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)[reply]
@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. ±
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 there13:05, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@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.
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 there17:33, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]
Here's a reason to not be anonymous: You do not have to go through Articles for Creation. I noticed your AfC was rejected (and may have been rejected for cause.) But the AfC people reject some good articles. Example, I wrote an article about one of the very first 16-bit microprocessors that was produced by the thousands. AfC claimed this was non-notable! A good, prolific editor like you should be registered. RastaKins (talk) 05:18, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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.
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"
"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.
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)[reply]
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:
This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:
in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
The comment the reviewer left was:
I'm not seeing any evidence in this article that the concept of the 3 rivers is notable enough for its own article, as opposed to being mentioned in the 3 seperate articles which it already is. You would need to find sources that discuss the 3 rivers as a whole.
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.
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! CoconutOctopustalk18:57, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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.
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.
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@Glenn L: You're very welcome. Nothing you said was wrong, but I worried it gave the impression that the properties had something to do with primality. I also wonder whether the explanation is too elementary or too advanced.
