User talk:2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:BDC2:D617:CAB6:BBF1
Cohen crime family
[edit]Appreciate your thoughts on the Cohen crime family template thing, though I don't agree. I was curious why you're not signed on. Clearly you've "been around the block," so to speak. That's why I'm not posting a welcome template here. Coretheapple (talk) 19:26, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- User:Coretheapple Registering has both advantages and disadvantages. When I first started editing routinely a few years back I had a conversation about it. I no longer remember all the details but the argument in favor of staying unregistered seemed convincing at the time. Honestly after all this time making an account would feel well weird for lack of a better term. I just wish I knew how to keep my IP from changing; a lot of other people do not have that problem so I am sure there is some fix, I would just have to spend a bunch of time researching it. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:BDC2:D617:CAB6:BBF1 (talk) 21:29, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- OK, I was just curious. It'e probably unfair, but IP editors have less credibility in a given situation than registered editors, just as registered editors have less prestige than administrators. Which reminds me, I had planned to expound on that hierarchy in an essay. Coretheapple (talk) 21:39, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- User:Coretheapple I suppose there is some truth in that, even if officially we say there isn't. However that is actually an advantage in terms of staying unregistered. No one will be convinced just on your say-so or take actions just as a result of you being the person to suggest them, so all of your recommendations have to be carefully grounded by reference to policies and guidelines. In sum it compels you to develop a strong knowledge of policies, guidelines, and applicable procedures, and makes it less likely that if you make a mistake that other people will blindly follow you in error. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:BDC2:D617:CAB6:BBF1 (talk) 21:47, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- You have a very good point there. Ever think of writing an essay about it? I just wrote an essay WP:You have a right to remain silent and I rather enjoyed it. Coretheapple (talk) 22:30, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- It's not exactly original to me, but I guess I could try to put something together. That is a nice essay. Ironically that is one case where administrators are at a bit of a disadvantage compared to everyone else in that they are required to respond sometimes. Meanwhile one of the big IP advantages is that not only are you not required to respond, but no even cares that you don't. You can literally just disappear and no one will bother you or care. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:BDC2:D617:CAB6:BBF1 (talk) 22:44, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- That's right. No one ever says "say, whatever happened to User:2343:343343:234334?" lol Coretheapple (talk) 23:02, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- It's not exactly original to me, but I guess I could try to put something together. That is a nice essay. Ironically that is one case where administrators are at a bit of a disadvantage compared to everyone else in that they are required to respond sometimes. Meanwhile one of the big IP advantages is that not only are you not required to respond, but no even cares that you don't. You can literally just disappear and no one will bother you or care. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:BDC2:D617:CAB6:BBF1 (talk) 22:44, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- You have a very good point there. Ever think of writing an essay about it? I just wrote an essay WP:You have a right to remain silent and I rather enjoyed it. Coretheapple (talk) 22:30, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- User:Coretheapple I suppose there is some truth in that, even if officially we say there isn't. However that is actually an advantage in terms of staying unregistered. No one will be convinced just on your say-so or take actions just as a result of you being the person to suggest them, so all of your recommendations have to be carefully grounded by reference to policies and guidelines. In sum it compels you to develop a strong knowledge of policies, guidelines, and applicable procedures, and makes it less likely that if you make a mistake that other people will blindly follow you in error. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:BDC2:D617:CAB6:BBF1 (talk) 21:47, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- OK, I was just curious. It'e probably unfair, but IP editors have less credibility in a given situation than registered editors, just as registered editors have less prestige than administrators. Which reminds me, I had planned to expound on that hierarchy in an essay. Coretheapple (talk) 21:39, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
January 2024
[edit]
Hello, I'm ItsCheck. An edit that you recently made to Charlotte Country Day School seemed to be a test and has been reverted. If you want to practice editing, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! ItsCheck (talk) 01:10, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- User:ItsCheck umm it wasn't a test, did you look at the Help:Diff or check the WP:Edit summary? 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:BDC2:D617:CAB6:BBF1 (talk) 01:11, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- @2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:BDC2:D617:CAB6:BBF1, I did not realize you made a good faith edit because I did not look at your edit summary, and it very easy to assume that an IP has no knowledge on the manual of style. I just made a mistake. It appeared that you removed a wikilink without reasoning.ItsCheck (talk) 01:22, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- User:ItsCheck this is the diff. The only way to determine whether someone had reasoning is to look at the edit summary, otherwise you are just reverting blindly. It was not in any way a negative change, it was positive change to make the article MOS compliant as you would have known if you had read the edit summary! Your inability to recognize that reading edit summaries is vital to determining why an edit was made suggests that you should not be making these reverts. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:BDC2:D617:CAB6:BBF1 (talk) 01:28, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- @2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:BDC2:D617:CAB6:BBF1, please do not assume that I avoid reading edit summaries to save some time and personally attack me. You need to understand that I am somewhat familiar with Wikipedia as evident by my contributions, and that I just made a minor mistake. If you want to teach or show me something, you may go ahead and link a help article. Thank you, ItsCheck (talk) 01:38, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- I've linked multiple help pages, and I assume nothing. I said nothing about you saving time, and to quote you directly "I did not realize you made a good faith edit because I did not look at your edit summary" so no assumption was needed, you outright stated it! As for mistakes, fine we all make them but from this my only take away can be that you aren't reviewing edit summaries to determine whether or not WP:BADREVERT applies which is not appropriate. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:BDC2:D617:CAB6:BBF1 (talk) 01:47, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- @2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:BDC2:D617:CAB6:BBF1, me not looking at the edit summary is fact, I claimed it and do not deny it. I understand that you are concerned that I made such a simple mistake. The thing I simply want you to understand is this error is one-time and has never recurred. I do indeed review edit summaries, it is the first place I look when reviewing differences of revisions. If you have any other questions or concerns, absolutely bring them up. ItsCheck (talk) 01:54, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- User:ItsCheck I'm content to take it on good-faith that this is not a common issue for you, but I hope you can understand why this, since modified, message would be very concerning in determining whether someone knew what checks to do before reverting. I would also take the other concerns on your talk page seriously. I would also hazard a guess that it takes some time to find a mentor to guide someone through WP:CVUA, so I would consider applying sooner rather than later. I am not saying you have to do so, but under the circumstances it would be a well-advised step. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:BDC2:D617:CAB6:BBF1 (talk) 02:00, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- @2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:BDC2:D617:CAB6:BBF1 I know it all sounds concerning, but I strongly believe I do not need help until further notice. I have been advised on multiple occasions to read help articles, and I can confirm that it has really helped me in the past and I see it as a good path for the future. Any additional assistance is appreciated. ItsCheck (talk) 02:11, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- User:ItsCheck I'm content to take it on good-faith that this is not a common issue for you, but I hope you can understand why this, since modified, message would be very concerning in determining whether someone knew what checks to do before reverting. I would also take the other concerns on your talk page seriously. I would also hazard a guess that it takes some time to find a mentor to guide someone through WP:CVUA, so I would consider applying sooner rather than later. I am not saying you have to do so, but under the circumstances it would be a well-advised step. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:BDC2:D617:CAB6:BBF1 (talk) 02:00, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- @2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:BDC2:D617:CAB6:BBF1, me not looking at the edit summary is fact, I claimed it and do not deny it. I understand that you are concerned that I made such a simple mistake. The thing I simply want you to understand is this error is one-time and has never recurred. I do indeed review edit summaries, it is the first place I look when reviewing differences of revisions. If you have any other questions or concerns, absolutely bring them up. ItsCheck (talk) 01:54, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- I've linked multiple help pages, and I assume nothing. I said nothing about you saving time, and to quote you directly "I did not realize you made a good faith edit because I did not look at your edit summary" so no assumption was needed, you outright stated it! As for mistakes, fine we all make them but from this my only take away can be that you aren't reviewing edit summaries to determine whether or not WP:BADREVERT applies which is not appropriate. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:BDC2:D617:CAB6:BBF1 (talk) 01:47, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- @2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:BDC2:D617:CAB6:BBF1, please do not assume that I avoid reading edit summaries to save some time and personally attack me. You need to understand that I am somewhat familiar with Wikipedia as evident by my contributions, and that I just made a minor mistake. If you want to teach or show me something, you may go ahead and link a help article. Thank you, ItsCheck (talk) 01:38, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- User:ItsCheck this is the diff. The only way to determine whether someone had reasoning is to look at the edit summary, otherwise you are just reverting blindly. It was not in any way a negative change, it was positive change to make the article MOS compliant as you would have known if you had read the edit summary! Your inability to recognize that reading edit summaries is vital to determining why an edit was made suggests that you should not be making these reverts. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:BDC2:D617:CAB6:BBF1 (talk) 01:28, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- @2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:BDC2:D617:CAB6:BBF1, I did not realize you made a good faith edit because I did not look at your edit summary, and it very easy to assume that an IP has no knowledge on the manual of style. I just made a mistake. It appeared that you removed a wikilink without reasoning.ItsCheck (talk) 01:22, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 | This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address. |