User talk:85.166.161.28

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome![edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, such as the ones you made to Talk:Viking Age. I hope you like the place and decide to stay.

Here are some links to pages you may find useful:

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:

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

If you edit without using a named account, your IP address (85.166.161.28) 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 Wikipedia:Questions, or you can click here 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 (~~~~).

Happy editing! Drmies (talk) 15:13, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

moving to talk page[edit]

Moved from https://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Talk:Viking_Age#A_few_details

Got your message, 85. I noticed your Help Desk question also. And I have to say: Imagine what you could do if you got an account! You could track your edits, and you wouldn't have to rely on talk-page posts in the often fruitless hope that someone is watching the article and wants to engage. Outriggr (talk) 12:24, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Aloha there, thx for taking the time to respond, very noblesse oblige of you. I am, however, something of a digital skeptic, and have always tried to minimize my cyber-presence and -footprint. Also, I belong to the segment of specifically Wikipedia skeptics, having been put off by the antics of wikilawyering article owners. In the beginning, I edited pages with subjects that interested me (in later years supplied with "and which I have knowledge about" ...), like, to come clean, Men's rights. Not that I have Views (or, of course I do, but I can see the wisdom of not making that the basis of an encyclopedia), and not that the Article Owners didn't do a useful job wrt. RS, OR etc; otoh, I'm trained in text work, and can see well what can be made of a source, for good or bad. And it took me three years of uphill struggle, enduring all the ill will a clique of activists can muster, to have a single sentence removed for the illicit generalizing the results of an obviously dated, local and limited unscientific enquete to the subject in general as if it had been a true scientific study. In the end, they grudgingly acceeded. What I saw was people deciding they had the monopoly on determining what any given (and otherwise perfectly sensible) policy actually did mean, and how it was to be implemented, which they did in a rather flexible way, depending on for or against. I didn't like that. And I don't like argueing (or, I do (grin), but I know that when one finds oneself doing that that, one is already at an unproductive dead end), and so I limit myself to sauntering about randomly, looking for typos, sometimes checking sources, not turning my back in frustration but trying to do my oh so small part in improving articles, byte by byte, in, hopefully, the spirit of Wikipedia. I usually start by making comments or proposals on talk pages, testing the waters, so to speak, and then proceed if there is no howl of protest. If there is, I just back off. I've always believed this was the proper way; at least it seems a polite way. Well, that was probably way more information than you needed, and sorry to vent on innocent you when you display so much goodwill; I just wanted to give some background as to why I am regrettfully declining your very, very kind invitation to become a bona fide Wikipedian. "It's not you, it's me" :) Although, one of the benefits of having an account would have been to put this screed on my own page instead of cluttering up this talk page. A one time thing, promise. Wrt. the actual article issues, I'll make some text proposals here, in due course. All the best to you! T 85.166.161.28 (talk) 15:12, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah but. I'm a digital skeptic too, which is why in particular I don't splash my IP address(es) all over wikipedia. (So again: make an account is the subtext here. If you do this, I promise I will immediately give you a generic welcome template, and also a barnstar on your talk page.)
You're savvy in visiting the talk page first with controversial articles, before going ahead with an edit; but I'd argue those articles are exceptions. I don't know the history of this article (I suppose it's x-protected for a reason), but I'm sure if you made changes to it, with references, directly, as a logged-in user, you wouldn't meet the fate that you did on a modern highly politicized topic. Otherwise I agree with what you wrote. It seems to be incredibly hard to lure sensible people to contribute here. (Take that as you wish.) Outriggr (talk) 05:32, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you've moved to another IP. Oh well! Outriggr (talk) 06:59, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Still here! But work - fi donc! - got in the way of Real Life On Wikipedia. T 85.166.161.28 (talk) 22:04, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Viking Age—reply from Neonorange on my talk page[edit]

Hi! User 85.166.161.28 —

I have replied to the message you left on my talk page at my talk page. — Neonorange (Phil) 01:05, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:85.166.161.28&oldid=938250974"