User talk:174.56.173.38

August 2023

Please refrain from using talk pages for general discussion of this or other topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways, based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines; they are not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See the talk page guidelines for more information. Thank you. Acroterion (talk) 02:25, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Reply

Hi. Thank you for your message. I reverted your initial edit because editing other users' comments on talk pages is considered bad practice. My only fault is that I should have left you the corresponding warning to prevent you from doing so again, as I have now had to remove your most recent comment for exactly the same reason. Thank you. Technopat (talk) 09:04, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

That explains it. However, the "other user" that I edited was myself. For reasons unknown to me, my IP address changed from 98... to 174... a couple of months ago. Thus, I was editing my own comment in the Talk section. Which I will do again. Thanks. 174.56.173.38 (talk) 02:26, 15 September 2023 (UTC)kolef174.56.173.38 (talk) 02:26, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi again. At the risk of repeating myself, please do not delete or edit talk page comments. Such edits are disruptive, and may appear to other editors to be vandalism, even if you mean well and your edit is apparently harmless. Talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing content can affect other users' later understanding of the thread of content/discussions made several years previously. So while I'm willing to accept, at face value, your claim to be the very same user that made the original edit, albeit under a different IP, that would suggest that you have been around here long enough to know how these things work and I'm sure you can understand that all this brings us back to the very essence of Wikipedia, one of the core policies —Verifiability— ie, blind trust is not a thing here (that other core policy, Assuming good faith (AGF) notwithstanding). Moving on, given that there are cases to be made for a user adding new comments to clarify his/her older threads, the edit we're dealing with here doesn't seem to be a crucial addition that would warrant the insertion of an explanatory note for the benefit of other users. The bottom line of all this is that I'm asking you to restore the original content as it is part of a historical archive. Thank you, --Technopat (talk) 11:12, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Point taken. Although I've been using Wikipedia for a while, I have been generally unfamiliar with the Wiki guidelines including the one about refraining from editing even your own talk page comments. Thank you. 174.56.173.38 (talk) 18:55, 19 September 2023 (UTC)kolef174.56.173.38 (talk) 18:55, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi again. Thank you for being so reasonable about it. I realise, from my own experience here, that what might look straightforward and harmless from one's own perspective, might not be perceived as such when viewed from a different angle. Sometimes with unforeseen consequences. (Going off on a tangent here, this is especially true when applying such apparently unequivocal "skills" as good ol' common sense, "good" judgment, etc. Not to mention "You say tomato and I say...".) Cheers! --Technopat (talk) 21:27, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

---