my usual interests, whose names I've since forgotten, and have no way of finding again.

This user likes to remain an anonymous contributor and thus edits only from IP address and does not use an account. ±

97.102.205.224 (talk) 19:15, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Interesting CodemWiki (talk) 19:18, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Came here from this edit request page, and yes, you make an interesting and exceptional case for remaining unregistered. I did for about two or three years before I registered. Not to worry too much about the edit history – in all my time on WP I've gone back deeply into my history two times, with a flimsy resolve to return to it again. I definitely would miss the ability to go back just a page or two when I think of something else I forgot, and so on. Guess one can't overthink it. And I suppose you would have to trust your parents not to actually use your password and WP account, trust them implicitly. Very good points made; however, wonder if they could somehow be overcome so you could reap the benefits of registering? Perhaps not. Best to you and yours! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 13:05, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

@Paine Ellsworth: The most common reason I'd like to go back is that I dimly remember solving a similar problem in the past. It's usually technical: "what's the name of the template I found that solved this problem before?" I may not remember the exact name of the page, but I can usually recognize it when I see it. But scrolling through pages and pages of edit history is tedious. There aren't any good tools for searching edit history (I wish there were something like git log -S), so typing likely keywords into a search of the template namespace is usually faster.

P.S. Feel free to look at Talk:Land of Punt#Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 November 2023 as well! 97.102.205.224 (talk) 14:17, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Find the easiest way to search my edit history is to use my (Chrome) browser's search engine with a key word. Use it a lot of other places, too. The only type of page it doesn't work is a module edit screen. Edit request has been completed. Thank you for your edits and Happy Holidays! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 17:33, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

@Paine Ellsworth and Peter Ellis: Thank you very much, but... in the 19 days that elapsed between the edit request and your edit, User:Peter Ellis added a shorter reference to the same source to the WP article. My "Add to the end of the section" instructions were referencing a different end, so now there's duplication and the two need to be merged. Does anyone want to just do it, or shall I cobble up some wording on the talk page? 97.102.205.224 (talk) 21:00, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Made some adjustments – let me know if more (or less) is needed and, if so, please be specific. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 07:25, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

March 2024

Hello, I'm TheMadScienFish23. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to IEEE 1355 have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. TheMadScien🐠23 (💬) 13:36, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Discussion already started at User talk:TheMadScienFish23 § Er, why?. Basically, the edits (Special:Diff/1212960019 and Special:Diff/1212960019) seemed obviously constructive to me, and the edit comments explain why. I'd really appreciate a much more detailed explanation of what the objection is. 97.102.205.224 (talk) 21:43, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

May 2024

Hello, I'm Redraiderengineer. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, List of Falcon 9 first-stage boosters, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Redraiderengineer (talk) 02:30, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Thank you for contributing to the article List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches. However, please do not use unreliable sources such as blogs, wikis, personal websites, and websites and publications with a poor reputation for checking the facts or with no editorial oversight. These sources may express views that are widely acknowledged as pushing a particular point-of-view, sometimes even extremist, being promotional in nature, or relying heavily on rumors and personal opinions. One of Wikipedia's core policies is that contributions must be verifiable through reliable sources, preferably using inline citations. If you require further assistance, please look at Help:Menu/Editing Wikipedia, or ask at the Teahouse. Thank you. Redraiderengineer (talk) 02:41, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

@Redraiderengineer: Actually, the source is NASASpaceFlight.com, a respectable (specialist) news organization, which was reporting based on credible primary source materials, namely a lot of intentionally suggestive tweets by members of the Polaris Dawn crew expressing great interest in the recovery of B1083, and some FCC paperwork filed by SpaceX requesting use of certain radio frequencies in case they need to use LC-39A as a backup instead of the primary SLC-40.

It's not like any statement of intent is fully binding prior to actual launch; even official announcements can be voided for a variety of reasons. It seems certain enough to be worth mentioning.

Now, I didn't cite to it (as most lines in the tables don't have explicit citations), but a WP:RS exists and I can add it. 97.102.205.224 (talk) 05:59, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

June 2024

Hello, I'm SunDawn. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to £sd—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 14:05, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

@SunDawn: Can you clarify? The edit had two parts, both described in the edit comment:

1. "Wikilink BSI"
   • Before: "it had a switch for selecting between IBM and BSI data layouts"
   • After: "it had a switch for selecting between IBM and [[British Standards Institution|BSI]] data layouts"
2. "expand caption"
   • Before: "[[file:IBM 1401 Control Panel.jpg|thumb|1401 Console and, below, the Auxiliary Console]]"
   • After: "[[file:IBM 1401 Control Panel.jpg|thumb|1401 Console and, below, the Auxiliary Console. The grey knob nearest the centre of the Auxiliary Console mentions "PENCE" and "SHILL".]]"

Which part(s) do you consider unconstructive? "BSI" is not linked or expanded elsewhere in the article, so MOS:ACRO1STUSE applies. Since space is not limited, the MOS suggests the expansion should be fully written out in line, but it seemed like needless clutter as the important issue to the article is that multiple formats are selectable, not what they are. But completely undefined acronyms are still undesirable, and a link seemed better than {{abbr}}.

The expansion of the caption is to help the reader find the "switch for selecting between IBM and BSI data layouts of £sd on its auxiliary console (see image)" mentioned in the text.

I can imagine there being an argument that the edit is not a net improvement, but I'd think it's transparently obvious that it's a WP:GOODFAITH attempt to improve Wikipedia. 97.102.205.224 (talk) 09:24, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Hello 97.102.205.224! I apologized for the late reply. I had reviewed my own revert at that time and I realized that my revert is wrong and your edit is good. My apologies for the wrong revert. You can reinstate your edits as you wish. Once again, I apologize and hopefully you have a good day ahead! ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 10:21, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

@SunDawn: Thank you! It wasn't a huge problem; I just wasted a fair bit of time staring at the edit looking for the problem before deciding it was probably a mistake on your part. It's always a bit nervous-making declaring that someone else is wrong. 97.102.205.224 (talk) 14:31, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Thee clear-flowing rivers in Japan (September 27)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by CoconutOctopus was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Thee clear-flowing rivers in Japan and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

CoconutOctopus talk 18:57, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello, 97.102.205.224! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! CoconutOctopus talk 18:57, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hi 97.102.205.224! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

I've noticed that you've expressed an interest in the Arab–Israeli conflict. Unfortunately, due to a history of conflict and disruptive editing it has been designated a contentious topic and is subject to some strict rules.

The rule that affects you most as a new or IP editor is the prohibition on making any edit related to the Arab–Israel conflict unless you are logged into an account and that account is at least 30 days old and has made at least 500 edits.

This prohibition is broadly construed, so it includes edits such as adding the reaction of a public figure concerning the conflict to their article or noting the position of a company or organization as it relates to the conflict.

The exception to this rule is that you may request a specific change to an article on the talk page of that article or at this page. Please ensure that your requested edit complies with our neutral point of view and reliable sourcing policies, and if the edit is about a living person our policies on biographies of living people as well.

Any edits you make contrary to these rules are likely to be reverted, and repeated violations can lead to you being blocked from editing.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:18, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Additionally, you must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on a page within this topic.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:18, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Contentious topic RM

Hi, I've noticed you are trying to comment in the move discussion at Requested move 1 October 2024. Unfortunately, as this is part of a contentious topic only extended-confirmed editors, which requires a registered account, may participate in this discussion per WP:ECR. I've noticed that you are an experienced editor, but for security (maybe not the best word to use, but the only one that comes to my mind) purposes even experienced IP editors cannot do more than make edit requests in a contentious topic. I've noticed that @ScottishFinnishRadish has left a couple notes on your talk page about contentious topics today, but I hope this will help clarify a bit more. estar8806 (talk) ★ 22:30, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

@Estar8806: "as this is part of a contentious topic only extended-confirmed editors, which requires a registered account, may participate in this discussion per WP:ECR," Oh, is that what's going on? It's a Very Long policy page and seems mostly to discuss page protections and things Administrators and ArbCom may/should do. I've searched for every instance of "participat" on the page and didn't find the part you mentioned. Is it Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Extended confirmed restriction (A)(1)? Which doesn't mention page move discussions explicitly, but they're not an edit request? If so, thanks for unconfusing me. The idea of significant edit restrictions on Talk pages other than in response to per-editor trolling is new to me. 97.102.205.224 (talk) 22:56, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct the section which I quoted above is (A) (1). Edit requests are simply "change x to y" requests made and responded to. I understand where your confusion comes from, I would agree that it should be more clear about only edit requests being allowed (and what precisely qualifies as an edit request). That phrasing is bolded in a collapsed section on most contentious topic talk pages, but it's easily missed there and imo it should probably be bolded on the ECR page, obviously that's not my call though. I just wanted to pop on here and let you know before you accidentally got yourself into any major trouble because, even though I can tell you're acting in good faith, admins a lot of the time have to exercise a zero-tolerance policy with these kinds of things out of an abundance of caution.

To (hopefully) clarify your confusion a bit more, page protection generally only does apply to the actual article and not the talk page, but talk pages are restricted in contentious topic areas, such as the Arab–Israeli conflict. There will be a banner on the top of any talk page restricted under ARBCOM contentious topic remedies. I hope this helps :) estar8806 (talk) ★ 23:11, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Please pay attention to these messages. If you continue to violate ECR you will be blocked from editing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:50, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish: I've just been informed (it never occurred to me) that extended-confirmed restrictions could apply in any way other that page protection. I thought I was just having a polite discussion on a talk page (and I hope I was polite!) like I do on so many other talk pages. I just needed a specific pointer; Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures is a Very Long page written very formally and it's hard to find the relevant bit of it. As I said, as far as I could see it was about page protection and things Administrators or ArbCom may/should do and I didn't think violating it was physically possible for me! 97.102.205.224 (talk) 22:56, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

P.S. I wonder if some sort of message could be added to the edit page reminding people of the restrictions? A bit like the special message on https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peripheral_Component_Interconnect&action=edit It would avoid confusion among relatively new editors (which describes most not extended-confirmed) who aren't au fait with the full details of WP policy. Yes, I now see it in the Talk page header infoboxes, but there are a lot of them and they're usually giving links to "WikiProject Palestine" or similar non-essential information. It also wouldn't hurt for the policy to explicitly list a few examples of non-edit-trquests which are prohibited; even after reading it word for word I have to ask myself "is a page move request a form of edit request?" and "am I allowed to participate in someone else's edit request, or only make my own?" The answers are not 100% obvious. 97.102.205.224 (talk) 23:11, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

---