User talk:DAFMM

April 2013

Note from User: Jodosma

Hi, I'm Jodosma. I just left a message for you here. I hope it helps; if not please drop me a line. Jodosma (talk) 22:47, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much. DAFMM (talk) 14:23, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What's the Problem with Multiple Accounts?

(Posted on Wikipedia talk: Sock puppetry).

This is just a query which I thought I'd throw out there as it has always baffled me. In my early days of editing I was once complained about for using multiple accounts, ie. that of DAFMM and another account two accounts, both of which I used for editing. What is the problem with the same individual using multiple accounts? I can understand it if there causing trouble, and using one while the other is blocked or using the other for support in arguments etc., but what about general, honest use? What if he publicised on the user pages that he edited under one user name for edits regarding one topic, and another for other topics? Is there a problem? Thanks. DAFMM (talk) 11:53, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOCK#LEGIT says it all, doesn't it? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:07, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You only have one pair of hands don't you? And you can log in twice using the same ID and password, then, having both windows on display at the same time you can switch easily between one and the other. The only reason anyone would need to have more than one account ID would be to give the impression that they were more than one person. If you are being honest why would you need two IDs? After all, would you like to be talking to someone in real life who changed their appearance and body language at will? It would drive me crazy. So I would say have only one account, stand up for your errors and move on, having gained by the experience. What is the point of having to continually re-invent yourself? You're not Madonna incognito are you? Jodosma (talk) 22:35, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Jodosma. Thanks for your notes on my talk page. As BWilkins points out above, there are many reasons a person might want to edit anonymously. I would say to you, just as you don't judge a person by the color of his skin in the real world, don't judge editors here by their username or IP address—judge them by the edits they make. --108.45.72.196 (talk) 02:21, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I must agree with the last point made by 108.45.72.196 and would personally consider that to be the overriding factor with regard to my judgement of an account. I suppose my statement could be considered hypothetical in some respects and I both appreciate and recognise the case made for the incredulity caused by multiple id accounts, although I'm sure many people may like the keep their edits on some articles (although perfectly legitimate contributions) seperate to their main account (eg. does someone who edits penis may be embarrassed when editing a seperate article such as Queen Elizabeth II and consequentially create two accounts - naturally, without admission by the editor himself, the two accounts would never seem interconnected). Thanks. DAFMM (talk) 14:29, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is phaedrx wikipedianoob. You guys might want to somehow artfully skillfully clarify or more prominently locate somewhere a new person can see it easily, and also this would be for the volunteer enforcement teams here. They should have on wikipedia, that is the users and readers worldwide now and in the future, mentioned that sockpuppeting can only be the apropo term if there is harmful intent. If a person is not intending to harm, that is, it is not sockpuppeting even if they do do harm. For example is my case which I hesitate to draw attention to but nonetheless: I worked a high pace job using WP as a ref. about geographic facts. I used to sign in to get the screen to look how I wanted etc. It never occurred to me there were real people in the background editing it. Seriously. I never looked into or knew anything about how it worked I just assumed they got it right those Wikipeople. I developed profiles for screen appearances and stayed logged in but something would happen at my computer at the office which wasn't mine, and I would lose the password if it was a while and I rotated them as I usually do and have to do a new one. I kept doing name variants and eventually just went 0j8cqu3aj9 or f39hf9h3 to get a page quick to find out about that province in Banton or Tuntin or wherever. So, by the time the editing thing happened, which was that I made it known and not hiding it that yes I was signing in under diff names, I had no idea there was even such a thing as sock-puppeting. So I could not possibly be doing a behavior that implicitly means harmful intent. I did inappropriate noob things here (who hasn't), but sockin' ain't ever been one. Perhaps the case I illustrated is just too narrow to make a change, a worldwide-awareness-of-sockpuppeting campaign I just started huh anyway, I didn't mean a big thing maybe just clarify that accidental sockpuppeting is real. what do you all think, is the important thing. --Phaedrx (talk) 20:32, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese Classics Faculty Photo

(Posted on: Talk: Peking University).

Removed as I could find nowhere to place the photo where it looked right and did not mess up the references at the bottom like it did before. In retrospect, the pciture, unlike the others on the page at present, was of no real consequences (merely decoration?) and so I have removed the photo. The link is copied here, so anyone is welcome to try again. Thanks. DAFMM (talk) 13:39, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Further Explanantion Required

(Posted on Talk: Stephen Fry).

'He is on cordial terms with Prince Charles (despite a mild parody Fry performed in his role of King Charles I in the comedy programme Blackadder: The Cavalier Years), through his work with the Prince's Trust.'

Where is the 'mild parody' in this sketch'. I will watch it but on first reading I can't seem to recall a similarity. Please forgive me if I am overlooking an obvious point.

Thanks.

DAFMM (talk) 15:58, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]