206.116.24.195

February 2018

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Marc Bergevin. Your edits could be interpreted as vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Ravenswing 19:51, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

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.

October 2018

This is very amusing. I am clearly not the individual who made those edits. This IP address is a widely used public access point. Moreover, it is in an address range used by a large ISP service here in Canada (Telus) and so is periodically dynamically altered. That means, this IP address may not have even been assigned to this particular public access point at the time of the alleged vandalism.

Today I was looking up a little information on wikipedia when I was alerted that I had an 'unread message'. Very likely, your intended recipient will never see this message. As for me, I've never heard of "Marc Bergevin" and have no interest in learning more or editing that page. The roll over pop up tells me he is a hockey player, and I have absolutely no interest in sports of any kind. Similar remarks probably apply to many others who use this access point. You guys really need to recognize that most edits identified only by IP address are effectively completely anonymous, whether they are useful contributions or vandalisms. The only thing you can learn from such edits is the approximate geographical location of the editor at the time of the edit.

I know these things because I *do* make useful edits from time to time (never vandalism), and I always do so anonymously.

• Mm. Perhaps you need to recognize that most anon IP edits do not, in fact, come from roving IPs, but from fixed ones, that such messages often do get their attention (and that ignoring them and continuing such behavior tends to get them blocked), which is the reason we send them. Then again, seeing as you're taking such personal offense to a comment over seven months old, which you are sure was not aimed at you, for vandalism you're sure you didn't commit, and over which you thought it necessary to spam another user talk page? Let's just say I'm not going to hold my breath here. Ravenswing 04:55, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

So here we are in November of 2019. It is interesting, and informative, that I have been using wikipedia repeatedly over the last year, including from this access point, including today. I have received no notifications of a "new message" until just now. What that means is that the dynamic ip address just changed, and by coincidence, it changed to the one that is associated with some antique vandalism that I personally never was involved with, and that truly is a matter of supreme irrelevance to me.

I don't know what data you base your assertion about "most" anonymous edits on, but I can tell you this: an "anonymous" edit from a "fixed" ip address is not anonymous. My edits (I've made a few in the last year) are anonymous. They are always done from public access points with dynamically assigned ip addresses and they never involve the idiocy of sports fandom. Dynamic assignment is actually standard practice for any "fixed" ip address, by which I presume you mean a paid ISP service. A static assignment is only used if you are operating a server on your ISP service, and many services charge extra for a static assignment.

The only other remark you made that warrants commentary is that I am not "spamming". I am trying to remove the cloud of ignorance about internet protocol that afflicts you, and my initial response was not motivated by "personal offense" but by genuine amusement, as I stated. I do enjoy being entertained by self important people who clearly don't know what they are talking about, as you have once more amply demonstrated.

---