User talk:84.46.52.2

Welcome!
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions&#32;so far. I hope you like the place and decide to stay.

Here are some links to pages you may find useful:
 * 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 a named 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

Note that in order for the first three features to be available, you must have had an account for a certain number of days and made a certain number of edits.

If you edit without using a named account, your IP address (84.46.52.2) is used to identify you instead.

I hope that you, as a Wikipedian, decide to continue contributing to our project: an encyclopedia of human knowledge that anyone can edit. If you need help, check out Questions, or you can  to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. We also have an intuitive guide on editing if you're interested. By the way, please make sure to sign and date your talk page comments with four tildes (&#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;).

Happy editing! Herostratus (talk) 10:15, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello!
Hello 84.46.52.2. I look forward to your contributions. You're obviously intelligent and good at this, so I hope you stick around. I have, and I've found it to be a great hobby. So... As I said elsewhere, in no way shape or form to I wish to disparage your talent, dedication, and good faith.

For most all contributions, the edits of a new anon editor ("anon" means you don't have an account and just your IP address shows for your signature) are valued and welcomed as much as the edits of a long-time editor. However, in a few cases, it's not necessarily so.

You have to understand that since anyone can edit, we get all sorts of people, as you might imagine. So I mean, let me give you an instance. When I see 1) a subtle numeric change -- e.g. changing a birthdate by one day -- by 2) an anon editor 3) with his first edit, with 4) no edit summary or explanation and 5) no ref added, I revert it on sight. I do this because experience has taught me that this is most often vandalism. The same edit by an editor of many years standing, I will treat differently. Sorry, but that's how it works.

So my usual recommendation is that people get an account, and maybe not jump into contentious areas right off. There're lots of ways to get a little editing experience under your belt first, and if you like I can guide you to some. My personal experience is that when new anon editors jump into contentious areas right off, it is often enough turns into a complicated situstion that it's not something where I'm willing to not consider all the factors of all the involved editors.

Anyway, all this is why I said that I am leery of accepting your word regarding off-line refs for contentious material in a WP:BLP (I definitely recommend that you read that page, or at least skim it, if you haven't yet.) I just don't have a handle on who you are, yet. Sorry, but it is what it is. Maybe you're Michael Quatro of the Lord Mayor of London or whomever, and if so sorry if I've insulted you. But I'm still sticking to my guns.

Anyway, again, welcome, and happy wiki'ing! If you have any questions about anything, message me if you wish. I am looking forward to working with you as an esteemed colleague. Herostratus (talk) 10:37, 13 February 2019 (UTC) OTOH serious attackers (e.g., untrue or spammy paid editing) will use accounts. Be..anyone might be forced to log-in for a day or so to complete their CC-BY mission, and that's a successor of that guy permanently killed by password randomisation 150 months ago. And yes, if nobody else does it I'll add the silly "punk Penthouse fodder" again (as IP) based on what appears to be the talk page rough consensus, but there's NORUSH. –84.46.52.11 (talk) 10:11, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Late reply, because I just saw that a talk page link on Talk:Emma Blackery was blue instead of red. Editing without login is no serious problem with many logged-in users, and of course most folks try to defend (not only) BLPs not limited to Suzi Quatro as good as they can against idiots armed with a mobile device and the latest + greatest social media rumours.
 * Hmnh, OK. I mean based on your reference to a 2006 edit and other indicators, I have to assume that you're an experienced editor. If so, it's annoying that you're using alternate accounts, and you're actually not supposed to do that unless you declare it, so... blurf.


 * I don't know who Emma Blackery is, I don't recall editing that page. Also not clear where Yugoslavia fits in here.

I've no idea why you mentioned Yugoslavia, if it's important please explain. Contributors are entitled to edit without logging in if that's not intended to confuse other users, and at the moment everybody can check that Be..anyone&#x2009; didn't use their account for almost three years on any WikiMedia project. Admittedly checking this will be harder (for folks without CU rights) if they'll revive their account for a media upload session on commons in about 5..9 days. IOW, how I interpret my there's no ex in ex-wikiholic&#x2009; observation is something I have to figure out for myself, so far I interpreted it as WP:WNCAA is not really humourous. –84.46.53.245 (talk) 06:43, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Whatever re Suzi Quatro. I mean I think it's demonstrated that she probably wasn't a "centerfold". If you want to put in other material that is true, ref'd, and worthwhile, that's fine. Herostratus (talk) 13:48, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * In one case where it wasn't obvious (=similar IPs) and potentially misleading I added an info, it's just about one of the pages I care about (meanwhile nominated for GA) in addition to Suzi Quatro: Sadly the Women in History&#x2009; project confirmed class=C killing my class=B suggestion.