Wikipedia talk:Why create an account?/Archive 1

Oh, heck! I don't need an account!!
I think this page should explain to people that their IP address is not necessarily unique (e.g. from a work PC they may share it with other people) and might keep changing so a username really is the only way of being able to trace what you do.

Or is that a bit patronising? --(talk to)BozMo 10:17, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

I deleted the following sentence which I felt was useless and confusing :

"You don't have to give your e-mail address if you don't want to, and even if you do, not only it's private by default, but you actually can't make it public on the system (except if you write it yourself explicitly in an article, obviously)."

Olivier 7th July 2004

Incorrect Directions on Special Page: Create Account
Under the directions for Create account / log in, the 3rd bullet states that "Usernames must start with a capital letter." This does not appear to be true. Since this page is a Special Page, I was not able to edit it to correct the directions. Dpayne1912 03:28, 21 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see now that if you create a User ID that doesn't start with a capital letter, Wikipedia automatically capitalizes the first letter. Likewise, it will automatically capitalize the first letter when you login. In hindsight, this seems too much like quibbling to be worth editing the directions. Dpayne1912 03:55, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

On requiring users to sign in
Has there been any discussion of this anywhere? Specifically I'm wondering whether it's ever been suggested or debated whether we should require all editors to have a user name before editing? I ask because it would make recognising, tracking, and blocking vandals a lot easier. A quick look at the Block log shows that nearly all the accounts blocked for vandalism and other bad behaviour are anonymous. I think it would be fairly easy to implement such a change. Any thoughts? Exploding Boy 10:57, Jul 25, 2004 (UTC)


 * IIRC there have been such discussions before (can't provide much help tracking them down, though), and in short, the answer is: This is a Wiki. Wikis are built with the idea that anyone can contribute. I doubt we'd have as many good editors as we do now if we made logging in mandatory. A scoutmaster who copyedited Persekutuan Pengakap Malaysia anonymously was reluctant at first because he thought registration was required, until I pointed out that it's not necessary. Making registration mandatory will only turn away helpful editors and not stop determined vandals/trolls. Johnleemk | Talk 12:01, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * See Anonymous users should not be allowed to edit articles. Angela. 12:06, Jul 25, 2004 (UTC)


 * But anyone can create an account! All they have to do is create an account, which is very easy! There's nothing to stop them from doing that! I'm somewhat in favour of the having to have an account to edit Wikipedia policy... --HisSpaceResearch 10:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I see what you mean. I do like one of the suggestions (linked to the above) that anonymous users would be limited to a certain number of edits per day until registered (but not the bit about web-based email addresses).

How about coming up with some more ways to encourage people to sign up for user names? What about creating a {message} to place on anonymous users' pages? Perhaps something like:


 * Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, but creating an account is quick, free and non-intrusive, and gives you many benefits, including:


 * The use of a username of your choice
 * The ability to view all your contributions via a "My contributions" link
 * Your own user page
 * Your own talk page which, if you choose, also allows users to send you emails without knowing your e-mail address
 * The use of your own personal watchlist to which you can add articles that interest you
 * The ability to rename pages
 * The ability to upload images
 * The ability to edit specific sections of a page
 * The ability to cusomize the appearance and behaviour of the website
 * The eligibility to become an Administrator or Sysop (can delete and undelete pages, protect them from being edited, edit protected pages, and block users for violation of our policies)
 * The right to be heard in formal votes and elections, and on pages like votes for deletion


 * We encourage you to create an account!

What do you think? Exploding Boy 12:35, Jul 25, 2004 (UTC)


 * An excellent idea, I first thought, until I realised it continued after the first sentence. :p Personally I think that "many benefits" should be a wikilink to another page describing them, similar to your bulletpoint list. Sounds like a good idea as long as it's unobtrusive (Something Awful's notice for registration is simply horrid), especially since users will be alerted to the fact that they don't have to login to edit articles. Seems win-win to me. Johnleemk | Talk 12:48, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

There actually is a page that lists the benefits already, but in very long form. Since the idea is to encourage people to create an account rather than remain anonymous, I thought it would be good to make a short(ish!), easy to read list of the benefits of signing up, in an effort to lure people into doing so. And since most anonymous users don't use their user/talk pages (maybe because they don't know they have them?) this will also draw their attention to that. And if it's too long, they can always delete it! Exploding Boy 12:56, Jul 25, 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, yeah, but then having this message on every page would be quite obtrusive and disturbing. Or perhaps I misunderstood you? Johnleemk | Talk 13:12, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

No, not on every page, just on anonymous users' talk pages. Exploding Boy 13:25, Jul 25, 2004 (UTC)


 * Ah, that makes sense I suppose. Johnleemk | Talk 13:29, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I likewise heartily endorse this idea. -- Stevietheman 18:04, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well, I'm going to go ahead and give it a try Template messages. Exploding Boy 13:41, Jul 25, 2004 (UTC)

Good for you

Section editing also possible for unregistered users
The last paragraph in section "New editing options" suggests that unregistered users can't edit single sections without viewing all the other sections of the article. But when I'm not logged in, the [edit]-Buttons at the right side of section headings work perfectly. So I think the following paragraph should be deleted:


 * "Some people like it, others don't: Section editing allows you to edit only the part of a page below a header (in this section, the header is the text "New editing options"). This makes it much easier to find the parts you want to edit in the wiki source."

Identity implications section - ironic reversions
Consider the edits made on 17 Feb 2005, and then the unexplained reversion by Texture, which was also marked as a minor edit. I ask you all to consider and comment upon the validity of the reversion. So far as the edits to the first 3 paragraphs are concerned, which I would have thought were entirely uncontroversial, their unexplained reversion seems to be, well, vindicative. Granted, perhaps most of the new 4th paragraph was something of a polemic, so that is why I am now putting this up for discussion instead of reverting Texture's reversion. My own view is that deleting comments from the perspective of the anonymous user is itself highly questionable, and in view of the basic concept that Wikipedia may be edited by anyone, is an ironic demonstration of the proprietary attitude some registered users may have towards Wikipedia.

I hope to see consensus amongst registered users on the approach taken by Texture, and support for retaining a more balanced (perhaps the particular section cannot be NPOV in the way that a standard Wikipedia entry needs to be) view, as the only view currently expressed characterises anonymous contribution as "disempowering and unpleasant"! Texture, I would also like to see you take a more constructive approach before editing any of my other edits in future &mdash; 18 Feb 2005.


 * Bold as I sometimes am, I reverted to your version but without the last paragraph. It should be discussed first. But the interesting question regarding you not wanting to do the half-revert yourself, is: Would you have done it if it wasn't a logged in user who had done the revert? It sort of touches up on the whole problem with why a user would want to be logged on. Just as Texture's revert is an example of what I believe your point is. Btw, I don't think we should be calling users not loged in for anonymous users. They are less anonymous than a logged in user since an ip-number is more information than some random nickname. Anyway, I'm impressed by all your contributions, 203.198.237.30. Really high quallity stuff. Keep up the good work. Shanes 08:20, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"Anonymous" is a misnomer
Anonymous users are, in some cases, less anonymous than a registered user, as the full IP address is displayed to ALL users of the site, possibly in some cases allowing the user to be identified in real life. This seems generally unacceptable in and of itself, and IMO Wikipedia should either drop the use of the term "anonymous", or take measures to make not-logged-in users anonymous. e.g. by displaying the name as something like anon_1234 rather than 123.45.67.89. In this case the 1234 would be the ID of a row in the database corresponding to the anon user.

Secondly, creating a new account is a trivial form post that a Bot or malicious user can do as many times as they want. I see no technical reason why there should be any distinction between a not-logged-in user and a just-registered account.

If an account that registered just 5 seconds ago can upload images, move pages, etc. then I can see no valid reason why an anon user should not. An anon user can convert itself into a registered account simply by randomising a username and password. It is primarily legitimate anon users that we're trying to "catch", and petty vandals that are mildly inconvenienced by having to register. A "proper" vandal would just add another http request to his Bot. Similarly, if there is an action that an anon user is unable to do, then I do not see why they should be granted any further rights merely by being able to generate a username and password. Vandals will get in easily enough anyway, but if we really believe

Certainly suitable warnings could be placed that your edits may be confused with other users from the same ISP, and encouraging you to Get a proper account but users who are unable or unwilling to do that can still have valuable contributions to make. An IP address that has had a consistent history of being "well behaved" would seem to me to warrant more trust than a new user, rather than less.

Hmmmm... I could consider making up a new random username every day just to make the point.

213.232.66.5 15:59, 7 May 2005 (UTC)


 * You've made an important point. The advantages to having a username are mostly for the user - it enables them to keep track of what they've done, communicate with others and establish a reputation on Wikipedia. There is actually very little that a logged-in user can do that an anon can't. DJ Clayworth 13:50, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Registering and hierarchy
why should anyone register? it's hierarchical, which is exactly what wiki isn't. foucault, in the Masked Philosopher (in Ethics, Rabinow (ed.) 2000) explains why he did that interview anonynously, to prevent judgement on his comments based upon people's subjective ideas attached to the name.

it should be totally irrelevant who does an edit. vandalism happens anyway, and is MORE likely to be unnoticed if marked as a minor edit, given how easy it is to register. 'normal' vandalism gets reverted practically instantly anyway. that's why wiki is so powerful. i really believe this hierarchy of registered / non-registered users should be stopped, and all accounts deleted.

as an encyclopedia, who cares about the author? it's the content that matters, regardless of who wrote it. the opinion of a registered user cannot be argued to be more valid than somebody not registered. 'minor edits' should be scrapped too. or something written into code that flags up an edit that, say, changes more than 20 words, that automatically sorts minor from major edits.


 * The truth is that it does make a difference. Most users are reliable and produce well-researched contributions. Some write stuff that is contentious, or not so well researched. Some are exceptionally reliable and frequently smooth over disagreements.


 * This means that when I look at the recent edits, I know there are some contributions that I don't need to check; I've seen the contributors work before and I know it's good. That reduces the amount of checking I have to do. It doesn't mean that the anonymous contributer is less valued per se, they just haven't had the opportunity to prove themselves reliable yet.


 * Wikipedia is a social situation. We work by knowing who people are, just like we do with politics, entertainment and everyday life. You wouldn't spend long on a chat room where you didn't know who was speaking would you? The same applies here. DJ Clayworth 13:46, 19 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't believe the points made have been addressed.
 * What gives anyone the right to act as a 'moderator'? Regulation of truth? surely other (anonymous) people should take on that role constantly?
 * So based on an intial level of trust, edits by 'trusted' users pass by unchecked?
 * "I've seen the contributor's work before and I know it's good"; who is anyone to pass judgement?
 * is the comparison between an an encyclopedia and a chatroom relevant?
 * what matters more, what is produced, or who produces it? surely the former is crucial and the latter irrelevant.
 * i see the non-hierarchical principles of wiki slowly being watered down, as individuals within it assume more power. i am worried about this.
 * without moderators as such, it may take longer to notice vandalism or corrections, but surely the form of truth produced is going to be more objective, more natural (for want of better phraseology).
 * what is being collected under this site is knowledge. nobody has the right to judge that knowledge any more than anyone else.
 * this poses problems for moderators, as of course they will not undermine their own positions. but think carefully about it; what makes you legitimate? comments from 'non-moderators' or 'non-users' welcome (and valued equally).
 * If the aim of wikipedia is to include as many people as possible, how can you know them all? just because you don't know them, is their one off contribution not valid? doubtless i will now be checked out for my contributions... who am i?
 * why should it matter?
 * trust works on the basis that people always act perfectly rationally, and constantly so. The work of Charles Taylor, for example, should show this assumption to be deeply problematic. trusting someone uncritically is like putting them in a box and forgetting about them. who knows how things change? ernst bloch's idea of the 'Not Yet Conscious' shows that you cannot predict change; it doesn't make sense.
 * My proposal; axe moderators, user log-in, and personal histories. they are irrelevant and counterproductive.
 * what's more, they "are" useful based on the assumption that people contribute for themselves, rather than in the altriusm of sharing that knowledge which surely is the damn point.


 * Your proposal would make wikipedia fall under for vandalism. Without the user-history I'd estimate about 5 times as many pages would be blanked or vandalised at any given moment. When we catch a user vandalising a page, looking at his history normaly uncover lots of other pages he has vandalised, and we can then fix them as well. Shanes 14:45, 19 May 2005 (UTC)


 * It only helps find vandalism QUICKER, but in doing so, become open to the critique above.


 * Yes, it helps finding it alot quicker. To the point that if we found them that much slower (i.e. days or weeks), wikipedia would be of a much lower quality, bordering not being trustworthy at all. Try doing some RC-patrolling yourself, and you'll agree. Shanes 14:54, 19 May 2005 (UTC)


 * RC-patrolling? do you get a gun?
 * no but seriously, you're analysis assumes that it's your responsibility to patrol. that's the point of wiki, from it's inception, as an autonomous, anarchic system that moderates itself. if you don't believe in that, what's the point in wiki.


 * RC-patrolling is wiki-lingo for checking the recent changes page for new edits and see if they are good or bad. I'd estimate that about 5% of all edits done on wikipedia are made in bad intent. Give or take a few %, but it's a fact that if we didn't catch as many as we do by checking new edits and checking the contribution history of those making bad edits, wikipedia would be in a much worse state. Since I wrote that stuff above, I've reverted 14 vandalism edits, made from 3 different ip's. If I didn't have their history, I'd only have uncovered 3 of the edits, and the rest would have stayed on wikipedia until someone else knowing and willing to revert them had spotted them. I'm also sorry that some people prefere doing bad instead of good, but that's how it is. Shanes 15:26, 19 May 2005 (UTC)


 * i know that vandalism happens. but the philosophy of wiki is of organic development; not regulated or controlled. vandalism WILL get undone easily, by the next person that sees it, hence it could never get 'out of control'. this is one of the fundamental principles of wiki, and having self-appointed moderators undermines the whole point. i agree 'vandalism' (which in itself is a subjective term) gets 'put right' (as if moderators are perfectly knowledgable) faster. but an organic wiki philosophy is slowly destroyed as 'moderators' assume power, thereby crystallising into a hierarchy. on trust, we must all trust the system to work, without needing 'moderators' to regulate truth.


 * by moderating, you're playing the vandals at their game. it just turns into an arms race, with each grasping more power to outdo the other. let the system, anarchically do it's work, and rather than playing policeman go and join the army if that's what you want. nobody on wiki has the right to play policeman; everybody shares responsibility. that's the point of it. that's what anarchy (no rule) is about, and that is the wiki philosophy. belief that the system will work. if you don't believe it will work, why use it? there is no place for RC-patrolling - i like the army-speak because it shows that you are indeed regulating truth. if other people expect people like you to do all the hard work, they'll sit back and EXPECT you to do it. and then there's no turning back, and the potency of the inclusivity of wiki is lost forever.


 * I agree that we must avoid elitism, but having a trust-system doesn't mean that we are crossing a border into that. And we don't have special moderators on wikipedia. What makes you think that? Everyone can edit (almost) every page. And if you spot an error in an article or vandalism, test-edits or whatever, you can revert them aswell as me and everybody else. Please do so. About getting "out of control": If a high percentage of wikipedia-articles are in a state of having been vandalised or showing simple nonsense, this our Encyclopedia wouldn't be as good as it is, and it wouldn't be as fun being a part of it all. I contribute here because I am proud of what we are making and recomend it to all my friends. If lots of pages were always vandalised, I couldn't have told my friends to trust wikipedia. I wouldn't be proud of the thing we are making, and so it wouldn't be any fun contributing.


 * What do you mean by moderating? Who is moderating what? Do you see fixing vandalism as moderating? You don't think we should revert someone blanking the George Bush page inserting "Bush is a moron"? What do you mean exactly?
 * Me myself, I watch the RC-page whenever I feel like it and don't feel like doing regular editing. Some do it more often, some never do it and concentrate on writing articles all the times. Everyone is needed to make this a great encyclopedia. And nobody are appointed "moderators". Everyone can do both. I think you need to stick around for a longer time and learn more about how this thing ticks. Shanes 16:13, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

What is RC-patrolling if not moderating? I've been using it (for research) for a long time. i recommend it to my friends, because of it's potent philosophical underpinnings. My original point was on the user/nonuser hierarchy. i don't believe you have justified it. perhaps the user history, but that would still be possible with IP addresses and is a different point. i see the idea of registering as pointless, counterproductive and against wiki philosophy. [all above unsigned discussion by morris, for reference in case anyone else wants to join this discussion] thus my proposition stands; delete all user accounts and unlock the organic power of wikipedia, and certainly remove any bias towards having to have an account (a rather arduous task, methinks)


 * I don't understand what you are against. I think that is because I don't know what it is about wikipedia that you have misunderstood.
 * "RC-patrolling", i.e. checking new edits is bad? So how old do you think an edit should be before I should be able to check it? Checking other peoples edits, and then improving them, commenting on them on talk-pages, and so on, is how we slowly turn this Encyclopedia into what it is. Sometimes the edits are bad (vandalism, or someone just testing a "Hello Mom!" in an article, and the edits are reverted. But checking other peoples edits are essential for making things work.


 * Regarding usernames instead of ip-numbers. Isn't it much better to have some name to discuss with about an article or subject? It's much easyer to remember and they are stable for people with dynamic IPs. If me and you were both writing about, say, some emperor of Rome, or anything. I could ask you on your talk-page about sources, comment on your edits and tell you how much I liked them, and you could do the same with my edits. You would say:"Hey, Shanes, that thing about the emperor not having children is wrong accoding to this book I have". And I would say, "oh, Morrismus, is that so. Hmm, I'll have to check my sources". I prefere that instead of having to talk to an IP-number. Don't you? And suddenly you, because you have a dynamic IP-address, would change IP, and my messages to you about ancient Rome would go to someone else having your old IP. Is that productive? What do you have against signing in? Anonymity? You don't even have to give your e-mail address when signing up. Nobody will know who you are, they'll only know you as whatever username you chose. And that can be anything. Shanes 17:37, 19 May 2005 (UTC)


 * on RC patrolling, i agree checking new edits is good, but it is an easily misused power, and yes, a lot of trust is required (in edits as well as RC patrollers). i am just dubious about any situation in which power is manifested. it can be easy to try to be an ultimate authority, but yes, over time this is corrected anyway. it is useful to find vandalism, but is it just vandalism that all RC patrollers check for?


 * on names, i'm not saying everyone should be anonymous, hence why i've signed my name now. i know that's not what i said earlier... but i don't think people should have extra powers (like making a minor edit) simply by registering. i would like to take this further, but i don't have time at the mo (exams...) but it's been a very interesting discussion which i hope has raised issues for people to think about and comment on. morris


 * I check for vandalism, factual correctness, copyright violations, simple spelling errors (those that even I can spot), or if what has been written maybe can be reworded or improved upon in other ways. And other people do the same with my edits. And sometimes I expand on the stuff I see if the topic interests me. But the point is: Everyone can do this. Everyone. And everyone are doing it. Loged in or not. I think you have misunderstood that part about wikipedia. Everyone can edit. And everyone can see the edit-history and see what everyone else have edited. Loged in or not. And about registering: Registering means picking a username and password. That's all. No real-name or address or any such thing. I don't see what the fuss about that is. And I don't understand why anyone would not do it, except from out of ignorance over what signing up really means. But maybe you have or can see a reason? Shanes 21:40, 19 May 2005 (UTC)


 * What's the alternative to checking for vandalism? Not checking for vandalism? You say you are "dubious about any situation in which power is manifested". But power is manifested in every situation. Editors have power, checkers have power, vandals have power. The other thing that you may not have realised is that every revert of vandalism is itself an edit; that edit will be checked, just like any other. Plus everyone is allowed their opinion - just because I think user A is a good guy and I don't check his edits doesn't mean that nobody does - someone else may have a completely different idea of his reliability. DJ Clayworth 19:05, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Opinions On Anonymity
The paragraph


 * Opinions differ on the desirability of perfect anonymity. Some people believe that anonymity is synonymous with a lack of accountability, or may facilitate unproductive behaviour, or that contributing without a fixed identity is disempowering and unpleasant. Such people consider that creating an account and logging in may resolve such feelings.

Didn't really seem relevent to the implied goals of the page. A discussion on the "desirablity of perfect anonymity" and what "some people believe" is just a distraction from convincing a user why they should register.--ASL 06:48, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Single sign on for all or chosen languages etc
I have been doing a little bit of editing in another language than English, and a little bit in the English wikipedia, mostly anonymously. It sems that I have to create a new user for every language and perhaps for every wikimedia subset ? If I am not mistaken, I'd like to get some comments on this: rationale and problems/benefits of implementing a single sign on. Possibly the single sign-on ought not automatically activate the logon in all languages or systems though. Tick-boxes on the user preference list might be an option. --Mokgand 14:38, 14 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, I've noticed that too, and I find it mildly irritating. I haven't ever tried to edit in French, but I have read articles on the French Wikipedia, and have noticed that at the top, where it should say Ann Heneghan, my talk, preferences, etc., it says "Créer un compte ou se connecter".  I found the same thing when I decided to add my name to the category of Irish users - I added my signature with the tildes, and did a preview, and saw that it just gave my IP address rather than my name, so I didn't bother to save it!  I'd like if a Wikipedia account could be recognized throughout all of Wikipedia.  After all, when I ordered books from www.amazon.fr or www.amazon.de for the first time, once I entered my e-mail address and password, the system recognized me, because I already had an account with www.amazon.co.uk.  Ann Heneghan (talk) 14:51, 14 August 2005 (UTC)


 * It seems that this problem is still unsolved. I too found it irritating when switching back and forth between English and Thai. Given that the number of multi-language users is increasing at a remarkable rate, single sign-on for all languages should speed up editing process and encourage people to participate. After all, the system should work in ways that encourage, not discourage, participation. Ekkanant 01:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Stil nothing that is done with this. Allmost all other web sites where you can register is so that if You want to use multiple pages of theyr service You do not have to register with alot of times to the same page. You register one time and you are then able to use Your account on all aspects and sides of the page. Hope to see something done with this. Qumad 18:27, 09 Januar 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.213.182.66 (talk)

Shortcut for this page?
Could we create a shortcut for this page? Something like WP:WHY. Because 4/5 times I link to this, I get the name wrong (Why use an account, etc) and have to look it up. (I know there are welcome templates but I prefer to write my own.) cheers. pfctdayelise 20:43, 5 November 2005 (UTC)


 * OK, now it exists. yay. pfctdayelise 10:22, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm a new user how can i contribute? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosebudsled (talk • contribs) 00:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous e-mail addresses
The page currently states "This feature is anonymous; the user who emails you will not know your e-mail address." If you reply to an e-mail you have received, wouldn't the user then see your e-mail address? If so, should this be made clear here? Tim 01:14, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

What about the disadvantages?
You talk about the benefits of creating a Wikipedia account. I have a suggestion: Mention that accounts can not be deleted early on. If I knew then from the beginning that my account couldn’t be deleted, I wouldn’t have created one in the first place. I’m pretty sure I am not alone in feeling this sentiment.


 * Rather, administrators would be reluctant and cautious to delete accounts early on and would check and recheck if there was vandalism, name controversy, etc.. since the user made the effort to become more accountable etc. If the names are controversial or notorious (George Bush or vulgar word names etc ), they may be deleted right away but the user will be informed of the controversy the name will generate.--Jondel 08:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, and what about the oppressive administrators? Why would one want to join in there are oppressive administrators? To make this a fair treatment of this whole thing, that should be mentioned. -Alex, 12.220.157.93 19:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC).
 * Regardless of why you and I decided not to create accounts, its completely pointless to suggest a section detailng the disadvantages on a page that's obviously meant to sell the Sign In button. Now, a Why not create an account article is a different matter entirely... But then you're getting into some tricky circular-logic and needless evangelism. 4.248.249.181 10:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Unable to create account
I'm attempting to create an account, but I'm getting an error page. Why? 68.190.51.99 23:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC) Yeah what the hell is happening? Karatloz 20:18, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

User talk pages
I have removed a comment that implied that a user could choose not to receive messages from other users on their talk page, which of course is not the case. I am aware that whoever wrote the line was probably referring to the choice every user has about making their e-mail address public, however this is not how the sentence came across. Hopefully my alteration is less confusing. Rje 08:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Right to vote
In the Summary of benefits it lists many things that an IP user has no possable access to without registering. All except for "The right to be heard in votes and elections." This is something that they can do at the moment (since they can edit a talk page) and there is no link stating this is Wikipedia's official policy. I know that it is an offical policy that only registered users can vote for Admins but there is nothing explicitly stating that this is applicable to the rest of Wikipedia.

This does make sense as an official policy since any registerd user could log out and vote on multiple computers each having its own IP address (or even restarting their DSL could cause the same effect). Can someone please clarify this or create a link to this policy! Thanks -- UKPhoenix79 04:34, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * A registered user could log out and register a second account, too. Or any number of accounts. At least there's a limit to the number of IP addresses available. AFAIK nothing says unregistered users can't vote on WP:AFD for instance. I'd take the voting bit out, as well as the bit about becoming an administrator -- the requirements for this are more than just being registered. -Dan 04:24, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * There is alrady a rule about sockpuppets and voting. But not only could registerd users just log out to vote as an IP, but if they have a DSL they could just restart it and get a different IP address after each re-boot. There really should be a page discussing this as an official rule, it only makes sence! And the thing about becomming an administrator, well you can't become one without first having an account so it does make sence, at least to me... -- UKPhoenix79 04:46, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The "One person, one vote" rule is sufficient for unregistered users as well. As I say, it's usually much easier to create multiple accounts than it is to use multiple IP addresses. (Really. Try both.) So in itself that's really not a good reason to disregard unregistered IP votes. However, there may be other reasons. -Dan 04:54, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * For me all I have to do is restart my modem and I can have as many IP accounts as possable and they wouldn't be tied with my account. I noticed that your talking from an IP account yourself, but even so, votes have to be legitimate in some way and having unregistered users voting doesn't help especially in close votes.
 * You have to have some way to ensure that it is indeed a "one person one vote" system just like any other vote you would do. IP addresses just like sockpuppets can't be counted only to ensure the vote is fair. Since if you were trying to vote an IP adress would be an excellent way to cheet. And there is no way to tell if the user has a Static IP address or a Dynamic one... But even if they had a static one they could always vote at home, work, school, friends, etc... all places that someone goes to in an average day...
 * IP addresses are safer than sockpuppets since if you use a sockpuppet you can have ALL of your accounts permanently blocked. I also found where it stated that an IP cannot vote here, and that was without really looking for that policy. Hope you understand why the Wiki community generally frown on IP votes.... Not because they only want users but because they only want one person. Talk to you later :) -- UKPhoenix79 07:39, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You can have IP addresses blocked as well. Happens all the time. And yes, believe me, I understand that there are some people have a hang up about unregistered users, but not everyone, and I'm not sure what the fact that I am not concealing my IP address has to do with any of this. The page you cited doesn't say you can't vote, only that you will be prevented from completing the nominatation of a page due to the new rule about page creation. If you look further down you see "unregistered or new users are welcome to contribute, but..." A new logged in user is in the same boat as an unregistered user. So if you wanted to vote, and you created an account because this page told you that you had to in order to vote, you would still be no better off in that respect. -Dan 19:37, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

"Your IP address will no longer be visible to other users": needs clarification
When you log in, your IP address is, in fact, visible to other users, just not all of them. People with the right status can issue a Checkuser command (I think that's what it's called) and find out which IP address is connected to which account(s). I can't find the relevant policy page at the moment, but if memory serves, logs of IP addresses and attendant accounts are kept for one week. The fact that that's the case should probably be mentioned here, no? BrianinStockholm 16:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

why is it that...
IP addresses shared by multiple users are allowed? If a user on the IP address is really intent on helping Wikipedia, they should create an account. Multiple user IP addresses are mostly used by people to vandalize articles and add immature commentary to talk-pages. Just wondering why Wikipedia doesn't have a policy against this sort of thing, as it is a fairly common problem, I should think. Any reasons? Is it because it's unreasonable to effectively force someone to create an account? TrianaC 01:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * That's a pretty strong assertion about shared IP addresses. Having done a lot of edits from a shared IP address (not this one), I disagree. It might be a case of remembering unpleasant encounters which generated cleanup work, while not noticing positive edits requiring no intervention. I doubt anyone bothers to investigate an unregistered user doing positive things. As for logging in not being a barrier to people really intent on helping, that is true. At this point, I certainly wouldn't stop editing if forced to login. But it might be that most people start out mildly interested, and become really intent on helping only after having helped out already. 70.30.114.134 18:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, shouldn't have said 'mostly'. But I've gotta say, the talk-pages of almost every shared IP address I've seen are littered with vandalism notices and blocks. And I do accept that 'most' users on shared addresses don't use 'em for vandalism, and do make helpful contributions. My bad. TrianaC 16:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

hey,this website is all about my great great uncle Paul Henry Carr.i heard all about him his use to be  wife and i talk all the time.he was the only boy out of 8 sisters.he was the youngest.my family was very depressed after his death.no one spoke for months.his wife didn't speek about him for almost                      1 1/2 years.but she finally got remarried i think about 3 years. -soccerstud_95

A concern...
The section Other benefits includes this sentence: "Your own user page that is never shared with others". What exactly does that imply? That nobody but you can see your userpage? - incorrect. That only you can edit your userpage? Again, incorrect. I think it should be removed or clarification given on what exactly it means. — Gary Kirk // talk! 19:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Difficulties
Creating a new account does not appear to be a simple as the site may think. I have tried by registering a user name and password, which I then tried to enter only to be told that they do not exist. Attempting a second time to create an account using the same user name and password, I was told that these already exist and cannot be used. Such are the myteries of modern technology. What is wrong with a printed encyclopaedia, anyway. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 121.72.128.42 (talk • contribs) 03:46, October 23, 2006 (UTC)

Deleting an account
How would I go about deleting my account? 68.35.116.192 21:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, how? Do you need to become a staff(and how do you do that)?

If you register an account is it possible to have the user talk at your old IP moved to the new account or to have it entirely removed? (Bouncingmolar 23:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC))

4-day restriction
I believe that the 4-day restriction on editing semi-protected pages should extend to page creations as well. This could drastically reduce the number of nonsense page creations, saving RC patrollers (like me) and admins a lot of time spent marking and speedy deleting nonsense. Mr.Z-man  talk  01:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. I went looking for this page to voice this same opinion after I got tired of tagging CSD pages from users who created their accounts not 30 minutes ago. Having at least a 12 or 24 hour wait period would reduce the number of spur-of-the-moment articles and petty vandals. I think if a new user is truly willing to contribute to a better encyclopedia, they would come back. UnfriendlyFire 06:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Problems with creating a new account
Hello, I'm the user Ra'ike from de:Wikipedia and wanted to create a new account here with the same Nickname. The problem is that error-report: ''Login error: The name "Ra'ike" is very similar to the existing account "Raike" (contributions • logs • user creation entry). Please choose another name, or request an administrator to create this account for you.'' This user hasn't any edits (look at and logs. Is it possible to delete this user complete, so that I can register me? greetings -- 87.164.46.121 11:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC) (please give a short answere here too, thanks)
 * An admin can still create an account with this name for you to use. I have responded to your e-mail address on the German Wikipedia. —Centrx→talk &bull; 14:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Other benefits
The second and last points should be removed because even IP users have a "My Contributions" list and talk page. These are not benefits of registering an account. 24.6.65.83 18:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Most people's IP addresses change fairly frequently, and they do not have exclusive control over them. Someone may have edited with it before you got your IP, and someone will likely edit with it after relinquish it. Even if you happen to have an actually static IP address, it is highly unlikely you would not switch to a different Internet service provider or be forced to change IPs, over the course of years. —Centrx→talk &bull; 02:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Page creation
Currently, as a friend points out, if you attempt to create a page when not logged in, it appears to work but doesn't. It comes back with page not found. It really ought to say "you can't do this because you're not logged in" William M. Connolley 12:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Protected Pages
How can I edit them? I log in with this account and although I am a new user you will see from my contributions that I mean no harm. Rick-Levitt Talk Contribs —Preceding comment was added at 10:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

IP
You are always able to see our IP - even if do register!


 * Let me put it this way. If you make a contribution without an account, anyone can see what IP made that edit. If you make a contribution with an account, everyone can only see your username. The only way the IP of a registered user would be made public would be through CheckUser-and that's only done for very good reasons. --Puchiko (Talk-email) 05:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

RFA vote?
Should the ability to vote in RFAs be added? If nobody has any objections within the next few days, I will add it to the "other benefits" section. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 20:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)