User talk:Tippx
Troll user "Tippx"[edit]
Stay off my Talk Page please
And here WikipediaAdministrators'noticeboard/Incidents
Dchip12 (talk) 03:37, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
December 2010[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Tippx (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Arent I supposed to try to talk to the other user before going to administrators? I tried to do that. He consistently made personal attacks towards me and reverted my edits, so I switched them back to what i though was better written, or had a neutral POV. When I realized it had turned into an edit war, I stopped editing and went to the administrators page. AT 2:05, he reverted my edit, and I took the high route. I didnt revert him and play those childish games, I wrote on the administrators page. I dont think this situation in its entirety was looked at, and the administrator wanted to appear as if he isnt taking sides so banned both of us. Tippx (talk) 05:34, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Accept reason:
I would reverse this block. I do not see an unreasonable number of reverts, the talkpage was utilized, and when the situation escalated this user appropriately brought it to ANI for discussion. In my view a reminder or warning would have been sufficient. I will raise the matter on ANI for further review. Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:07, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Your usage of whom[edit]
I more than understand how "whom" is used. The fact of the matter is that "whom" has been antiquated and you fail to realize it. Let it die a peaceful death. We don't need more zombie grammar. Trying to resurrect "whom" just leads to people using it incorrectly more often than not. I'm sure there's someone out there who thinks it should be "Whom Are You?" and "Whom's Next" by the Whom.
Bo Diddley used "who" and not "whom" because even in the 1950s "whom" was antiquated. In African American Vernacular English (and most modern English) "who" is used in all situations. AAVE is a distinct dialect from the Queen's English. What might be "correct" in the Queen's English could be highly confusing when speaking to someone who uses AAVE and vice versa. Since this song was not written or sung by Her Highness "who" is more than "correct". I wouldn't expect the Queen to sing "Take it easy, Arlene / Don't give me no lip" but I find it more than proper when Bo Diddley sings it.
Please, realize that Bo Diddley is using a dialect and it is not an error. I'm sure you and I could both find a coal-mining redneck in West Virginia that we could barely understand. However, you'd think he was misusing English while I'd just realize he was speaking a dialect. To the redneck the words he is using are "correct". Bo Diddley is not the Queen of England and the redneck is not you. Everyone speaks a little differently. I'm sure the Queen would find your English terrible if she was so inclined. I'm worried you'll feel obligated to add "sic" after every line of dialogue in the Adventures of Huckleberry Finn if you continue your battle.
The name of the song is "Who Do You Love?" not "Whom Do You Love?" "Who Do You Love?" is the correct title and adding sic to the end will confuse the readers. Your notion that there are rules that can't be broken is misguided. Languages change all the time and at great speed. Parts of language that used to be considered "correct" fall out of use all the time and new ways of using language are added. This is one of them.
I understand that you're trying to do the right thing but please realize that what your sixth grade English teacher drilled into your head is wrong. She taught sixth grade English and not advanced linguistics for a reason. There is no "correct" way to use language. Acting like there are unbreakable rules that are set in stone is ridiculous. A couple centuries ago people would have no idea what you meant when you said "hello". I'm serious, "hello" is a modern addition to the English language. Linguistic prescriptivism is a never-ending fight where there shouldn't even be a battle. If you keep the fight up you'll be speaking Old English (perhaps Indo-European?) in no time. Just because a way of doing things in the past was considered proper doesn't mean it is proper presently.
Go back several centuries and people would think you were speaking terrible English saying "Whom do you love?" Perhaps what they'd view as correct would be "Whom doest thou love?" which I think we both can agree would be regarded as quite silly if someone spoke that way today.
Look up "who" in a dictionary and read the usage notes found in most entries. "Whom" is moribund. Let it die. It's like you're trying to resurrect "doest" or "chuse" or the archaic writing style of S when it appeared in the middle of a word. One of the things I've learned from linguistics is that if you're waging a battle against how people use language then you've already lost the fight. I think you feel obligated to use "whom" so much because you notice how many people only use "who". If so many people are only using "who" then they aren't going back to using "whom". "Whom" is dead. I realize it bothers you but please understand that no matter how much you use "whom" it is still going to be extinct. You can either waste your energy trying to cling to something that is dying or you can just accept the change and move on. Personally, I'd accept the change because you'll just get more and more irritated as people use "who" all the time.
"Whom" is a relic from when the English language used word-endings to indicate different meanings.
At any rate, your sic-ing is highly specific to this one article. The pervasive style on Wikipedia is to let the song title be. Should we be sic-ing "In da Club" sic by 50 Cent (pronounced FITTY CENT sic), "Tha Shiznit" sic by Snoop Dogg sic, "Dont Look Back" sic the Bob Dylan documentary? What about "Who Do You Love?" sic the film? Sigur Ros has an album titled "( )"? What do you propose we do with that?
You're just sic-ing this because you're under the impression that language can't change. Go back even 400 years and you'd have a hard time even understanding "proper" English of the time. Go back 2000 years and you wouldn't have an English language to sic.
Dabepa (talk) 01:28, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
- The use of sic is to avoid confusion. As speakers of English know, 'who' is used as a subject, and 'whom' is used as an object. In the case of the song title in question, 'who' is being used as an object. To make clear to people that the mistake is in the song title, and not in Wikipedia, sic is added to show that the text appears exactly as written, with all mistakes included.
- Tippx (talk) 22:10, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Read this from a professor of English: http://homes.chass.utoronto.ca/~cpercy/courses/6362Yaswen1.htm
Before the 13th century, you/your/yours was only used for the second person plural. Before then thee/thou/thy/thine was used for the second person singular. As you know, now speakers of English only use "you" and its forms for both second person singular AND plural. This is also why when using "you" as a second person singular the plural "are" always follows ("you are" and never "you is").
The position we are in is similar to what happened with thee/thou/thy/thine. If we were in the 13th century I'd be using "you" for both singular and plural cases and you'd be maintaining that there are rules that cannot be broken and using "thee" for singular and "you" for plural. The language changed.
The centuries that have passed make my argument clearer. Would you think it was strange if someone in 2012 was taking the position that the only "correct" second person singular pronoun was "thee" and that "you" could only be "correctly" used as the second person plural pronoun?
At one time "thee" was "correct". Now it is just strange. The same applies to "whom".
"Whom" cannot be saved anymore and will soon be as silly as someone in 2012 using thee/thou/thy/thine. I understand that you like "whom" but you surely can see that it cannot be revived. It is barely used anymore. No great resurrection is taking place.
Now fast-forward 500 years or so in a world where "whom" is not used and imagine how peculiar your current position is.
And how can you honestly say that you're sic-ing to "avoid confusion"? And then go on to say "as speakers of English know"?? Most English speakers don't know the difference at all!! If most English speakers DID know how to use "whom" YOU wouldn't be waging a war to revive it, would you? Most English speakers don't use "whom" AT ALL and if they do there is a very good chance they use it incorrectly. I'd say 1/2 the time I hear "whom" in conversation it is used incorrectly and primarily is used by the speaker for them to pretend they are "superior" or "smarter" or "better" than the person being addressed. I bet you've heard hypercorrection to "whom" more than your fair share of time. You surely must realize this.
If most English speakers used "whom" we wouldn't be having this conversation because Bo Diddley would have said "whom". Adding "sic" just adds confusion. "Who" functions for both subject and object now just as "you" is used for singular and plural. Languages adapt! Have you ever considered "whom" has fallen out of favor to avoid confusion? Speaking is a lot easier when you don't have to remember "thee" is singular and "you" is plural and "who" is for a subject and "whom" is for an object. Has the usage of "you" for the singular caused confusion for you?????
It obviously doesn't because if it did the language wouldn't have adapted that way. The same goes for "who" in all cases. Have you ever been confused by someone using "who" in a "whom"-case or just irritated??
Not to mention how much easier it is for a person to pronounce "who" vs "whom". If you studied languages you'd know they get MORE efficient over time and ditch old, inefficient methods for communicating.
Bo Diddley's use of "who" is not a mistake. "Whom" has been dead in popular English for over a century. At the time the song was written most Americans no longer used "whom". Most black Americans like Bo Diddley never used it to begin with. Acting like Bo Diddley was "wrong" is just a form of linguistic discrimination. I hope you're on this page because you're a Bo Diddley fan so stop acting like Bo Diddley is some dumb black man because he used a dialect. Who knows, perhaps you hate Bo Diddley and George Thorogood brought you here.
What will it take for you to accept this change? Does a convention need to be held? Do more writers need to stop using "whom"? Shakespeare misused "whom" by your rules. George Bernard Shaw didn't use "whom". Surely you're not a better writer than them. I'm not. Do I need to get your 6th grade English teacher to issue a statement? I know I had at least 2 English teachers try to drill bogus ideas and "rules" into my head about the English language.
Read this article from the Boston Globe if you're still unsure: http://www.fcnp.com/551/theword.htm
Dabepa (talk) 00:16, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for September 13[edit]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited George Stephanopoulos, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page American (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:17, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for February 16[edit]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Liam Neeson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page American (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:18, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Shaun King (activist)[edit]
As per the reliable sources, King identifies as African-American via his biracial heritage. That is well-sourced, as noted in the article. Therefore, I have reverted your edit. Please discuss any objections on the article talk page. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:29, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]
Hello, Tippx. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]
Hello, Tippx. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for June 20[edit]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sergey Brin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page American (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:10, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]
Hello, Tippx. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
ArbCom 2019 election voter message[edit]
| Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
September 2020[edit]
Hello, I'm AcebulfALT. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to Nicolás Maduro—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help desk. Thanks. AcebulfALT (talk) 00:00, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
November 2020[edit]
Hello, I'm Sdkb. I noticed that you recently removed content from Current Affairs (magazine) without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 01:06, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message[edit]
| Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
September 2021[edit]
Hello, I'm Shadowrvn728. I wanted to let you know that some of your recent contributions to Provo Canyon School have been reverted or removed because they seem to be defamatory or libellous. Take a look at our welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Your edit from late last year has been reverted - the issue you inserted in the introduction is covered later in the article and doesn't belong in the intro for the article. Ben ❯❯❯ Talk 21:57, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message[edit]
| Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message[edit]
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message[edit]
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:32, 28 November 2023 (UTC)