User talk:66.11.171.90

"I am presently incarcerated, imprisoned for a crime I did not even commit. "Attempted murder," now honestly, did they ever give anyone a Nobel prize for "attempted chemistry?" - Sideshow Bob, Sideshow Bob Roberts (The Simpsons) - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 06:47, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A

• Contributing to Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• Simplified Manual of Style

You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, but if you wish to acquire additional privileges, you can simply create an account. It's free, requires no personal information, and lets you:

• Create new pages and rename pages
• Edit semi-protected pages
• Upload images
• Have your own watchlist, which shows when articles you are interested in have changed

If you edit without an account, your IP address (66.11.171.90) is used to identify you instead.

We hope that you choose to become a Wikipedian and create an account. If you need help, check out

Happy editing! JesseRafe (talk) 14:25, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Deanna, if you had looked at the

Prespa agreement talk page, you would notice that I (being an IP) am unable to access the copied-from source code, and said as much. That being the case, I also specifically pointed out on that same talk page that I had cribbed the text from that page, and further requested if others could add what coding I missed due to that semi-protection. Thank you for being one of those others. Given what you wrote here, however, I do have to wonder what you would have written had I not explicitly informed other members about the source of the text. Since you surely could not have intended the accusation in the manner it came across, you may perhaps wish to work on your tone. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 06:34, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi Tenebris, if a page is semi-protected or fully protected, you can click on "View source" for this page, and if you need to find the source text for a specific section, you can use Ctrl+F (or Command+F on Mac) to search for the section name. 2607:FEA8:1DE0:7B4:CC55:1114:DEC:EE5F (talk) 22:35, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 66.11.171.90 and sorry for not noticing your message sooner. It's great that you mentioned the copying on the talk page, but our attribution requirement calls for you to mention the copying in an edit summary at the destination article. Here's an example of how to do it. There's full instructions the legal reasons why we have to do it at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 10:18, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've added to the discussion of "Dit" on my talk page. --Thnidu (talk) 17:39, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.

• Comment this warning was inappropriate, the IP neither used the talk page as a forum or for inappropriate discussions. While they may have offended Mr Aiguo by taking a contrary position thats not disruptive editing.
  Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:11, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Appreciate the follow-up, Horse Eye Jack, especially to an anonymous IP. The only reason I had commented at all is because what is "irrelevant politics" to some is taking sides to others. Too often, what is interpreted as NPOV depends heavily on social and political environment. To that end, I would suggest briefly that WHO is a reliable source for global health information, but we would not normally consider it a reliable source for political gray areas. That is not its job. It simply accepts the medical information it is given by local authorities for use in determining broad global health patterns -- but those local authorities automatically conflate any information they give to WHO based on what is acceptable to their own government.

I mostly spoke up in that article because the original phrasing jumped out at me, since it felt like it was translated directly from/via Mandarin; and China (and some Chinese nationals, not all of whom declare as such) do have a vested interest here. (I notice the Hong Kong issues have already surfaced in this venue.) For this reason, I am not really surprised that I would have received this kind of "warning" here, or from whom.

Specifically related to the topic, I have already said what needed saying, there and here. This exchange did not happen there, so I need say nothing further. (Had there been a related comment there, I would have had to make another brief comment, since I cannot allow that kind of attempted editor bludgeoning to appear to go unchallenged.) Again, thank you for following up, Horse Eye Jack. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 02:40, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your hard work overhauling 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Canada. UmpireRay (talk) 14:39, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply ]

• Having had a big hand in using bullet points and making the sports section as long and multi-sectioned as it became, I've got to say that I like the work you've done in condensing it thus far. It's 180 degrees in the other direction that I was taking it, but I think it's the right direction. And probably the national and international sports events still bulleted can be reduced to a single 'graph, and ditto for the bullet points on the cancelled arts events. I don't think I'll have time today to do that right away, though. Anyway, thanks.
  talk) 13:19, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Another IP editor has come along and undone your edits. I tried to restore without success. You'll have to discuss it.
    talk) 14:23, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • These things happen. Sometimes they require undoing, and occasionally they turn out better. Thanks for the heads-up -- will prioritize this. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 16:08, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, as you will see on the talk page the article has been restricted, despite objections by me and at least one other. I hope you will consider creating an account.
        talk) 01:05, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        • (laugh) Not surprising, really. Thanks for trying, but I will tell you in advance that this is an uphill battle. This is the WP I know and refuse to become a registered member of. They will tell me that I can always open an account or request special editing privileges, but that goes against the spirit of one of WP's core pillars which says that IPs should be just as valued editors as members. Sure, some IPs are vandals, but the vast majority are not. Sure, occasional IPs do poorly but mean well, but so do occasional editors. It is the nature of WP that in the same way as we must not become too attached to what we write individually, be we members or IPs (for improvement is always possible), we should also all have the potential to contribute. I choose my IP status in large part to try to make people think, to see IPs as being just as individual as members. I sign my username to reinforce this concept of IP individuality, and further to take specific responsibility for my actions.
        • Should you so wish, you could take this to WP arbitration, especially considering the relative level of article contributions by the admin who placed the semi-protection; but that is far more than anyone could realistically ask of you. I do value that you took it upon yourself to tell me here, before I found out on the article itself. (And here I was with five hours of time in a row!) Maybe I will see you around in the future -- but not in that article while the semi-protection is on. I valued getting the correct information out in the most accessible form possible. I know WP's value in that. However, to write at WP, I have to value WP's pillars to at least the same extent. While that semi-protected status exists, that is no longer possible. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 02:59, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP administrators have recently made a sweeping decision to semi-protect all coronavirus pages, even though that decision violates Wikipedia:Protection policy. The rationale given is that inaccurate information can cost lives. The form of protection chosen was to semi-protect pages, a restriction which specifically restricts IPs. The stated reason for this choice is a concern about article disruption. The choice of protection implies that IPs are more likely to create disruption than registered editors.

However, this assumption is

The third pillar of WP is "Wikipedia is free content that anyone can use, edit, and distribute." The protection policy page makes it clear that any restrictions upon that pillar are to be used sparingly, only in cases of actual disruption, and for as short a time as possible. It is a violation of the protection policy rules to invoke them simply for the purpose of getting information right -- but even if that is found to be a valid purpose under the circumstances, banning IPs and only IPs will not move a page any closer to that goal. Especially under these circumstances, there is no justification whatsoever for invoking page semi-protection rather than page protection. Using this rationale to impose sanctions on a page which had NO problems with either disruption or inaccuracy is completely off the legitimacy charts.

It is in times of crisis that core values are most tested, to hold firm or collapse under the strain. WP has been a long time drifting toward this crossroads, but now it has arrived at the moment of choice. Are the core values of WP to have any substantial validity from this point forward, or have they become nothing more than lip service? WP editors, the choice is yours. I, as an IP, have been banned from your COVID-19 pages unless I beg for each and every word I wish to be inserted. When I objected,

• Then why don't you simply create an account? Is there some moral objection here? I don't get it: in a fraction of the time it took you to type out the above, you could be logged on.
  talk) 09:37, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Because that simply ignores the fact that administrative actions are currently being taken that are actively in violation of WP core policy. Put it this way - if I were living in the U.S. and were highly qualified for a particular government post, should I have to take out membership in the Republican party to be eligible? Why should it make a difference whether the post would allow me to do useful things for society, if by taking the post I become an enabler of the system? - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 09:50, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I understand both points of the debate and if Tenebris doesn't want to create an account and wants to edit under their IP they have that right. However I understand why the admins are protecting the pages the way they are. One slip-up on Wikipedia especially English Wikipedia and the press has a field day and with COVID-19 being the hot topic in the news if even one COVID-19 article has any mis-information for a long period of time the press will jump on it and spin it any way they can. This is why I've been spending most of my free time hanging out over at the

edit request space. Specifically the extended-confirmed and semi-protected requests and have those pages on my watchlist. To help and answer COVID-19 related requests from good IP editors like Tenebris and good auto-confirmed editors who can't edit extended-confirmed pages who want to help keep COVID-19 pages up-to-date. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 10:47, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

One tiny amendment to your generosity, Alucard 16 -- it completely ignores the fact (supported by WP's own studies) that IPs are not disproportionately responsible for inaccurate information. In essence, that attitude is no different from blaming a particular ethnic group for an infection. I also notice that you have not mentioned the rules violation ... you know, the one in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Please semi-protect Coronavirus disease 2019 which specifically mentioned

"I've looked at the history, are we sure that all or even most IP edits are bad?" - Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:59, 12 March 2020 (UTC) (which actually demonstrates that the one person who actually bothered to check noticed that fact, in practice)

"@Liz: Here is a log of all non-confirmed edits to pages with "coronavirus" or "covid" in the title. There are going to be too many to review them all, but it may be useful to find pages that need protecting." Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:53, 14 March 2020 (ie. the original intent was only to target the specific pages that needed protecting, not a blanket action)

"General note to the usual self-appointed busybodies who wander around noticeboards unilaterally closing threads; don't close this one but instead let the bot archive it in the normal way once it's stale. There will potentially be objections to this action is it technically violates Wikipedia:Protection policy, and there's no point forcing anyone raising reasonable objections to start a fresh thread." ‑ Iridescent 18:27, 12 March 2020 (UTC) (which demonstrates that the people involved know deuced well it is a violation of WP policy)

The later sweeping action was separately taken in a separate thread. It was taken on the basis of exactly 15 administrator posts, all within a 2-hour time period during which most persons outside the U.S./Canada were engaged with family and/or having supper (Europe) or asleep (rest of world); while most people inside the U.S./Canada were at work or engaged with not-at-school children or trying to do some urgent grocery shopping for key supplies (since certain shelves have been bare most of the week). A lucky few might have possibly been trying to snatch some outdoors time between major storm systems (with appropriate social distancing). How many administrators does English-language WP have again? How many posted in the previous thread before the decision was taken? How representative was this group?

I set aside once again that there is absolutely no way in which a series of requests on a talk page, however well intentioned, can substitute for the kind of active work I (and other IPs) had been doing. But I won't set aside comments that spin this as *my* right to protest, while ignoring the key issue. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 18:33, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]