User talk:75.162.179.246

Tense

Articles on historical matters are to be written in the past tense. This includes articles on historical technology such as Applesoft BASIC. A technology is (generally) regarded as historical if you cannot go into a present day store and buy it new. As WP:TENSE states, articles about works of fiction ("TV shows, movies, and plays" etc.) should be written in the present tense as they are considered to 'come alive' for their audience, so that is a non argument. As far as Casablanca is concerned, the historical parts of the article are written in the past tense so that is another non argument. Unless you meant Casablanca (film), but then that is a work of fiction - so present tense. Phonograph cylinders is also written in the past tense, so I do not see your argument here either. It is possible that there are historical articles written in the present tense, but an article's failure to follow policy is not an excuse for another article to do the same. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 13:52, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Who says those other articles are "breaking the rule"? What if your interpretation of the rule is just wrong? Also, why are you focused on just the one article, then? Why don't you go to all of those other articles about old things like the phonograph cylinder and edit them to past-tense? No, read it, it's in present tense! No, the kind of history that rule is talking about are things that aren't still the case, such as "George W. Bush was the 43rd president of the United States of America."

Oh, let's see... phonograph cylinders is mixed. Let me go find a better example, then.

Okay, go look at the lede of Wire Recording, and then take a look at Commodore Amiga, and then tell me why they are in the present tense. Why are there so many old things like that here that were never written up as "breaking the rule"? And again, if you're so concerned about that and if you're sure you're interpreting the rule right, why don't you go "fix" them?

75.162.179.246 (talk) 18:00, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh, also, DieSwartzPunkt (talk), if you were so adamant about helping out making sure this article is past-tensed, then why didn't you adjust that over at Commodore 1541 when you edit-warred with me about my having restored the unofficially documented fact that a certain weird way of programming the drive can make it "sing"?

75.169.14.135 (talk) 08:33, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

While reviewing your edits, I have uncovered edidence that you are engaged in sockpuppetry. You have changed the tense of a number of other historical technological articles using this IPv4 address. A number of similar changes have occured using various IPv6 addresses starting "2600:100E:B12C ..." and "2001:982:edc:1 ...". In Commodore 64, you used one of these IPv6 addresses to revert an edit that your IPv4 address was edit warring over. An SPI complaint made at the time would have elicited an instant indefinite block all round. Since the incident was over a month ago, it would be deemed stale if a case was made today, particularly as there has been no serious misuse since.

And in case you are thinking of denying it, I have conclusive proof that you are doing it. You made a change to an article using your IPv4 address. You then made a correction to the change, but made it using an IPv6 address in one of the same ranges given above. The give away was the edit summary which made it very clear that it was the same editor correcting the mistake (apparently believing that you were still logged in as the IPv4 address 75.162.179.246). I should also point out as further evidence, that this IPv4 address and all of the IPv6 addresses used in the two ranges given above all geolocate to the same place (around West Jordan, Utah, USA). Though geolocate can be wrong by up to 10 miles or so, they are too close together to be a coincidence. You really should consider creating an account. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 13:52, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Then copy those edit summaries and show me. But even so, if I had been editing with different devices, or something, that doesn't mean it's sock-puppetry. To accuse that of being sock-puppetry would be like saying that you should not edit the Wiki from anywhere other than where you started from without having a user name to log into (you could never edit while at someone else's house or on vacation, etc., without having a user name to log into). So you're wrong there. Besides, why would I revert my own work with another address? I might revert my own work when I see that I have made a mistake, but I don't see the logic in using another address to merely correct one of your own editions. Why?

75.162.179.246 (talk) 17:58, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

November 2014

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

Your editing history at Applesoft BASIC shows that you are currently at 6RR. This might be constued as a 'slow motion edit war' (blockable in its own right), but your last 4 reverts are within 24 hours, so you have categorically breached the three revert rule and this alone can get you an editing block as outlined above. –LiveRail < Talk > 17:32, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at User talk:Widefox. considering all the other current complaints from this IP, a final warning for vandalising my talk page seems appropriate. Widefox; talk 18:16, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Oh, haha, "vandalism," really? How is it now considered "vandalism" to fix blatant errors? And why would you uncorrect it back to having the error? Just based on SPITE now? 75.162.179.246 (talk) 06:37, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Somewhere like WP:TALKPAGE may help understand about it, plus I may have misread your edit while trying to fathom why someone random would edit it. Agree, better to call it disruptive rather than vandalism. Hope that helps. Widefox; talk 01:45, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for disruptive editing of several kinds, including edit warring, continuing after being warned (and you didn't even need to be warned, as you have already been blocked for edit warring, and have made talk page posts about edit warring, so you clearly already knew full well about Wikipedia's policy on edit warring). Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:52, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

@Jamesbwatson: You, the admin, need to warn someone that you're getting closer to a block if one more edit in a given place is made without such-and-such... for every new instance for which you are getting close to blocking them, not just for the first one and then after that, "Ope, let's just block him without warning for this new instance!" And then why would you block me shortly after reverting rail's editions if he only sent a warning and then I had not made any new editions to that area between that time and the time that you came to do the deed you did?

Also, jimmy, why did you figure that rail's editions were not also considered "edit-warring" just to change my editions back, in a situation where my editions couldn't be considered as just "vandalism" that he was reverting (where in that case, he wouldn't be considered as warring), when this is a situation where, given a certain kind of interpretation of the rule, I could actually be the correct one (like that the rule might only be referring to things that had happened but don't exist in the same way anymore, like that USA president example I gave in one of my summaries)? See, he was warring back with me, and his interpretation of the rule might be just as questionable as mine is valid, might it not? So why should that make only me* as the supposed "warrior" here?

75.162.179.246 (talk) 06:47, 17 November 2014 (UTC)!!!!

1. The purpose of informing an editor about the policy on edit warring is to make sure that they know about that policy, so that they can stop edit warring. If they already know about the policy, they don't need to be informed about it again. Also, any editor who knows about the policy is able to inform another editor about it, and there is no earthly reason why only an administrator can provide such information. It's an interesting idea that we could have a policy that it's OK to keep edit warring as long as you like, provided you stop once you are told to by an administrator, but we don't have that policy.
2. It seems I made a mistake about the timing of the latest warning about edit warring, for which I apologise.
3. You have repeated your preferred edit five times. Three other editors have reverted you, no one of them doing so more than three times.
4. All the stuff about how to interpret what you call a "rule" is irrelevant, because you are blocked for edit warring, not for being wrong. Wikipedia's policy on edit warring is, basically "don't edit war", not "don't edit war unless you are right". The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:33, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

---