User talk:192.76.8.77

November 2018

Hello, I'm QuickWittedHare. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Merchant Taylors' School, Northwood have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help Desk. Thanks. QUICKWITTEDHARE _CONVERSE 18:42, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

February 2020

Hello, I'm Oshwah. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Christ Church Regatta, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:35, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

July 2021

Hello, I'm ScottishFinnishRadish. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, All Saints Academy, Ingleby Barwick, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:48, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Apologies for deleting topics from Talk:Golden Verses & Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems

Hi 192.76.8.77,

Apologies for deleting topics from Talk:Golden Verses & Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems

I thought something would stop me if I wasn't allowed.

I apologize for the trouble I caused you.

It will not happen again.

Have a lovely day.

Regards

Daryl

Darylprasad (talk) 14:14, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your message on my talk page

Hi 192.76.8.77,

Thank you for your message.

You are really nice.

I am responding like this because I have decided to delete all messages from my talk page without reading them.

This saves me and everybody else a lot of time.

But I will read and respond to your messages like I am doing.

If anybody wants to revert a contribution of mine, so be it.

Please don't feel upset if I delete your message from my talk page.

Once again, thanks for writing to me.

Have a lovely day.

Regards

Daryl

PS I copied your message below so you don't lose it.

Darylprasad (talk) 14:37, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Your message is below:

Hello Daryl,

No worries, everyone does things that they're not supposed to do when they're getting started, that's to be expected. For future reference you can read about what is and isn't allowed on talk pages at the WP:Talk page guidelines.

I'm sorry that you've had a bit of a rough introduction to Wikipedia, it can be really difficult getting started here, the culture is very different from lots of other places on the internet. If you feel like giving it another go the WP:Teahouse is a relatively friendly place for beginners to ask questions about editing. 192.76.8.77 (talk) 14:22, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

@Darylprasad: Hello Daryl,

Thanks for the response to my message, I hope you haven't been scared away from the project entirely.

I know Wikipedia policy is confusing and sometimes seems to be contradictory, over the last 20 years Wikipedia policy has evolved to have the complexity of a small countries legal system. There are now thousands of policies and guidelines covering basically every aspect of editing, no-one is expected to know all of them.

If you do decide to give it another go take it slow, don't be afraid to ask at the WP:Teahouse or WP:Help Desk if you get stuck, and if you find yourself getting frustrated I find it's a good idea to take a break and go do something else for a while.

Hopefully we'll be seeing you around. 192.76.8.77 (talk) 14:58, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi 192.76.8.77,

Thank you for finding a way to talk to me without using my talk page.

That was very thoughtful of you.

I will keep contributing.

But I found there was no use having a reasonable and logical discussion.

Its only result was to take up hours of time.

I have much better things to do with my time than that.

There is a lot of politics going on here to say the least.

But that is to be expected on such a huge site.

But getting involved in the politics is not for me.

Once again, thank you for your kind words.

Regards

Daryl

Darylprasad (talk) 15:16, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

@Darylprasad: Hello again Daryl,

In my opinion there are two key things you need to do to have productive conversations on this site, particularly with regards to content disputes. The first is you need to keep your messages short and to the point, I personally like writing long, structured messages, but there are a lot of people on this site who aren't willing to read long comments. You'll also find that when you go to ask other people for advice they will be much more willing to help if you have a short and dense conversation to pick through, all our dispute resolution and administrative processes are run by unpaid volunteers and a lot of them are not willing to wade through pages and pages of discussions.

The second thing is that you have to frame your arguments in terms of Wikipedia policy. If someone says that your edit contains original research you need to explain why the edit doesn't, according to Wikipedia's definition of WP:Original Research. If someone says that a source isn't reliable you need to explain why it meets Wikipedia's definition of a WP:Reliable Source. These won't be the same as the definitions that you're used to in whatever prior writing experience you've had, e.g. in academic writing it's common to compare multiple sources and derive a conclusion, on Wikipedia deriving your own conclusion is prohibited.

I don't think you've really run into the political side of the site yet, I think you've just run into the learning cliff that comes with getting started, a lot of people are going to leave you a lot of messages with acronyms in them as you get started here, just read through them as they come up and you'll get the hang of the fundamental policies soon enough. Wikipedia:Five pillars is a good place to start, but to get the content you add to articles to stay you will also need to understand WP:Reliable Sources, WP:Verifiability, WP:No Original Research, WP:Notability and WP:Neutral Point of View.

As I said, take it slow, ask for help, discuss things when you have a disagreement and read policies and guidelines as they come up, I'm sure you'll get the hang of it in no time. 192.76.8.77 (talk) 15:57, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi 192.76.8.77,

Let me start off by saying that what I experienced has been going on since 500 b.c.

Plato and Socrates would often complain about the irrational nature of sophists.

Specifics

1. Outdated Sources

The problem I found was that only certain lines of Wikipedia policy ae followed.

And people only respond to the part of a sentence that favours their arguments.

Wikipedia policy on outdated sources is the following:

"However, some scholarly material may be outdated, in competition with alternative theories, controversial within the relevant field, or largely ignored by the mainstream academic discourse because of lack of citations. Try to cite current scholarly consensus when available, recognizing that this is often absent."

And when I wrote:

"It doesn't say that you should delete them because they are outdated. It just says that some sources may be outdated. That's it. Like a "reader beware". No mention of deletion. So you cannot use Wikipedia policy to justify your deletions. Please revert them."

The editor only chose to follow "Try to cite current scholarly consensus when available" and reverted my edit, clearly ignoring most of the policy and what I had written.

It is not reasonable and logical to only follow a small part of the policy. That kind of irrational behavior is common to sophists who want to move higher up the pyramid. I don't want to get involved with that kind of structure. But again, nothing new.

2. Original Research

I had no problem with the deletion of those contributions of mine that seemed like original research. Not much argument from me. But the policy is not consistently followed.

For example, when I deleted or put "citation needed" on many of the unsourced paragraphs in the Article "Classical Element", they were just simply reverted without explanation.

And if you revert them you get into an edit war and then more time is taken up with inane discussions that should not be taking place because the policy is clear.

3. Groups

Also on the "Copyright Problems" page there were 5 or 6 editors that seemed to be working together to revert any changes that I was suggesting. I don't think I am the first to experience that kind of behaviour. But that kind of group mentality is common with sophists because they are lonely people and continually need approval of those around them. But nothing new...been going on for thousands of years. But I don't want to be part of that.

Summary

All the above is irrational sophistical behavior that is common to that philosophy, because people want to move higher up the pyramid. That's fine if you want to do that, but I do not as there are much better things to do.

Generalities

1. Sophistry

I now understand now that sometimes Wikipedia will only allow major edits that are approved by editors higher up on the pyramid, even if the edit is reasonable and logical but differs from their opinion. And they will only use parts of policy sentences to justify their actions.

Suffice to say, with that going, the articles are no longer reliable and are only a mouthpiece for those higher up on the pyramid.

These things are blatantly obvious to me and are not worth trying to change because they have been going on with the sophist for thousands of years.

This would also be true for many sites providing encyclopaedic information, not just Wikipedia. And includes published encyclopaedias in book format. That is a shame.

If other people want to believe Wikipedia or other encyclopaedic articles are reliable, then that is a decision that they make.

2. Reliable Sources

I will not be considering as reliable, any information from large companies.

I will regard anything published by large companies as sophistry. That will save me a lot of time.

I will now only regard a reliable source as one that has been published in a book or volume by a single author or a few at most. And this again needs to be verified by other published authors.

My time is too valuable for it to be taken up by sophistical arguments on the Internet. Not just Wikipedia.

Thank you for your thoughts.

Have a lovely day.

Regards

Daryl

PS

Format of Messages

As for the format of my messages and the length, sophists like quick one-liners and ugly formatted text because then they don't have to think too much and are not interested in beauty. They are too busy satisfying their five senses by collecting atoms inside and outside their body. A life with only a material purpose. That is really sad, becasue they are missing out on so much.

Darylprasad (talk) 01:25, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

@Darylprasad: I hope you don’t mind me saying a few words. It looks like you’re making some really good edits, like the ones here. I'd like to lend a much less experienced hand to help out. From the looks of things you're a very valuable contributer to wikipedia. More valuable and more experienced than me I suspect! What I hope to offer is some general bureaucratic tips on wikipedia. Echoing what 192.76.8.77 said, there's a mountain of rules, but also resources to help you to edit.

I would first suggest that you allow people to talk to you on your talk page. This is to help people communicate with you (like I am now). It can also be helpful to link to specific edits you make when discussing them, like this [1]. All you need to do is view the edit history and click prev to show a specific edit that has occurred and put the URL in brackets []. My second tip is that you don't have to remove an edits that you make in non-article space like peoples talk pages or noticeboards, these places will get automatically archived when their time comes.

1. If you have extensively discussed edits on the talk of an article with an editor to no avail, the next point of call could be getting a third opinion. You can request an uninvolved editor to help settle a disagreement, stricly between two people. If there are more people involved (For example a cabal (Just kidding)), you can go to the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. If you do want to engage with either of those options, it will be helpful to read the pages to ensure you follow the correct protocols.

If the discussion is over the reliability of a source, the reliable source noticeboard is the best forum to resolve that issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pabsoluterince (talk • contribs) 15:43, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

2. You're completely correct that original research is not allowed on wikipedia, although, typically it is up to the person adding or removing content that needs to justify their actions. That is, if you found Darylprasad is a legendary editor on an article, you need to justify your removal for reasons such as original research, neutral point of view, notability and to throw in one more MOS:PEACOCK. This is obviously irrespective of the fact we both know it's true. Whereas you could revert my addition of Darylprasad is a legendary editor to an article, by simply saying that it needs to be WP:verified.

In the article Classical element, your addition of {{citation needed}} in the lead section was reverted, but they did leave their explanation, they said "For the most part, it is unnecessary to provide inline cites in lead sections". You can see this in the history of the page. This revert was done according to MOS:CITELEAD/WP:WHENNOTCITE, which says that information in the lead section can sometimes go without citations. Confusing, I know! But suffice to say that this revert was done according to the policies, not for any arbitrary reasons.

While on the topic, it's always a good decision to not WP:Editwar. That sort of thing is not constructive and can typically be sorted out with some civil discussion. It's always a good idea to WP:Assume good faith when people edit and especially revert your edits, most people are just here to build an encyclopaedia, not rise up the hierarchy.

3. Some citations cannot be perfectly investigated. Certain references taken from the internet have been moved and therefore doesn't point to any content, and some citations are to journals to which you don't have the subscription. In both these examples leaving the citation up is the best course of action as they indicate that the information is or was (probably) verifiable. But to move to your specific case there is a possibility that the editor translated the source themselves from the 1904 book, seems like WP:OR right? Well it's not. And unless you're able to disprove that fact (like I said earlier, the onus is on you to disprove) it should stay up.

In regards to the groups of editors, assume good faith. Unless I am part of that band of sophists, I can say from an uninvolved perspective that I agree with their decision, because of the aforementioned rules. Sometimes people just work together because they independently agree on something. Because wikipedia operates with the consensus, it can seem like people ganging up on you. I am happy to help you in the future if you think that people are working together to revert your changes, just leave a comment on my talk page.

1. I can say I really don't know what a sophist is haha! But wikipedia is not built like a hierarchy. Old users do not have an more control over consensus or what should go in an article than you do! (Wikipedia:But I'm an administrator!) Over time editors pick up more tools in their tool belt, like the ability to rename an article, just like you have gained the ability to edit semi and extended confirm protected pages. A role like administrator does not mean new privileges but more tools to help build an encyclopaedia. People trust the edits of administrators more, not because they are administrators, but because it means that they have experience and well the communities trust (administrators are voted in by the community). Yes there are still people who try to make it to admin for the tools, but no one lasts very long on wikipedia if they are unconstructive or go against the policies like Wikipedia:Civility (admins included).

The other good thing is that your edits don't need to be approved. I know that some of your edits are reverted, but as I see it most stay up. You are contributing to a more encyclopaedic encyclopaedia. This is without needing approval from the 'higher-ups' or changing what you add to suit what other people what. As long as you add information that is cited by reliable sources, the 'higher-ups' won't be able to revert a thing (maybe there's a couple other rules here or there).

2. Choosing the most reliable sources is a commendable practise. I personally add much more questional sources from very big companies. The difference often comes down to how controversial the topic is. Less controversial topics by their nature require less reliable sources, and vise versa.

Unfortunately, Wikipedia:There is no deadline on wikipedia. It is for that reason that arguments can reasonably go on for days. I understand that it can get frustrating when things move slowly, but it means that we can take the time to get things right. This slow and steady philosophy makes sense when you remember that wikipedia wants a world with free access to the sum of all knowledge.

PS. I hope my formatting was okay for you to read. Also I hope you don't think I am talking down to you, I am really not trying to do that at all! People learn things at different rates and I just wasn't sure what you have and haven't mastered yet.

PPS. Make sure that your signature comes after all your writing.

Hope this finds you well, Pabsoluterince (talk) 15:31, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

November 2021

Hello, I'm Gatemansgc. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Saffron Walden have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thanks. Gatemansgc (TɅ̊LK) 17:40, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi:

About this message you left me, I'm only allowing admins and other users who are logged in to guide me on certain policies, in order to minimize the risk of me confusing other IP editors with long-term troublemakers. I understand that you were only helping me, but I think it's best if I get guided by admins ONLY. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 18:18, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Sorry:

I apologize for the message I left you above, as I wasn't really in my right mind at all to assume that only admins would be the ones to warn me. I guess that might have slipped my mind, and I won't talk down to you like that again. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 21:36, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

FWIW

I've had a few conversations with wiki-friends about "Could anyone ever again pass RfA within a year of registration?" There are four names (or lack-of-names) that reliably come up. Sadly we will presumably never again have an IP admin (yes! it happened! Special:Contribs/61.9.128.xxx, before they registered as Robert Merkel, per User:NoSeptember/Early admins (20 Sept 2002))... But you're the first on the list I've heard express some amount of openness to registering.

Just sayin'. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 19:45, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

@Tamzin: I honestly didn't think that anyone had taken much notice of my editing here, I certainly didn't think that anyone was discussing my editing! I expect if I registered an account at this point though I'd end up blocked as an "obvious sock of someone" for not being incompetent enough, I'm not completely against the idea of creating an account though. I don't think I'd stand much chance of passing an RFA because my article space contributions tend to be mostly gnomey stuff and I spend a lot of time in project space these days. Just out of curiosity, who are the other 3 IP's? 192.76.8.77 (talk) 23:40, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

P.S. You should definitely run for adminship at some point, I think you'd be great at it.

Well, I certainly have :) How many of the four do you reckon occupy this range? 192.76.8.77 (talk) 21:56, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Why

Why are you posting an edit request at the top of the page? - FlightTime (open channel) 22:35, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

@FlightTime: That's the standard format SPI cases are created in when you make them as an IP, that page isn't a talk page for discussion: it's a content page in the wrong namespace (since I can't make pages in the wikipedia namespace as an IP). The clerks at SPI decided that they want the edit request at the top and deliberatley set it up that way in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Inputbox blank report for ordinary use for IPs (I think since the sections at the bottom are for discussion by checkusers and admins). 192.76.8.77 (talk) 22:42, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

It seems it would be a lot better, easier for you to create an account and take care of this stuff yourself. - FlightTime (open channel) 22:59, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Each to their own. Pabsoluterince (talk) 11:11, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, and thank you for lending your time to help improve Wikipedia! If you are interested in continuing to edit, I suggest you create an account to gain additional privileges. Happy editing! Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 17:30, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

@Pizzaplayer219: People have their own reasons for not creating an account, and this IP editor has probably been here for longer than you have. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 23:19, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Just a recommendation for someone who has a really good experience with Wikipedia. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 23:33, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

---