Real Name


A RealName is a name that isn't a nickname or alias.


(1 unless your name really is "Dwarf Centaur") (2 as long as your first name is Frank or Frankie and your family name is Robertson or you are the son of Robert in a society where the last name of the son is derived from the first name of the father.)
Is RealName the same as TrueName?
Assume that we each have one real name, and are entirely willing to use it here. But the fact remains that our real names are not unique; most of us share our real name with thousands of others. So, the first Fred Smith to join here becomes FredSmith?. What should the second Fred Smith to join do? And the third? And then, how is the first Fred to behave, name-wise? And how are each of them supposed to name themselves on other separate wikis that share the RealName agreement?

YagNi. If ever WikiWiki were to have a sufficient count of users for this to be a problem, we would resolve it then. Chances are people would utilize middle names and delay the problem by an order of magnitude or two.
See also UserName, GoodStyle, WikiHelpDesk.
Question: I don't know the best place to put this question, but this page came up as edited by me in RecentChanges, but I hadn't touched it until now. What's up? -- JackMollier?

Answer: That's GrammarVandal. He likes spoofing UserNames in a futile attempt to fool the SharkBot.

Thanks for the answer. Is there any way to prevent this? I gather the Wiki doesn't validate that the IP address corresponds to the cookie somehow?

Answer 1: There are a great many technological ways to prevent this, but WikiWiki implements none of them and doesn't plan to change any time soon.

Answer 2: Delete your UserName cookie. It serves no real purpose unless your IP address changes constantly, and its mechanisms were built at a time when trust and honourable 'net behaviour were a given. Retaining a UserName cookie now only guarantees that one or more of your edits will be reverted by the SharkBot when GrammarVandal spoofs your UserName and uses it to merge his edits with yours.

A new B movie: Return of the GrammarVandal

That is not a true guarantee, just your choice of script (that is currently tolerated, but not publicly approved, by this site's owner).

Hi, GrammarVandal! It's as good as the guarantee of great flavour you get on a jar of instant coffee. No comment on the "when trust and honourable 'net behaviour were a given," eh? Of course, in retrospect, it probably would have been more accurate and clear to simply write that phrase as "before GrammarVandal came along and abused the UserName mechanism." Do you perpetrate identity theft in the outside world, too? I bet you do.

Ward, the site owner, need not publicly approve the SharkBot in order to indicate tacit approval. The SharkBot edits originate from a single IP address; it would be trivial to block it.

If tolerance implied tacit approval, the various current WikiWikiBugs would have to be regarded as approved.

Nonsense. There is a vast gulf of difference between trivially blocking an IP vs enduring bugs rather than expend time and effort re-coding portions of a live legacy application. So: Stop quibbling, go edit WikiPedia (or something), and leave us alone.

Some of the bugs, such as incorrect treatment of an ISBN, would be trivial to fix, but have not been since being documented many years ago, even though other changes have been made to the codebase. By your logic, Ward either tacitly supports not publicly approving your efforts (itself a form of tacit opposition) or considers one must read his mind, not just his wiki.

Any bug fix, no matter how trivial, is more complex than adding an IP address to a file. And by your (strange) argument, does that mean Ward does not approve of 13-character ISBNs? Furthermore, not providing public support (what do you think Ward will post? "Hooray for Sharkbot!!!"? Now, really...) does not constitute tacit opposition. I didn't thank the chef for the restaurant meal I ate yesterday, but that doesn't mean I'm tacitly opposed to it, or that the chef has to read my mind in order to know whether he's doing a good job or not.

However, this is all moot. I have communicated in private with Ward regarding the SharkBot, and while I have no intention of revealing the specific contents of private emails, and prefer not to even reveal their essence (there's a reason private emails are called "private"), I will risk raising Ward's ire (as I have not asked his permission to post this) and will confirm that Ward is not opposed to the SharkBot and even suggested that some of its functionality might be incorporated into the WardsWiki software.

He chose not to support it or its aims publicly, even in the mildest of terms. That is a form of opposition, as is not thanking the chef after dining out.

These days, he rarely posts anything about anything here, so that hardly means anything. As for your chef argument... Utter nonsense.

It means he doesn't publicly support its aims, which doesn't mean "hardly anything" given his earlier posting of "any reader can edit it as they see fit", and the fact that a script cannot "see fit". Thanking the chef (or the restaurant staff in lieu) costs nothing; failing to do so is clearly impolite, and hence a form of opposition. Fine. He doesn't "publicly support its aims", but as I've pointed out, he privately supports its aims. As for "any reader can edit it as they see fit", does that mean any reader should be allowed to post spam and abuse? Furthermore, the SharkBot -- as a reader (which it is) -- indeed edits as it sees fit. And your chef argument is still sheer nonsense. Though it should be obvious, I shall explain: If I approve of the most tasty and delicious meal, but happen not thank the chef, it does not mean I disapprove of the meal. It merely means I did not thank the chef. In other words, the lack of explicit customer response on my part cannot be logically used to derive a conclusion regarding my opinion of the meal.

Therefore: Isn't it time you left? It should be obvious that the SharkBot is not going away until you do, and WikiPedia would surely appreciate your efforts instead of being opposed as they are here. Why not go there right now?

{I'm not against gnomes correcting grammar and formatting, but even I'm appalled at some of your behavior GrammarVandal - especially the UserName cookie abuse, pretending to represent both sides in a conversation (without indicating that at least one participant is simulated), interjecting into signed text without use of a text formatting that makes the injection clear, etc. Intentional misattribution is dishonest on the same level as plagiarism and libel, FAR more impolite than failing to thank the chef, and simply not worthy of WikiWiki.}

{Readers are only allowed to "edit as they see fit" if they do so honestly and follow the rules, and your right (albeit not your capability) to do so has been revoked for good reasons. I'm against permanent bans (as they don't encourage correction of behavior), but even I'd extend your sentence every time you take action to violate your ban. Please. Leave. Go someplace else for at least a year, and if you come back, stop editing and abusing and lashing out at all opposition like you did before. If you're good, even SharkBot won't recognize you: the you that is 'GrammarVandal' will be dead and gone.}

Thank you!

View edit of November 25, 2014 or FindPage with title or text search