User talk:192.150.5.150

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Welcome!

Hello 192.150.5.150, and welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Newcomers help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user talk page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

If you want to have full rights here, get an account!

I notice you are known only as an IP address; that means you are not signed up. It is imperative for you to get an account as soon as possible, instead of using various anonymous IP numbers (which reveal where you are located).

Jimbo Wales, the founder of Wikipedia, has written that:

  • users with "anonymous IP numbers do not have the same civil rights as logged in members of the community. If you want to be a good editor, get an account, make good edits." -- Jimbo Wales

To create an account, you only need to choose a username and password. You don't need to provide any personal information. If you sign up, you'll have a username that others can use to recognize you and leave you messages on the wiki. You'll be able to sign your name just by typing four tildes (~~~~) when you leave someone else a message on a talk ("discussion") page.

If you have any questions, see the help pages, ask at the Village pump, or feel free to ask me on my talk page. I hope that you will become a regular editor. Again, welcome! -- Fyslee/talk 16:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Login

Hi Lee. Would you mind logging in when you edit [1] [2] [3] stuff you've previously contributed to? These pages have attracted a lot of anonymous editors, and I'd hate for a well-established editor's contributions to get lost in the shuffle. Thanks! Skinwalker 19:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Lee, please remember to log-in. -- Fyslee/talk 21:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copied from 3RR noticeboard

Further comment: Note that the four reverts involved two separate issues. One of the edits was simply removing "Mr." which is a perfectly standard and trivial fix to meet WP biographical style. The other involved removing a description of the subject of the article as a "non-xxxx" on the grounds that we typical describe people by what they are (not what they aren't) and that it was a provocative attempt to poison the well by an editor that has been engaged in active warfare against an entire subsection of WP. Why this editor raises the issue of "sockpuppetry" when all the edits were done by the same account, I can only conclude is another attempt to poison the well. --192.150.5.150 20:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

And now we have personal attacks. If you read my complaint, I was very careful not to accuse you of sockpuppetry. Are you denying that you are User:LeeHunter? Cheers, Skinwalker 14:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your response. Are you or are you not User:LeeHunter? Cheers, Skinwalker 14:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Lee Hunter, there is no need to exercise bad faith by making such accusations ("poison the well") against me. (I'm the one who described Vithoulkas as a non-physician.) I did it to make sure no one made the logical mistake of assuming he was a medically qualified and educated physician, which he is not. Most people in his position would be MDs or NDs, so readers would be likely to make that mistake and should be informed properly, since failure to do so may cause them to assume he knows more than he does. Just assume good faith and don't make personal attacks. Maybe your family involvement in this matter is making you a bit sensitive, but please try to leave that out of your editing and commenting here. -- Fyslee/talk 15:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing at Homeopathy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. 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. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Skinwalker 20:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)