Recent Changes for "Users/upisdown" - Davis Wikihttp://daviswiki.org/Users/upisdownRecent Changes of the page "Users/upisdown" on Davis Wiki.en-us Users/upisdownhttp://daviswiki.org/Users/upisdown2011-02-05 14:47:11JasonAlleractually it was people just like you who did <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Users/upisdown<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 1: </td> <td> Line 1: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> Old people ruined the world. </td> <td> <span>+ ["Senior Citizens"</span> Old people<span>]</span> ruined the world. </td> </tr> </table> </div> Users/upisdownhttp://daviswiki.org/Users/upisdown2010-11-29 08:52:44upisdown <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Users/upisdown<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 1: </td> <td> Line 1: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>- Describe upisdown here.<br> - <br> - upisdown, meet ["Users/gynomight"]<br> - <br> - * So are we to believe that every person on the internet has their own IP address and that NAT processing does not happen on every modern router? I question the person who posted this snarky message motives, because it was my understanding in college towns many people had roommates which are connected to the same router. This would be common knowledge for students but this person was guarding a business website from bad reviews.<br> - <br> - Let me explain a bit about networking, WAN IP addresses which are viewable by Davis WIKI are assigned by the ISP to the router. Almost all home networks (people who don't live alone) hook up to the internet via a router. The router could also be hooked up to other switches or routers to expand the size of the internet for bigger living environments such as internet access for apartments or dorms. All of these people would have the same IP address when accessing Davis WIKI because they went through the same router.<br> - <br> - So NO, having the same IP address does not imply we are the same person NOR that we come from the same computer. The internet could not handle an ip address for every computer. That is exactly why IP v6 was invented and why NAT processing was a required addition to routers.<br> - <br> - [[Comments]]<br> - ------<br> - ''2010-11-27 17:01:13'' [[nbsp]] If you were as much of a computer expert as you claim, you would have realized that it was not me who left [http://daviswiki.org/Woodstock%27s_Pizza?action=diff&amp;version2=219&amp;version1=218 this message]. My message above may have been "snarky" but it was also ambiguous; you are making unwarranted inferences about what I meant by it. And if you take a quick look on my page you will see that Woodstock's is not among my top three pizza places in town. In fact, I think their pizza is pretty crappy. --["Users/CovertProfessor"]<br> - ------<br> - ''2010-11-27 17:03:08'' [[nbsp]] Please calm down. It's a implication, not a certainty. In practice (and the wiki gets quite a few fake reviews), it's enough of a warning flag when combined with chronological proximity and/or similar names to be reasonably notable (you use a pseudonym, which is not ["people" common practice here]. See ["identity"]). Most people understand what NAT is, and that's the reason the notice is worded the way it is... as a informational note that the IP addresses were shared, which is a reason to cast suspicion upon the reviews -- but not enough certainty to simply delete them. If somebody thought it was certain they were duplicitous examples of ["sockpuppets"], they would simply have been deleted. On the other hand, had anybody else thought whoever added the notice (it was actually ["Users/JoePomidor"], I believe) was out of line, the notice would have been deleted. On balance, most people thought it was a reasonable thing to make note of based on what was known and the common traits of bogus reviews, and nobody thought it was clear-cut enough to delete the reviews. Nobody is trying to hurt you, nobody is trying to be confrontational. There was simply a kind of odd coincidence, which tends to point to questionable activity, and it was noted. It was not intended to be a big deal, and I'm sure nobody intended to provoke such a massive and emotional outpouring from you. It was noted in good faith, without malice, and with full understanding that a common IP doesn't carry any certainty of deception. If you posted in good faith, feel free to just remove the notice. Things are nowhere near as antagonistic here to require such an impassioned defense. --["Users/JabberWokky" Evan 'JabberWokky' Edwards], (814) 889-8845<br> - ------<br> - ''2010-11-28 22:17:15'' [[nbsp]] Hey, I posted on the banning leaf-blowers page asking for a bit more info on the actual harm. Maybe you posted the wrong link twice--the op-ed piece you linked to doesn't have any information on any Lung Association study relating to leaf blowers and health or environmental problems, much less causation. So far, I haven't seen any actual information linking the use of leaf blowers to health or environmental issues, aside from the very basic, "this is a combustion engine" side of things. --["Users/TomGarberson"]<br> - ------<br> - ''2010-11-28 22:50:38'' [[nbsp]] I'm glad we've established that only lazy white people have lawns. I wrote out responses to a couple of your points that took your opinion seriously. I'm glad I refreshed the page before editing anything. It would be a shame to dignify that silliness with a real response. --["Users/TomGarberson"]<br> - ------<br> - ''2010-11-28 22:55:06'' [[nbsp]] One additional note: neither lawns nor leaf-blowers are on the list of [http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.com/full-list-of-stuff-white-people-like/ stuff white people like]. Your conclusions are, therefore, incorrect. Consider yourself proven wrong. :) --["Users/TomGarberson"]<br> - ------<br> - ''2010-11-28 23:31:29'' [[nbsp]] Thanks for your racist comments. --["Users/JoePomidor"]</span> </td> <td> <span>+ Old people ruined the world.</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Users/upisdownhttp://daviswiki.org/Users/upisdown2010-11-28 23:31:29JoePomidorComment added. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Users/upisdown<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 22: </td> <td> Line 22: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ ------<br> + ''2010-11-28 23:31:29'' [[nbsp]] Thanks for your racist comments. --["Users/JoePomidor"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Users/upisdownhttp://daviswiki.org/Users/upisdown2010-11-28 22:55:06TomGarbersonComment added. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Users/upisdown<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 20: </td> <td> Line 20: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ ------<br> + ''2010-11-28 22:55:06'' [[nbsp]] One additional note: neither lawns nor leaf-blowers are on the list of [http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.com/full-list-of-stuff-white-people-like/ stuff white people like]. Your conclusions are, therefore, incorrect. Consider yourself proven wrong. :) --["Users/TomGarberson"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Users/upisdownhttp://daviswiki.org/Users/upisdown2010-11-28 22:50:38TomGarbersonComment added. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Users/upisdown<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 18: </td> <td> Line 18: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ ------<br> + ''2010-11-28 22:50:38'' [[nbsp]] I'm glad we've established that only lazy white people have lawns. I wrote out responses to a couple of your points that took your opinion seriously. I'm glad I refreshed the page before editing anything. It would be a shame to dignify that silliness with a real response. --["Users/TomGarberson"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Users/upisdownhttp://daviswiki.org/Users/upisdown2010-11-28 22:17:15TomGarbersonComment added. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Users/upisdown<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 16: </td> <td> Line 16: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ ------<br> + ''2010-11-28 22:17:15'' [[nbsp]] Hey, I posted on the banning leaf-blowers page asking for a bit more info on the actual harm. Maybe you posted the wrong link twice--the op-ed piece you linked to doesn't have any information on any Lung Association study relating to leaf blowers and health or environmental problems, much less causation. So far, I haven't seen any actual information linking the use of leaf blowers to health or environmental issues, aside from the very basic, "this is a combustion engine" side of things. --["Users/TomGarberson"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Users/upisdownhttp://daviswiki.org/Users/upisdown2010-11-27 17:04:04JabberWokky <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Users/upisdown<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 15: </td> <td> Line 15: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> ''2010-11-27 17:03:08'' [[nbsp]] Please calm down. It's a implication, not a certainty. In practice (and the wiki gets quite a few fake reviews), it's enough of a warning flag when combined with chronological proximity and/or similar names to be reasonably notable (you use a pseudonym, which is not ["people" common practice here]. See ["identity"]). Most people understand what NAT is, and that's the reason the notice is worded the way it is... as a informational note that the IP addresses were shared, which is a reason to cast suspicion upon the reviews -- but not enough certainty to simply delete them. If somebody thought it was certain they were duplicitous examples of ["sockpuppet<span>ry</span>"], they would simply have been deleted. On the other hand, had anybody else thought whoever added the notice (it was actually ["Users/JoePomidor"], I believe) was out of line, the notice would have been deleted. On balance, most people thought it was a reasonable thing to make note of based on what was known and the common traits of bogus reviews, and nobody thought it was clear-cut enough to delete the reviews. Nobody is trying to hurt you, nobody is trying to be confrontational. There was simply a kind of odd coincidence, which tends to point to questionable activity, and it was noted. It was not intended to be a big deal, and I'm sure nobody intended to provoke such a massive and emotional outpouring from you. It was noted in good faith, without malice, and with full understanding that a common IP doesn't carry any certainty of deception. If you posted in good faith, feel free to just remove the notice. Things are nowhere near as antagonistic here to require such an impassioned defense. --["Users/JabberWokky" Evan 'JabberWokky' Edwards], (814) 889-8845 </td> <td> <span>+</span> ''2010-11-27 17:03:08'' [[nbsp]] Please calm down. It's a implication, not a certainty. In practice (and the wiki gets quite a few fake reviews), it's enough of a warning flag when combined with chronological proximity and/or similar names to be reasonably notable (you use a pseudonym, which is not ["people" common practice here]. See ["identity"]). Most people understand what NAT is, and that's the reason the notice is worded the way it is... as a informational note that the IP addresses were shared, which is a reason to cast suspicion upon the reviews -- but not enough certainty to simply delete them. If somebody thought it was certain they were duplicitous examples of ["sockpuppet<span>s</span>"], they would simply have been deleted. On the other hand, had anybody else thought whoever added the notice (it was actually ["Users/JoePomidor"], I believe) was out of line, the notice would have been deleted. On balance, most people thought it was a reasonable thing to make note of based on what was known and the common traits of bogus reviews, and nobody thought it was clear-cut enough to delete the reviews. Nobody is trying to hurt you, nobody is trying to be confrontational. There was simply a kind of odd coincidence, which tends to point to questionable activity, and it was noted. It was not intended to be a big deal, and I'm sure nobody intended to provoke such a massive and emotional outpouring from you. It was noted in good faith, without malice, and with full understanding that a common IP doesn't carry any certainty of deception. If you posted in good faith, feel free to just remove the notice. Things are nowhere near as antagonistic here to require such an impassioned defense. --["Users/JabberWokky" Evan 'JabberWokky' Edwards], (814) 889-8845 </td> </tr> </table> </div> Users/upisdownhttp://daviswiki.org/Users/upisdown2010-11-27 17:03:22JabberWokky <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Users/upisdown<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 15: </td> <td> Line 15: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> ''2010-11-27 17:03:08'' [[nbsp]] <span>* </span>Please calm down. It's a implication, not a certainty. In practice (and the wiki gets quite a few fake reviews), it's enough of a warning flag when combined with chronological proximity and/or similar names to be reasonably notable (you use a pseudonym, which is not ["people" common practice here]. See ["identity"]). Most people understand what NAT is, and that's the reason the notice is worded the way it is... as a informational note that the IP addresses were shared, which is a reason to cast suspicion upon the reviews -- but not enough certainty to simply delete them. If somebody thought it was certain they were duplicitous examples of ["sockpuppetry"], they would simply have been deleted. On the other hand, had anybody else thought whoever added the notice (it was actually ["Users/JoePomidor"], I believe) was out of line, the notice would have been deleted. On balance, most people thought it was a reasonable thing to make note of based on what was known and the common traits of bogus reviews, and nobody thought it was clear-cut enough to delete the reviews. Nobody is trying to hurt you, nobody is trying to be confrontational. There was simply a kind of odd coincidence, which tends to point to questionable activity, and it was noted. It was not intended to be a big deal, and I'm sure nobody intended to provoke such a massive and emotional outpouring from you. It was noted in good faith, without malice, and with full understanding that a common IP doesn't carry any certainty of deception. If you posted in good faith, feel free to just remove the notice. Things are nowhere near as antagonistic here to require such an impassioned defense. --["Users/JabberWokky" Evan 'JabberWokky' Edwards], (814) 889-8845<span><br> - --["Users/JabberWokky"]</span> </td> <td> <span>+</span> ''2010-11-27 17:03:08'' [[nbsp]] Please calm down. It's a implication, not a certainty. In practice (and the wiki gets quite a few fake reviews), it's enough of a warning flag when combined with chronological proximity and/or similar names to be reasonably notable (you use a pseudonym, which is not ["people" common practice here]. See ["identity"]). Most people understand what NAT is, and that's the reason the notice is worded the way it is... as a informational note that the IP addresses were shared, which is a reason to cast suspicion upon the reviews -- but not enough certainty to simply delete them. If somebody thought it was certain they were duplicitous examples of ["sockpuppetry"], they would simply have been deleted. On the other hand, had anybody else thought whoever added the notice (it was actually ["Users/JoePomidor"], I believe) was out of line, the notice would have been deleted. On balance, most people thought it was a reasonable thing to make note of based on what was known and the common traits of bogus reviews, and nobody thought it was clear-cut enough to delete the reviews. Nobody is trying to hurt you, nobody is trying to be confrontational. There was simply a kind of odd coincidence, which tends to point to questionable activity, and it was noted. It was not intended to be a big deal, and I'm sure nobody intended to provoke such a massive and emotional outpouring from you. It was noted in good faith, without malice, and with full understanding that a common IP doesn't carry any certainty of deception. If you posted in good faith, feel free to just remove the notice. Things are nowhere near as antagonistic here to require such an impassioned defense. --["Users/JabberWokky" Evan 'JabberWokky' Edwards], (814) 889-8845 </td> </tr> </table> </div> Users/upisdownhttp://daviswiki.org/Users/upisdown2010-11-27 17:03:08JabberWokkyComment added. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Users/upisdown<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 14: </td> <td> Line 14: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ ------<br> + ''2010-11-27 17:03:08'' [[nbsp]] * Please calm down. It's a implication, not a certainty. In practice (and the wiki gets quite a few fake reviews), it's enough of a warning flag when combined with chronological proximity and/or similar names to be reasonably notable (you use a pseudonym, which is not ["people" common practice here]. See ["identity"]). Most people understand what NAT is, and that's the reason the notice is worded the way it is... as a informational note that the IP addresses were shared, which is a reason to cast suspicion upon the reviews -- but not enough certainty to simply delete them. If somebody thought it was certain they were duplicitous examples of ["sockpuppetry"], they would simply have been deleted. On the other hand, had anybody else thought whoever added the notice (it was actually ["Users/JoePomidor"], I believe) was out of line, the notice would have been deleted. On balance, most people thought it was a reasonable thing to make note of based on what was known and the common traits of bogus reviews, and nobody thought it was clear-cut enough to delete the reviews. Nobody is trying to hurt you, nobody is trying to be confrontational. There was simply a kind of odd coincidence, which tends to point to questionable activity, and it was noted. It was not intended to be a big deal, and I'm sure nobody intended to provoke such a massive and emotional outpouring from you. It was noted in good faith, without malice, and with full understanding that a common IP doesn't carry any certainty of deception. If you posted in good faith, feel free to just remove the notice. Things are nowhere near as antagonistic here to require such an impassioned defense. --["Users/JabberWokky" Evan 'JabberWokky' Edwards], (814) 889-8845<br> + --["Users/JabberWokky"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Users/upisdownhttp://daviswiki.org/Users/upisdown2010-11-27 17:01:13CovertProfessorComment added. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Users/upisdown<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 12: </td> <td> Line 12: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ ------<br> + ''2010-11-27 17:01:13'' [[nbsp]] If you were as much of a computer expert as you claim, you would have realized that it was not me who left [http://daviswiki.org/Woodstock%27s_Pizza?action=diff&amp;version2=219&amp;version1=218 this message]. My message above may have been "snarky" but it was also ambiguous; you are making unwarranted inferences about what I meant by it. And if you take a quick look on my page you will see that Woodstock's is not among my top three pizza places in town. In fact, I think their pizza is pretty crappy. --["Users/CovertProfessor"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Users/upisdownhttp://daviswiki.org/Users/upisdown2010-11-27 16:56:47CovertProfessor <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Users/upisdown<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 10: </td> <td> Line 10: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ <br> + [[Comments]]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Users/upisdownhttp://daviswiki.org/Users/upisdown2010-11-27 16:37:48upisdown <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Users/upisdown<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 4: </td> <td> Line 4: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ <br> + * So are we to believe that every person on the internet has their own IP address and that NAT processing does not happen on every modern router? I question the person who posted this snarky message motives, because it was my understanding in college towns many people had roommates which are connected to the same router. This would be common knowledge for students but this person was guarding a business website from bad reviews.<br> + <br> + Let me explain a bit about networking, WAN IP addresses which are viewable by Davis WIKI are assigned by the ISP to the router. Almost all home networks (people who don't live alone) hook up to the internet via a router. The router could also be hooked up to other switches or routers to expand the size of the internet for bigger living environments such as internet access for apartments or dorms. All of these people would have the same IP address when accessing Davis WIKI because they went through the same router.<br> + <br> + So NO, having the same IP address does not imply we are the same person NOR that we come from the same computer. The internet could not handle an ip address for every computer. That is exactly why IP v6 was invented and why NAT processing was a required addition to routers.</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Users/upisdownhttp://daviswiki.org/Users/upisdown2010-03-14 22:05:30CovertProfessor <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Users/upisdown<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 1: </td> <td> Line 1: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ Describe upisdown here.<br> + <br> + upisdown, meet ["Users/gynomight"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div>