User talk:172.159.93.208

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Attention:

This IP address, 172.159.93.208, is registered to AOL, an Internet service provider through which numerous individual users may connect to the Internet via proxy. This IP address may be reassigned to a different person when the current user disconnects.

For this reason, a message intended for one person may be received by another. If you are editing from this address and are frustrated by irrelevant messages, you can avoid them by creating an account for yourself. In some cases, you may temporarily be unable to create an account due to efforts to fight vandalism, in which case, please see here.

If you are autoblocked repeatedly, we encourage you to contact your Internet service provider or IT department and ask them to contact Wikimedia's XFF project about enabling X-Forwarded-For HTTP headers on their proxy servers so that our editing blocks will affect only the intended user.

Caution should be used when blocking this IP or reverting its contributions without checking - if a block is needed, administrators should consider using a soft block with the template {{anonblock|optional comment}} as the block reason.

Note: In the event of vandalism from this address, abuse reports may be sent to your network administrator for further investigation.
IT staff who want to monitor vandalism from this IP address can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. ElinorD (talk) 21:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. This lovely substituted template message resonates warmth and understanding. I'm sure you know what you are doing. :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.159.93.208 (talk • contribs)
I'm going to link you to the page for consensus. In one of your edit summaries, you said, "If you disagree, please take it to talk." If you take a look at that page (see the big image at the right), that is not proper procedure. If you make an edit and someone reverts it, you are then supposed to take it to the talk page for discussion. This stops edit wars before they can even start and does not disrupt the project. --132 22:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi, you're quite knowledgeable for someone who signed up yesterday. However, I like your style. I will heed your advice. Actually, what I mean by that is that I will avoid the blue link you added here like the plague because it was probably written by an imbecile and I already know the content by now. You do sound like someone who is trying to help though. Thanks. 172.159.93.208 22:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I've been around for a lot longer than just yesterday. Due to many reasons (none of them bad!), I decided to abandon my old account and create a new one. I do encourage you to follow procedure though. Even though you may not agree with some of the things here, many people will not take you very seriously unless you make an attempt at doing things the established way. It gets things done in a way people are comfortable and makes it so that people don't feel like you're trying to step on their toes. --132 22:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, did you not spot the irony in my message about signing up yesterday? The fact that you are even bothering to respond to me in such a humane manner leads me to suspect you either have an affinity for what I am saying and that the reason you have changed names is because your previous name had a bad expereince with policy (and you don't want the stigma that comes from that attachment), or... actually, I don't know. Why else would anyone change their username? You agree with the principles of Wikipedia, as I do, but am fed up with the policy interpretation which will one day be its ruining. Also, the fact that this IP has not been blocked for the so-called three revert rule by now is further evidence of sympathy from all involved. Either that or an administrator has not been alterted. :-) 172.159.93.208 22:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I figured you had an inkling, but I figured I'd clarify as well. The reason for switching usernames actually has very little to do with policy and more to do with personal reasons. I felt I was getting too caught up in a dozen or so articles and was getting way too stressed by them and, unfortunately, it was carrying over to my real life. So I decided to start anew and edit using the suggestions at "Don't-give-a-fuck-ism", editing with apathy. Instead of being deeply involved with a dozen or more articles, I now only watch three (none of which run into any major controversy). So far, so good. --132 22:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Good for you. Laudable and sensible. I would maintain that some aspect of "policy" would have something to do with your stress, but it is how you view it really. Maybe it is just a storm in a tea cup. Maybe I will take your excellent course of action for getting round all this shizzle. Thanks for engaging me. And the rest did a pretty good job of ignoring me in the end. God speed. If you're into that kind of thing. :-) 172.159.93.208 22:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)