User talk:TheRandomIP

Welcome![edit]

Hello, TheRandomIP, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 21:09, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Third Opinion[edit]

Please note the following from the Third Opinion page: "If you are a party to a dispute and another party has requested an opinion it is improper for you to remove or modify the request, even if the request does not meet the requirements for a third opinion or because you do not want a Third Opinion. If you feel that the request does not meet the requirements for a third opinion and should be removed, post a request on the Third Opinion talk page to be evaluated by an uninvolved volunteer." Please do not remove requests that other parties to a dispute post. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:13, 27 March 2018 (UTC) (3O volunteer)[reply]

I see. This user is a known for misusing third option for trivial things, for discussions that have just started or where the discussion is already very close to an agreement. I have already told him on his discussion page to stop this behavior, but he does not listen. He has been characterized as an "archetypal troll" by administrators in the German Wikipedia where he is now banned. My goal is to prevent damage from Wikipedia and to avoid that people waste their time with a third opinion request where there is actually no third opinion needed. I hope that you share the same goal. --TheRandomIP (talk) 20:38, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your concern, but it is far too easy for another participant in the dispute to remove a request so as to avoid scrutiny of the issue in question or simply due to a conduct conflict. (I'm not implying that's your motivation, but that's the reason for our rule.) I would suggest that if you feel that the other editor is editing in a disruptive manner that you file a report at ANI after carefully reading the instructions there rather than attempt to correct the issue yourself. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:46, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Denovo edits[edit]

I notice that you decided to remove considerable information from the table at [[1]] without discussing it on the talk page. Your edits have been reverted (by different users) three times and you've persisted, still without discussion. I've reverted your edits again, please discuss any concerns you may have on the article's talk page before making a fifth attempt. Further, note that you've made three reverts to this article already and there is no 3RR exception for "but someone else reverted my edit and I was just reverting their reversion."98.232.66.208 (talk) 06:06, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So you are hiding behind a dynamic IP and then you claim that only I violate against 3RR and that there are "lots of users" against me where in fact it is you and maybe some other guy who did not engage further so he probably already understood my arguments. So it's only you now who does not get it. But just for you I summarized my arguments already given in the edit summary at the discussion page. Now in the following 2 weeks you have plenty of time to read and understand those arguments. Good luck! --TheRandomIP (talk)

Without concern of the content for a minute, I must protest the way you asked for the page to be protected. Semi-protection is not to be used to win content disputes with an IP editor. I suspect the admin who protected it only did so because you described it as vandalism instead of a dispute between editors (indeed, you made the first removal, so the IP is not "adding" anything). Pinguinn 🐧 23:41, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism is defined as "deliberate destruction". If the argument is like "yeah, I know it's not 100% accurate but I don't care, I just want this information in this article for some reason" this is vandalism because it is (1) deliberate (he knows it is not accurate), and since Wikipedia is all about providing accurate information writing something non-accurate is (2) destruction. I had to apply semi-protection because this IP editor is hiding behind a dynamic IP which does not allow to block him specifically. --TheRandomIP (talk)

I am the editor who reverted you for the fourth time as 98.232.66.208. I saw an edit war in the offing and decided to intervene. I rarely edit and wasn't logged in. I am, however, conversant with the relevant Wikipedia policies. You should review them yourself. In particular, you might consult Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith before accusing other editors of "hiding behind a dynamic IP" or "vandalism." Further, you might consult WP:3RR in the future when you find yourself making an edit and having it reverted by four different users in turn (first 91.47.38.58, then 83.87.2.236, then Pinguinn, then myself as 98.232.66.208. I am not either of the first two IPs, and thus there are at least three separate users involved along with your five(!) reverts). I'm assuming good faith in not taking this to a noticeboard, and instead following the advice on the relevant policy page: "If the edit warring user(s) appear unaware that edit warring is prohibited, they can be told about this policy by posting a *uw:3rr* template message on their user talk page. Avoid posting a generic warning template if you are actively involved in the edit war yourself; it can be seen as aggressive. Consider writing your own note to the user specifically appropriate for the situation, with a view to explicitly cooling things down."

Of course, when I wrote a note with the simple suggestion that, right or wrong, you needed to use the talk page instead of the edit summaries on your four reverts... You decided to claim this as vandalism and apply for semi-protection while making a fifth revert (again, yikes!) rather than conform to wp:3rr or wp:consensus.

Perhaps most important, the relevant policy about controversial edits is not WP:TheRandomIPisAlwaysRightAndOnlyVandalsDisagree but rather WP:Consensus. In future, I hope that the first or second time someone reverts one of your edits on the basis of a disagreement, you will remember to discuss the matter on the talk page instead of reverting it five times. Zabieru (talk) 22:17, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Denuvo sources[edit]

If I granted you some sources about games that use Denuvo that have been cracked will you revert your changes? I think the information that a game using Denuvo has been cracked affects the product in some way... Cztrollolcze (talk) 13:26, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If these are credible and verifiable sources (not "here is a screenshot of me running this game!!" but more like press releases or other literature), then maybe one could add these. But I recommend that you first collect sources for most of the games then start adding this information. Because otherwise if only few of the games have the "cracked" column filled it may create the false impression that only few games have been cracked, as outlined here at the talk page. If you cannot get sources for most of the games, I recommend to just summarize the key parts of the sources in the article, like Denuvo#History where also some information about cracks are present. I think there does not need to be a table to describe how (in)secure Denuvo is and if it has been cracked or not. It is always easy and cheap to just make a table but much harder yet often more useful to the reader if you summarize the main points in text form. --TheRandomIP (talk)

There is not going to be literature about this. Sources you can use: NFO files, cs.rin.ru forums, crackwatch site, crackwatch subreddit... Cztrollolcze (talk) 8:50, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Also I do believe there needs to be a section about how secure or insecure Denuvo is, its pros and cons, as if you dont have those it just looks like this technology is perfect, which simply isnt true. Cztrollolcze (talk) 15:38, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That information are reliable and accurate is the base for everything else. So having reliable sources is the single most important thing. More important than the usefulness of the information. If you cannot find reliable source, I'm sorry, there is nothing we can do about it. Otherwise, just be bold. Fix it yourself instead of just talking about it. --TheRandomIP (talk) 16:54, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Denuvo crack sources suggestion[edit]

NFO files should be more than enough for a 'source' in this case then since you want something solid and reliable. The scene groups responsible for cracking Denuvo have hard-set rules and are known for being very strict with them. Taking this into consideration and due to the particular nature of piracy I'd have to suggest that it would be much more reasonable to allow those to be citation worthy for a source than something unreasonable like a press release about a game being cracked since a game getting cracked isn't really broadcast all over the place in press releases except in cases where the game was uncracked for half a year or more.

For instance I'd think that this page (https://crackwatch.com/drm/denuvo/games) would be the closest thing to finding a journalistic type source for denuvo games that have been cracked since it states the period it stayed uncracked, who cracked it, etc.

Combine that with the NFO file from the group that cracked that particular release https://crackwatch.com/game/assassin-s-creed-origins/cracks/assassins-creed-origins-gold-edition-v1-51-multi14-shadoweagle and I would think it should be considered reliable enough since you're not exactly going to find scientific articles and journalistic sources about something like game piracy and what the latest Denuvo game to get cracked is.

That said I really don't want to get more into this whole scuffle than suggesting that sort of thing as a compromise since finding much more reliable sources is going to be really difficult in this kind of situation so it's up to all of you guys to sort this out.

Your thread has been archived[edit]

Hi TheRandomIP! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Why is this article in the "Wikipedia:" namespace?, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to create a new thread.

The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Recent activity on the Woke article[edit]

You might want to fix your wording on this diff. It reads just a little too much like an article. NightWolf1223 (talk) 21:56, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello NightWolf1223 could you maybe point out some specific sentences or words you would like me to clarify? I don't get what you mean by "too much like an article". --TheRandomIP (talk) 22:02, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I meant to say that it just doesnt fit in with the rest of the article. Sorry. NightWolf1223 (talk) 22:06, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

hmm, I see. It is hard to describe. I understand what the paper is referring to (for example ads like this) but its hard to put it in own words. Maybe you have a better idea to describe it. --TheRandomIP (talk) 22:35, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah-Lee Heinrich[edit]

Hi TheRandomIP, independent of any other wiki's discussion results, please start a discussion at Talk:Sarah-Lee Heinrich before implementing the (not yet existing) discussion's consensus. The AIV report was removed for now as no action was taken for 5.6 hours, so this may not be as obvious as it seemed first. Without any visible discussion on the article's talk page, it is almost impossible to take action other than blocking both parties or fully protecting the page. You may like to request that during the discussion, the disputed content stays out of the article entirely (WP:ONUS, WP:BLP concerns). Re-adding a preferred wording repeatedly without discussion is the wrong approach, as it causes you to violate WP:ONUS as well.

Please also insist that any discussion about this content happens on the article's talk page, not yours or any other user's. If you repeatedly receive unwanted talk page messages here on your user page, I'll interpret the messaging as harassment and deal with it accordingly. Please notify me on my talk page if this happens. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:09, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator Noticeboard[edit]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 94.31.105.144 (talk) 03:20, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Direct Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Administrator_ToBeFree_assists_user_TheRandomIP_in_doing_damage_control_for_Sarah-Lee_Heinrich%2C_a_German_politician%2C_by_hiding_Sarah-Lee_Heinrich%27s_racist_hate_speech — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.31.105.144 (talk) 03:20, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]