Not a bot, but then again that's exactly what a bot would say so... 74.73.224.126 (talk) 14:36, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
Welcome!
Hi 74.73.224.126! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.
As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:
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:
If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.
Happy editing! 47.227.95.73 (talk) 00:19, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks, 74.73.224.126 (talk) 00:20, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Upgrading discretionary sanctions is fine
Hi 74.73.224.126, I'd have pinged you, but that works only for accounts. Just for your information, Special:Diff/1087616282. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:41, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- That's fine, in the future you can just use {{talkback}} if further input from me is desired. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 14:53, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
NPP
Hi. I have briefly mentioned a comment of yours in a longer post I made at ANI concerning Andrew Davidson. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:39, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Kudpung: Thanks for the pointer. I was trying to stay away for a bit, and it seems I've succeeded. I don't think I would've commented again in that thread anyway since I'm trying follow the precept suggested by DGG of limiting my responses in discussions that are contentious rather than collaborative, though of course some discussions have elements of both which can make application in practice tricky. Anyway I don't think our positions are that far apart but I'll expound on that in a bit when I have more time. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 00:36, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
- @Kudpung: WP:NOTPUNISHMENT is simply an interpretation of existing policy, albeit one that is referenced by it directly. Hence, while the blocking and banning policies are explicit about not being punitive, the case with other sanctions is more murky, and policy isn't always strictly adhered to anyway. Ultimately the Arbitration Committee can do what it dares to do, and it has dared quite a bit. That aside, and not meaning to rub salt in any wounds here, WP:ADMINCOND revocations can be justified as preventing future poor conduct by an administrator. I'm quite confident that if queried all the arbitrators would frame their votes to impose sanctions as preventive in every single case. Whether or not they really were preventive is likely to remain a point of disagreement in many instances.
- In the end nothing is written in WP:STONE not even core policies. Hence, consensus can do whatever it wants. Could we sanction punitively? Yes. Should we? No. For the most part I think we're pretty good about this, but as always there are exceptions. Be well, 74.73.224.126 (talk) 14:05, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
BWV 56
I am not a native speaker of English, don't know a thing about styleguides, you can tell me anything, but many reviewed, and didn't see what bothers you. Tell me one editor with the need to edit "Bach". -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:47, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Gerda Arendt: I apologize for not getting back to you earlier, I'm mostly inactive these years so hopefully I have your understanding.
- I wouldn't worry about being a non-native speaker, indeed it's common for non-native speakers have a better explicit understanding of grammar than native speakers do.
- As for the MoS, as with other guidelines it's supposed to be a collection of best practices (as always in practice this varies and some subpages have very little consensus behind them). That aside, WP:NOPIPE is not solely about editing the text within the link (though I would caution you really can never be sure that something will never need to be edited) but about easing the process of scanning a wikitext paragraph as a whole as part of the editing process.
- FAC review has never been perfect in catching all issues, even those with our own internal protocols. Indeed, the quality of reviews has varied substantially over time, and there's a good deal many FAs that should never have been passed even for GA (an initiative to review old FAs is currently in progress). But even with careful review issues can still slip through; even professional editors are imperfect. Around that same time I can remember seeing a random IP remove a rather embarrassing category error from a different TFA that no one else managed to catch. It happens. Never assume that just because an article has passed FAC that it's free from any issues.
- Having rambled on the a bit, I want to add that these are mostly minor things, and it was a pleasant read so I appreciate the effort that went in to the article. I'm going to try to do a little bit of work around here this week so hopefully any additional follow-ups will be more prompt. I've actually been meaning to WP:PAYITFORWARD for a bit here, but stuff like AfD is quite time consuming to do right, and requires a bit of extra energy and an ability to follow up.
- I hope your doing well. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 03:22, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for taking the time to explain. Go ahead, I understand the part about being busy all too well, travelling some these days. How I am is on my talk, - feel free to check. How about editing under a name I could perhaps remember? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:17, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Gerda Arendt: editing as an IP is kind of my thing, someone has to do it, you'll know me by my deeds etc. I'm glad to see you're still producing quality content and finding joy in it. May your travels be pleasant. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 16:30, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
- I have to agree with Gerda, you should consider (or re-consider) getting an account. It's quick, it's easy, it's free, it can still be anonymous, it's provides several benefits, there's really no downside, and it makes interacting with you easier for your fellow editors. - wolf 00:47, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Thewolfchild: Well in my case you would need to add a lot of re-s to that consider.
- I grant most of your points, though in fact there are some downsides. So yes accounts are usually more anonymous, and long-term interactions are easier. There's some additional nifty gadgets available (but I've built some applets of my own), and you have the opportunity to accrue social capital with time.
- Yet, it would conflict with my ideals, however dated they may be, and at least to me would feel incredibly unfaithful. There's also a meta page that kind of explains things, and an old essay that touches on some additional considerations. Anyway, I'm only minimally active, so it probably doesn't matter for practical purposes anyway. I appreciate your concern though; take care, 74.73.224.126 (talk) 15:52, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
- I have to agree with Gerda, you should consider (or re-consider) getting an account. It's quick, it's easy, it's free, it can still be anonymous, it's provides several benefits, there's really no downside, and it makes interacting with you easier for your fellow editors. - wolf 00:47, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Gerda Arendt: editing as an IP is kind of my thing, someone has to do it, you'll know me by my deeds etc. I'm glad to see you're still producing quality content and finding joy in it. May your travels be pleasant. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 16:30, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for taking the time to explain. Go ahead, I understand the part about being busy all too well, travelling some these days. How I am is on my talk, - feel free to check. How about editing under a name I could perhaps remember? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:17, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
December 2022
Your recent editing history at Nival (company) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
~ Chip🐺 16:30, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
:@ChipWolf: "I can see the block evasion, and the other user's edits clearly falls under the definition of vandalism; but please don't edit war, even with suspected vandals
"
- - but two of the listed exemptions from 3RR are "block evasion" and "obvious vandalism", so why warn an against performing edits that apprear to be permitted, and are perhaps even helpful? - wolf 22:51, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Thewolfchild: Thanks for your comment; in terms of the obvious vandalism exception, I'm still under the impression the removed sentence leaned promotional rather than encyclopedic, certainly not obvious vandalism. My comments below elaborate on the block evasion element. ~ Chip🐺 10:33, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
- Reverting obvious spam is also a listed exemption to 3RR, currently at EX8. That's actually an extremely recent addition, for many years it was simply understood to be part of the vandalism exception and no one batted an eye at continuous reverts of spammers. There's sufficient ambiguity here that I would not have personally relied on that exemption, but I also most certainly would not have filed an ANEW on someone over it either. In any case, in your initial post you wrote
the other IP's edits fall under the definition of vandalism
which explains Thewolfchild's confusion over your warning. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 16:09, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
- Reverting obvious spam is also a listed exemption to 3RR, currently at EX8. That's actually an extremely recent addition, for many years it was simply understood to be part of the vandalism exception and no one batted an eye at continuous reverts of spammers. There's sufficient ambiguity here that I would not have personally relied on that exemption, but I also most certainly would not have filed an ANEW on someone over it either. In any case, in your initial post you wrote
- @Thewolfchild: Thanks for your comment; in terms of the obvious vandalism exception, I'm still under the impression the removed sentence leaned promotional rather than encyclopedic, certainly not obvious vandalism. My comments below elaborate on the block evasion element. ~ Chip🐺 10:33, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
- @ChipWolf: I strongly suggest reviewing WP:Edit warring#EX3. Normally I'd leave it at that, but given I linked WP:BANREVERT in the edit summary the presence of this template suggests a level of inattentiveness that does not bode well for long-term success in RCP work. Now I get that semi-automated tools make it super easy to leave template messages, but it's important to ignore the urge to move too quickly when doing RCP and strive for accuracy instead. Remember that bad reverts and poorly chosen or inappropriate messages have the potential to WP:BITE and discourage potentially productive new contributors, so it's best to avoid placing them.
- Of course we all make mistakes every now and then, but when you do so it's considered best practice to encase the poorly chosen message with
<s>...</s>
or<del>...</del>
and to add a polite apology you can start by doing that here (Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Editing own comments is also good reading). Finally, you should be aware that long-term careless use of semi-automated tools can result in your use of them being restricted or even a block. - I may have some time this week if you have any further inquiries, but even if not I will try to respond eventually; it may just take a few months; take care, 74.73.224.126 (talk) 02:39, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
- I generally refrain from templating regulars for precisely this reason, that particular principal seemed to have alluded me on Monday - I will heed your kind advice. The reverts you made referring to WP:BANREVERT at 16:01 and 16:12 were both prior to the IP block at 16:19; how does WP:BANREVERT apply to those edits? Admittedly, I'm aware the policy applies to your third revert as it was 40 seconds after the block, so I redact my claim of edit-warring with sincere apologies. ~ Chip🐺 10:33, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
- @ChipWolf: There's no requirement to wait until a sock has been blocked to revert them. In fact some socks are never blocked because their edits aren't noticed until long after they've ceased using a particular IP or account. I actually reported the IP to WPOP based on the sockmaster's MO a few minutes after my initial reverts [1], and before I noticed their older mainspace disruption which ironically I probably wouldn't have caught had they not returned to pointlessly disrupting archives (ended up being somewhat of a two for one since the continuing disruption motivated me to do additional checks allowing me to catch some earlier edits [2] despite their crude attempts at filter log flooding.)
- I was not expecting them to continue using the same IP as they usually shift proxies more rapidly, which is why I was content to wait on the longer response time at WPOP. However when disruption under that IP resumed I filed a report at AIV which was actioned in just two minutes [3]. The key of course is that this was obvious block-evasion, not necessarily obvious to an outsider, but obvious enough to anyone familiar with the LTA that there was no doubting who was responsible.
- Ultimately it depends on how obvious the sockmaster is, if you're going to BANREVERT you better be prepared to explain yourself if an ANEW is filed. BMN123 lacks subtlety so I was comfortable reverting here; there are also a lot of others (e.g. VXFC) that are also pretty obvious once you've dealt with them a few times. In other cases it may be neccessary to wait on the outcome of an ANI or even SPI prior to reverting; as always RCP requires discretion and judgement. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 15:46, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
- Slight asides
- If you're looking for a template that's less harsh in tone I suggest {{uw-ewsoft}}.
- 3RR warnings are one of the cases where templating regulars is commonplace as a warning diff is an ANEW reporting expectation
- 40 seconds isn't really that short a time to notice something depending on how someone does their monitoring, using the right tools someone who is actively paying attention can notice things within a matter of seconds.
- 74.73.224.126 (talk) 16:43, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
- I generally refrain from templating regulars for precisely this reason, that particular principal seemed to have alluded me on Monday - I will heed your kind advice. The reverts you made referring to WP:BANREVERT at 16:01 and 16:12 were both prior to the IP block at 16:19; how does WP:BANREVERT apply to those edits? Admittedly, I'm aware the policy applies to your third revert as it was 40 seconds after the block, so I redact my claim of edit-warring with sincere apologies. ~ Chip🐺 10:33, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
Apologies
I am throwing my huge big apologies please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sevelasz (talk • contribs) 06:30, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
- Responded to your first post on your talk page. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 06:36, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Welcome!
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I greatly appreciate your constructive edits on Wikipedia. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might like to see:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Contributing to Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- How to write a great article
- How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
- Simplified Manual of Style
- Recent changes patrol
You are welcome to continue editing without logging in. If you like, you can 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 (74.73.224.126) 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 , or ask your question and then place {{helpme}}
before the question on this page.
Again, welcome! ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 17:20, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
- thanks 74.73.224.126 (talk) 18:24, 9 February 2023 (UTC)