User talk:208.7.178.2
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Welcome!
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions.
Currently, you are editing without a username. You can continue to do so, as you are not required to log in to Wikipedia to read and edit articles; however, logging in will result in a username being shown instead of your IP address (yours is 208.7.178.2). Logging in does not require any personal details, and there are many other benefits for logging in.
When you edit pages:
- Please respect others' copyrights; do not copy and paste the contents from webpages directly.
- Please use a neutral point of view when editing articles; this is possibly the most important Wikipedia policy.
- If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
- Do not add unreasonable contents into any articles, such as copyrighted text, advertisement messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Adding such content or editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism.
The Wikipedia Tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. For now, if you are stuck, you can click the edit this page tab above, type {{helpme}} in the edit box, and then click Save Page; an experienced Wikipedian will be around shortly to answer any questions you may have. Also feel free to ask a question on my talk page. I will answer your questions as far as I can! Thank you again for contributing to Wikipedia. --AW 18:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
No help needed, but thanks for the message. 208.7.178.2 20:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Your recent edit to Barry Bonds (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // MartinBot 22:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] February 2008
Welcome, and thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test on the page Rosie O'Donnell worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Wikitumnus (talk) 20:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
[edit] and again
Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits, such as those you made to The 4-Hour Workweek, are considered vandalism and immediately reverted. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Benjiboi 21:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] and again...
This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Alycia Lane, you will be blocked from editing. Rollosmokes (talk) 05:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] New Entry
Please pardon me if this is not the proper way to respond to your messages. Although I am a frequent anonymous contributor to Wikipedia (for instance, to articles concerning the United States Code and Detainee Treatment Act), it appears as though you have a case of mistaken identity -- or perhaps overbroad identity. I personally have never visited pages related to Barry Bonds, Alycia Lane, or the Four-Hour Work Week. Assuming there have indeed been bona fide offending entries for these pages and the entries are attributable to an IP address corresponding to mine (I am not sure if that is the case), I suspect these entries were made by another person at the office at which I work. I understand and sympathize with the difficulties inherent in controlling a network point accessible by thousands of individuals; however, I reiterate that I have never visited nor edited the pages mentioned above. As such, the threat of what appears to be a writ-large ban -- without further evidence and some kind of direct contact to permit verifiction of your claims -- seems wildly inappropriate, as this with one fell swoop will prohibit my and others' potential constructive contributions.
If you would like to discuss further, please respond in the same manner as your initial contact was made or furnish an alternative means of communication. Thank you for your attention to this matter.208.7.178.2 (talk) 15:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- All you have to do is create a username for yourself and you will be able to constructively contribute all you like without being lumped in and blocked along with the vandal who apparently shares your IP address. You don't have to give out any personally identifying information to create a username. And frankly, I find anonymous contributions to be far less credible than those to which people are willing to sign at least a pseudonym. My initials are -- JTRH (talk) 19:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for your comments. Another concern occurs to me as well: assuming the offender chooses to continue his or her behavior, does a block of the kind threatened affect access to Wikipedia by anyone attempting such access using my location's network (irrespective of whether he or she has an account)? If so, the creation of a username seems rather fruitless. It appears the offending party's actions seem to be having a ripple effect, and that's something that generally can't be controlled. In any event, and with due respect to your opinion regarding credibility, one of Wikipedia's most enduring virtues is its unyielding preservation of the right to contribute information and discourse while remaining anonymous (even in the face of immature vandalism). The site's remarkable toleration for differences of opinion (permeating down even to differences of opinion regarding how do discuss differences of opinion) -- though perhaps often unnoticed and unsung, and more often lambasted -- remains its greatest strength. A component of that strength is the site's operators' ability to calmly but vigilantly distinguish legitimate and wholly inane contributions, and make corrections accordingly. I have faith that Wikipedia can continue to do this and weather the temporary storm of an offender who surely will not have the energy to keep making inane edits if they are consistently deleted.208.7.178.2 (talk) 20:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- does a block of the kind threatened affect access to Wikipedia by anyone attempting such access using my location's network (irrespective of whether he or she has an account)
- I'm not sure, but I think that having a username means you can post even from a blocked IP as long as you're signed on.
- an offender who surely will not have the energy to keep making inane edits if they are consistently deleted
- Wanna bet? JTRH (talk) 14:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Please refer to the commentary from this IP address made below in the section titled "whomever is editing from this IP . . ." for further discussion. Thank you.208.7.178.2 (talk) 15:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for your comments. Another concern occurs to me as well: assuming the offender chooses to continue his or her behavior, does a block of the kind threatened affect access to Wikipedia by anyone attempting such access using my location's network (irrespective of whether he or she has an account)? If so, the creation of a username seems rather fruitless. It appears the offending party's actions seem to be having a ripple effect, and that's something that generally can't be controlled. In any event, and with due respect to your opinion regarding credibility, one of Wikipedia's most enduring virtues is its unyielding preservation of the right to contribute information and discourse while remaining anonymous (even in the face of immature vandalism). The site's remarkable toleration for differences of opinion (permeating down even to differences of opinion regarding how do discuss differences of opinion) -- though perhaps often unnoticed and unsung, and more often lambasted -- remains its greatest strength. A component of that strength is the site's operators' ability to calmly but vigilantly distinguish legitimate and wholly inane contributions, and make corrections accordingly. I have faith that Wikipedia can continue to do this and weather the temporary storm of an offender who surely will not have the energy to keep making inane edits if they are consistently deleted.208.7.178.2 (talk) 20:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Whomever is editing from this IP...
...She may not be working right now, but Alycia Lane is **still** a journalist. Please stop changing this fact. And someone, please get a user name. Rollosmokes (talk) 05:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for your comments. Regarding obtaining a user name, please refer to the comments made above from this IP address regarding maintenance of anonymity. Wikipedia professes to cherish the right of anonymity and it deserves respect for consistently protecing that right. As noted above, this appears to be a situation where an immature offender is abusing the right; such abuse portends to undermine the potency of Wikipedia's altruistic philosophy. The tension that has resulted is both understandable and unfortunate. Nevertheless, I am confident that Wikipedia is both strong and smart enough to respond to this challenge appropriately, without succumbing to the temptation (similar to the temptation we all face) to abandon its principles at the first sign of difficulty. Regarding temporary solutions to this continuing problem, I would suggest that, for the time being, the page for Alycia Lane be locked. While this may be a drastic move, it is no less drastic than blocking access to Wikipedia for hundreds of individuals (something that, as mentioned above, is a looming prospect even if certain individuals choose to discard their anonymity and obtain a user name). Another suggestion (if feasible) would be to block merely this IP number's access to Alycia Lane page. Presumably, persons accessing Wikipedia from this IP address could still edit the Alycia Lane page -- they merely would need to access the talk page associated with the "edit protected" function, and propose edits which Wikipedia could reviewed for appropriateness. If this latter suggestion is feasible, please implement it with dispatch. If you wish to discuss further, please respond at your earliest convenience on this talk page. Thank you, again.208.7.178.2 (talk) 15:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- It's obvious from these comments that you care a lot about Wikipedia, and that you've given this situation a great deal of thought. Adopting a username doesn't require you to give out any kind of personally identifying information. No one knows who another user is in real life unless the person chooses to publish that information on his or her talk page. So I'm not sure why you feel that posting under a pseudonym instead of a number somehow compromises your right to remain anonymous. I don't know whether it's technically feasible to block one IP's address to one page. I'm pretty sure that edit-protecting a page means that only registered users (i.e., not people posting from anonymous IP's) can edit it. I don't think it makes the page subject to moderation. Even if that is possible, I see no reason why anyone should have to take the time and trouble to review and clear every comment submitted to a page simply because it's been anonymously vandalized in the past. With all due respect, your suggestions above are asking for a lot of people to make a lot of effort to do a lot of things to solve a problem which is occurring on your end (the vandal is at your IP), and you're refusing to contribute to the solution by taking even a small step on your own part, the step which Wikipedia recommends in these cases and which most of the community finds perfectly reasonable. None of the steps which you recommend above for other people would be necessary if you would get a username. Thanks. JTRH (talk) 16:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- The Alycia Lane article has been vandalized again from your IP within the last few minutes. JTRH (talk) 19:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- You are correct that I do care very much about Wikipedia, as it has become my and countless others' preferred first stop in our research endeavors. Your other assumptions, however, are off the mark. My objection to a writ-large blockage has nothing to do with my personal access to page-editing, for I personally have, and for some time have had, a username. I make contributions both with a username and anonymously. I cannot attest to whether others who utilize this IP address are more protective of their anonymity -- but nevertheless, I respect their right to maintain such anonymity. (Wikipedia professes to do the same, a fact reflected by how it enables anonymous contribution and (at least until now) does not make creation of an account a prerequisite for such contribution.) Regardless, your characterization of my behavior as a personal "refus[al] to contribute to the solution by taking even a small step on [my] part" is ill-informed and illogical. As noted, in my personal capacity I have already taken the "small step" that you protest "most of the community finds perfectly reasonable." Notwithstanding your protestation's dubious underlying premises (insofar as (1) the "community" to which you refer is by nature composed exclusively of those who have already opted to personally create an account, and more importantly, (2) you presume to know the views that others who have *personally* created accounts harbor regarding the erosion of the *general* right of anonymity that you appear to advocate -- my own views on the subject undermine this presumption), you do not make clear how your recommended course of action (viz, my personally creating an account) has "contribute[d] to the solution" in the slightest, or in any way obviates "the steps which [I] recommend for other people." Indeed, the offending entries are still being made. Meanwhile, your apparent suggestion -- that I personally take ownership of the actions of someone (1) who may or may not be a member or employee of the entity to which this IP address is attributed, but (2) with whom I and other employees have no greater connection than that I share with him / her the same IP address -- is deleterious and counterproductive. It is akin to arguing that a person is obligated to bear financial responsibility for the destructive acts of his/her distant cousin, simply because they share the same last name. I have no more idea who is making these offending edits than you do. Further, I have no idea if the offender is even a member or employee of the very large entity to which this IP address is attributed. Indeed, though my personal knowledge of computer network technology is somewhat small, I submit it is entirely possible that that the offender could be a hacker or other individual who, far from being merely indifferent to the tension that has acquainted you and me, *wishes* to create it by piggy-backing on the entity's IP address from a remote location. And surely, you cannot possibly know whether the means at my disposal to discover if this is the case are any greater than the means you have at yours to "take the time and trouble to review and clear every comment submitted . . . ." With all these issues in flux, and given your own lack of knowledge regarding the feasibility of other proposed solutions, the writ-large blockage that you continue to threaten remains a drastic and inappropriate remedy -- one perhaps akin to trying to swat a fly by using napalm. As the situation stands now, to move this dialogue forward I have made two suggestions. You have not addressed whether Wikipedia will "edit protect" the Alycia Lane page generally -- an undeniably simple step, given that Wikipedia tends to do it as a matter of course when pages are vandalized). "Edit protecting" will afford a temporary solution to the problem, until it can be determined whether the offender is a habitual one or, conversely, simply has an ax to grind with Alycia Lane. Your response to my second suggestion remains incomplete, as you cannot attest to whether it is "technically feasible to block one IP's address to one page." I suggest that you or others at Wikipedia research this option's feasibility with your superiors before concluding that the situation is so intractable that a wholesale blockage of the entire website is the only answer. Still another suggestion would be that you examine the content of the Alycia Lane page (a page that I have never personally accessed and do not intend to access, lest I be accused of somehow being a party to vandalism) to determine whether the offender's contributions -- however inappropriate in their form -- bear some legitimacy in their content. If so, perhaps altering the page's passages to incorporate the legitimate portion of the offender's commentary will stem the tide of offensive contributions. (Please bear in mind that this is not a normative prescription for general appeasement, but rather simply a suggestion geared toward quickly and reasonably halting a problem that is threatening to spiral out of control.) Meanwhile, and in the interest of fairness, I welcome any suggestions you may have regarding how I and others can track down the offender (assuming he/she is in the midst of those who genuinely use this IP addresss), so that we may admonish the offender for his/her inappropriate behavior. I look forward to discussing this issue further with you or your superiors. Thank you for your attention to this matter.208.7.178.2 (talk) 00:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not someone "at Wikipedia." I'm not an administrator and I have no "superiors." I'm simply a user who was trying to stop repeated vandalism, apparently originating from your IP, to a page to which I'd contributed. I have neither the interest nor the obligation to involve myself further in this matter. JTRH (talk) 01:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- You are correct that I do care very much about Wikipedia, as it has become my and countless others' preferred first stop in our research endeavors. Your other assumptions, however, are off the mark. My objection to a writ-large blockage has nothing to do with my personal access to page-editing, for I personally have, and for some time have had, a username. I make contributions both with a username and anonymously. I cannot attest to whether others who utilize this IP address are more protective of their anonymity -- but nevertheless, I respect their right to maintain such anonymity. (Wikipedia professes to do the same, a fact reflected by how it enables anonymous contribution and (at least until now) does not make creation of an account a prerequisite for such contribution.) Regardless, your characterization of my behavior as a personal "refus[al] to contribute to the solution by taking even a small step on [my] part" is ill-informed and illogical. As noted, in my personal capacity I have already taken the "small step" that you protest "most of the community finds perfectly reasonable." Notwithstanding your protestation's dubious underlying premises (insofar as (1) the "community" to which you refer is by nature composed exclusively of those who have already opted to personally create an account, and more importantly, (2) you presume to know the views that others who have *personally* created accounts harbor regarding the erosion of the *general* right of anonymity that you appear to advocate -- my own views on the subject undermine this presumption), you do not make clear how your recommended course of action (viz, my personally creating an account) has "contribute[d] to the solution" in the slightest, or in any way obviates "the steps which [I] recommend for other people." Indeed, the offending entries are still being made. Meanwhile, your apparent suggestion -- that I personally take ownership of the actions of someone (1) who may or may not be a member or employee of the entity to which this IP address is attributed, but (2) with whom I and other employees have no greater connection than that I share with him / her the same IP address -- is deleterious and counterproductive. It is akin to arguing that a person is obligated to bear financial responsibility for the destructive acts of his/her distant cousin, simply because they share the same last name. I have no more idea who is making these offending edits than you do. Further, I have no idea if the offender is even a member or employee of the very large entity to which this IP address is attributed. Indeed, though my personal knowledge of computer network technology is somewhat small, I submit it is entirely possible that that the offender could be a hacker or other individual who, far from being merely indifferent to the tension that has acquainted you and me, *wishes* to create it by piggy-backing on the entity's IP address from a remote location. And surely, you cannot possibly know whether the means at my disposal to discover if this is the case are any greater than the means you have at yours to "take the time and trouble to review and clear every comment submitted . . . ." With all these issues in flux, and given your own lack of knowledge regarding the feasibility of other proposed solutions, the writ-large blockage that you continue to threaten remains a drastic and inappropriate remedy -- one perhaps akin to trying to swat a fly by using napalm. As the situation stands now, to move this dialogue forward I have made two suggestions. You have not addressed whether Wikipedia will "edit protect" the Alycia Lane page generally -- an undeniably simple step, given that Wikipedia tends to do it as a matter of course when pages are vandalized). "Edit protecting" will afford a temporary solution to the problem, until it can be determined whether the offender is a habitual one or, conversely, simply has an ax to grind with Alycia Lane. Your response to my second suggestion remains incomplete, as you cannot attest to whether it is "technically feasible to block one IP's address to one page." I suggest that you or others at Wikipedia research this option's feasibility with your superiors before concluding that the situation is so intractable that a wholesale blockage of the entire website is the only answer. Still another suggestion would be that you examine the content of the Alycia Lane page (a page that I have never personally accessed and do not intend to access, lest I be accused of somehow being a party to vandalism) to determine whether the offender's contributions -- however inappropriate in their form -- bear some legitimacy in their content. If so, perhaps altering the page's passages to incorporate the legitimate portion of the offender's commentary will stem the tide of offensive contributions. (Please bear in mind that this is not a normative prescription for general appeasement, but rather simply a suggestion geared toward quickly and reasonably halting a problem that is threatening to spiral out of control.) Meanwhile, and in the interest of fairness, I welcome any suggestions you may have regarding how I and others can track down the offender (assuming he/she is in the midst of those who genuinely use this IP addresss), so that we may admonish the offender for his/her inappropriate behavior. I look forward to discussing this issue further with you or your superiors. Thank you for your attention to this matter.208.7.178.2 (talk) 00:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- The Alycia Lane article has been vandalized again from your IP within the last few minutes. JTRH (talk) 19:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- It's obvious from these comments that you care a lot about Wikipedia, and that you've given this situation a great deal of thought. Adopting a username doesn't require you to give out any kind of personally identifying information. No one knows who another user is in real life unless the person chooses to publish that information on his or her talk page. So I'm not sure why you feel that posting under a pseudonym instead of a number somehow compromises your right to remain anonymous. I don't know whether it's technically feasible to block one IP's address to one page. I'm pretty sure that edit-protecting a page means that only registered users (i.e., not people posting from anonymous IP's) can edit it. I don't think it makes the page subject to moderation. Even if that is possible, I see no reason why anyone should have to take the time and trouble to review and clear every comment submitted to a page simply because it's been anonymously vandalized in the past. With all due respect, your suggestions above are asking for a lot of people to make a lot of effort to do a lot of things to solve a problem which is occurring on your end (the vandal is at your IP), and you're refusing to contribute to the solution by taking even a small step on your own part, the step which Wikipedia recommends in these cases and which most of the community finds perfectly reasonable. None of the steps which you recommend above for other people would be necessary if you would get a username. Thanks. JTRH (talk) 16:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] I move for a block
Either this user is particularly unaware of basic computer usage (unlikely if they are indeed in an office and quite ably to edit by all evidence) or they are advanced trolling. Both situations are easily remedied by blocking the anon IP edits and requiring anyone using this IP to register a free and quite anonymous account. Benjiboi 19:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
You have been temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia as a result of your disruptive edits. You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note that vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our policies concerning neutral point of view and biographies of living persons will not be tolerated. Gamaliel (talk) 22:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- This IP user is evading his/her block by continuing to vandalize the Alycia Lane article. An administrator warning will be greatly appreciated. Rollosmokes (talk) 06:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] March 2008
Hi, the recent edit you made to Geraldine Ferraro has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. —DerHexer (Talk) 20:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
The recent edit you made to Geraldine Ferraro constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to vandalize pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thanks. —DerHexer (Talk) 20:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC))
Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, as you did to Geraldine Ferraro, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. NewEnglandYankee (talk) 20:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] AfD nomination of Alycia Lane
An editor has nominated Alycia Lane, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alycia Lane (2nd nomination) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 22:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 | This is the discussion page for an anonymous user, identified by the user's numerical IP address. Some IP addresses change periodically, and may be shared by several users. If you are an anonymous user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other anonymous users. Registering also hides your IP address. [WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • Traceroute • Geolocate • Tor check • Rangeblock finder] · [RIRs: America · Europe · Africa · Asia-Pacific · Latin America/Caribbean] |
