User talk:192.160.216.52

New messages will appear at the bottom of this page.

Welcome! Last edited: Last edited by: 13:32, 5 February 2024 (UTC) K6ka (talk · contribs) Interested in becoming a regular contributor to Wikipedia? Create an account! Your IP address, 192.160.216.52, is registered to Whittier College and may be shared by multiple users of an educational institution, so you might receive messages on this page that were not intended for you. To have your own user pages, keep track of articles you've edited in a watchlist, and have access to a few other special features, please consider registering an account! It's fast and free. If you are unable to create an account due to your institution's IP address being blocked, follow these instructions. If you are autoblocked repeatedly, contact your network administrator or instructor and request that your school contact Wikimedia's XFF project about enabling X-Forwarded-For HTTP headers on its proxy servers so that blocks will affect only the intended user. Administrators: review contributions carefully if blocking this IP address or reverting its contributions. If a block is needed, consider a soft block using {{School block}}. In response to vandalism from this IP address, abuse reports may be sent to its network administrator for investigation. Educational institution staff and network administrators wishing to monitor this IP address for vandalism can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

Hey man - I just wanted to reach out and offer an opportunity to chat. You seem really angry and have a lot of run ins with other editors. This can be a really cool place, but sometimes your comments appear to come off as really aggressive and rude rather than constructive. You've been really active and I think that's great, I'd like to build up some edits like you, but think you could be so much more productive if you were a little more polite with others. LikeMeercats (talk) 23:06, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Says the editor who baselessly accused me of having a personal stake in the outcome of some random AfD. Assuming that you believe you're following your own advice with respect to the relation between being polite and being productive I guess you think that making personal attacks in order to discredit perfectly valid AfD comments is OK as long as you don't say mean words while you're doing it. And what in the world do you know about how productive I am? Please, share your data. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 14:54, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You've been editing WP for less than three weeks and you're telling me how to be more productive? Thanks, buddy, but I have over 40K edits in the last 10 years. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 16:19, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Yunshui. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Gilman School have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. The reverted edit can be found here. Yunshui ^雲_水 23:27, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for informing me. Regards, Störm (talk) 20:06, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pls check this page [1], where two tags have been added on top the article despite more than 20 citations of reliable newspapers/websites such as BBC, Dawn, Express Tribune have been added. Instead of pointing out any specific unreliable source, a tag has been placed on top of the article to generalise it, effecting the whole article's credibility despite substantial citations attached. Please look into this. Thanks (103.228.156.33 (talk) 02:37, 3 March 2018 (UTC))[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for raising such interesting issues of policy, which although I am arguing against, is still intellectually interesting and valid.

I noticed you editing without an account.

Creating a user account gives you advantages such as: Being able to edit protected pages, being able to create your own articles, having a personal sandbox and the option of your own userspace pages, and a permanent talk page dedicated to you.

You also get to pick a name and can you edit without everyone knowing you are editing from Whittier College, apparently a 4-year private liberal arts college located in Southern California between bustling Los Angeles and beautiful Orange County.

Prince of Thieves (talk) 20:32, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bus routes in Lahore‎. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Prince of Thieves (talk) 13:36, 7 March 2018 (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.

Don't go there, friend. My edits aren't disruptive at all. You threatening me with Twinkle templates is disruptive. Drop the stick. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 13:39, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I need to warn you before seeking further remedies, it's procedure. Prince of Thieves (talk) 13:47, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh for God's sake. Well, if you're determined to jump off that cliff, I don't suppose it's my job to stop you. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 13:51, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Look clearly one of us is going to get told off for not understanding the WP:CANVASS policy, but given that two other editors have made comments roughly aligned with mine I don't feel I am "jumping off a cliff", and anyway there is still that unresolved WP:CORPDEPTH discussion which I would appreciate some clarification on. Prince of Thieves (talk) 13:58, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No one's going to get told off for not understanding a policy. We interpret it differently. This is akin to a content dispute. It's not a behavioral issue on anyone's part, except if you keep trying to get me sanctioned it's going to become one on your part. You're brand new here, and maybe you don't get this about WP yet. It'd probably be better for you if you'd just relax and read ANI for a few months before you go there with this kind of nonsense, but if you won't be talked sense to, I suppose you just won't. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 14:02, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A policy is a policy, if I get it wrong I would fully expect to be told off for that (or sanctioned as you put it). But it doesn't seem anyone thinks it's worth worrying about so perhaps we can agree this was interesting and move on. Prince of Thieves (talk) 14:17, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that you and your friend Nightfury seem to think that disagreements between editors are disruptive somehow. Opinions are not disruptive, only behavior is disruptive. And ANI is not for discussing opinions, even if you think they're misunderstandings. Really, you ought to take my advice and not post to ANI until you've been here a while. It's likely to end in tears. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 14:20, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a clue what you are getting at. But I have posted of ANI and other noticeboards several times and everyone has been very helpful. Prince of Thieves (talk) 14:47, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Note Prince of Thieves has been confirmed by a CheckUser as a sock puppet of A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyve and has been blocked indefinitely as well as being locked globally. -The Gnome (talk) 20:41, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for letting me know. I saw that on an old AfD. I thought there was something off about them. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 21:01, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Disruptive IP on AfD plus another issue. NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:53, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arif Nizami, Azhar Abbas (journalist) are up for deletion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Azhar Abbas (journalist) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arif Nizami. Can you please help in improving these articles and defect deletion attempt. --Spasage (talk) 14:57, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits while logged out. Making edits while logged out reveals your IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow the use of both an account and an IP address by the same person in the same setting and doing so may result in your account being blocked from editing. If this was not your intention, please remember to log in when editing. It looks like you may be skirting a block or ban. Please log in. jps (talk) 15:22, 13 March 2018 (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.

Grow up. I'm not skirting a block or a ban. There's as much or more evidence that you are. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 15:51, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhat, see [2]. -- Prince of Thieves (talk) 16:06, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hilarious! Thank you for telling me about that. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 16:43, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, do you mind if I canvass you for what you think of Index of standards articles (AfD), I am completely unsure how to treat it. Prince of Thieves (talk) 15:07, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Listen, this actually is WP:CANVAS. You should find some way to notify a bunch of people about this who aren't me. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 16:46, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Unscintillating, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:32, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If the policies are against you, pound the facts. If the facts are against you, pound the policies. If the facts and the policies are against you, file a delusionally groundless sockpuppet investigation. Pathetic. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 13:21, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What a catchy line. --Saqib (talk) 17:41, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blah blah blah. Why don't you go improve the encyclopedia instead of making misguided accusations to gain the advantage in losing arguments? 192.160.216.52 (talk) 17:42, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's an easy one - as I think I remarked the other day, it takes about 5-10 minutes to rescue and turn around a CSD A7 nomination so it's properly written and sourced, whereas hitting the relevant "OMG abuse" Twinkle button takes about 5-10 seconds. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:46, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

True enough. And for extra irony, I edited WP under a named account for about 7 years previously and was never treated like these people are treating me now. I really don't know why the foundation insists on letting people edit from an IP and then allows and even encourages this kind of behavior from editors and admins like Bbb23 (who seemed fairly level-headed to me when I edited under an account). 192.160.216.52 (talk) 18:08, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention the fact that I edited under a named account from 2003 to 2010 while living in Zanzibar using a dial-up modem behind seven proxies that exited at 198.81.128.0. And the name of that account was... well, I'll leave it to the great SPI detective force, who somehow decided I didn't know they read everything on this page. Oh, did I mention, the walrus was Paul! 192.160.216.52 (talk) 19:44, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic IP possibly being used by topic banned user to get round ban. Nightfury 14:25, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to replenish to LTA page. 115.164.83.84 (talk) 18:31, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

???192.160.216.52 (talk) 18:34, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your editing at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Unscintillating has become disruptive. Consider this an only warning that if you persist, you risk being blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:04, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Bbb23! Thanks for the warning. After all, you did tell me that if I insisted on editing from an IP address in full compliance with the policies of WP that I could expect to be questioned. You only neglected to tell me that "questioned" meant attacked personally, accused without evidence, called names project-wide, and then threatened by you when I complained about it. Anyway, your performative demonstration obviously is far more effective than any kind of mere explanation would have been, so I thank you for that. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 18:05, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And especially thanks for warning the other users. They're just "making things worse" but I'm getting "only warnings." Nice. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 18:25, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel inclined to ping me like this, it better be here to report yourself for baiting and being an all-round nuisance. I do not appreciate when others waste my time so consider this a fair warning.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:10, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel inclined to threaten me like this, it better be here to report yourself for attacking and being an all-round nuisance. I do not appreciate when others waste my time so consider this a fair warning. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 16:52, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How cute. "Imitation is a kind of artless flattery", as Eustace Budgell described it.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:07, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I saw your keep vote on Talal Malik (entrepreneur) Thanks. Smartse launched Sock investigation which badly failed and they are keep accusing all people who contributed on this article. Please help me, he also deleted my another approved and reviewed article as speedy delete claiming WP:SIGNIFICANCE which clearly states that even mentions in the articles of reliable sources are enough and article could not be speedy deleted. Please read statements, I am really seeking help, where should I raise my voice, as these guys are connected and trying to violate every policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevin055 (talk • contribs) 13:09, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I thought you might be interested in this..... [3]

– Lionel^(talk) 10:25, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

	The Article Rescue Barnstar
	is here by awarded to 192.160.216.52 for their exemplary efforts in rescuing articles at Articles For Deletion. – Lionel(talk) 08:36, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aw, gee, thanks! 192.160.216.52 (talk) 13:03, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are suspected of sock puppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, then, if you wish to do so, respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Unscintillating. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rusf10 (talk • contribs)

Hello, I'm LakesideMiners. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Circle time— because it 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 Help Desk. Thanks. LakesideMiners^{My Talk Page} 19:43, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Civil flag. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. JACKINTHEBOX • ^TALK 14:27, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]