User talk:97.102.205.224

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)

@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. ±

97.102.205.224 (talk) 19:15, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Interesting CodemWiki (talk) 19:18, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

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 there} 13:05, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

@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.

P.S. Feel free to look at Talk:Land of Punt#Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 November 2023 as well! 97.102.205.224 (talk) 14:17, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

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 there} 17:33, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

@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)

Made some adjustments – let me know if more (or less) is needed and, if so, please be specific. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 07:25, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

March 2024

Hello, I'm TheMadScienFish23. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to IEEE 1355 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 or the Help desk. Thanks. TheMadScien🐠23 (💬) 13:36, 10 March 2024 (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.

Discussion already started at User talk:TheMadScienFish23 § Er, why?. Basically, the edits (Special:Diff/1212960019 and Special:Diff/1212960019) seemed obviously constructive to me, and the edit comments explain why. I'd really appreciate a much more detailed explanation of what the objection is. 97.102.205.224 (talk) 21:43, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

May 2024

Hello, I'm Redraiderengineer. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, List of Falcon 9 first-stage boosters, 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. Thank you. Redraiderengineer (talk) 02:30, 11 May 2024 (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.

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)

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.

@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.

Now, I didn't cite to it (as most lines in the tables don't have explicit citations), but a WP:RS exists and I can add it. 97.102.205.224 (talk) 05:59, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

---