User talk:Tiptoety

vn-33This user talk page has been vandalized 33 times.

Wikimood [purge] [edit]

Rex Goliath

Why does this article keep getting tagged as blatant advertising? I have read the guidelines and the links provided are verifiable secondary sources. I have no affiliation with Rex Goliath, I simply want to expand wikipedia's offerings of information about beverages.

wtf. Now its gone. Could i at least get my template back?

Thats fine, I'll send it back to the drawing board and try to gather more info. Thanks for your speedy response.

Great, if you have time I will run it by you for a quick review. Thanks again for your help.

Tourism In Quebec

Hi, I just started this page 5 minutes ago... Give me some time to put informations in it please. Bonjour_Quebec

Jean Lafitte

You auto-reverted a number edits to this article claiming I was committing vandalism. I believe my rewrites correct a number of grammar and other issues. Please compare with the version before the changes. Am I still a Wikipedia pariah, or can I get unwarned now?

Got a note from you

a cmpany keeps putting up there self promtoion on the page. i pulled it down. Passage events keeps promoting themselves —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.138.128.188 (talk) 04:00, August 20, 2007 (UTC)

ITV Play Westcountry

I deleted the article because it was completely made up. There is not one word of truth in it. It is, to be blunt, a fictional article. I have now replaced it with a redirect to ITV Play's entry, which will hopefully stop whichever troll started it from recreating it. RobinCarmody, 05:00 BST, August 21, 2007 —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 04:00, August 21, 2007 (UTC).

Deleting Content

I deleted the content and saved it by mistake. I have fully edited the content now for the article on Subramaniam Pillai. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rdx-77 (talk • contribs) 22:07, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the contents on the LIU, CW Post site labeled "arguments" because 1. I have been to at least 50 wikipedia college and university sites which only state FACTS, not biased grudges/complaints/heresay, etc. Not a single one had an "arguments" section. If they are allowed, they should be placed on the discussion section. These items add no value to the Long Island University site, which is supposed to be informative, objective and based on fact. This is CLEARLY a person(s) personal grudge against the institution. 2. I have a grudge against NYIT and I (in the past, as I now adhere to wikipedia standards) used to add my "arguments" against the school on their wiki site and they were constantly taken down as they were based on my experiences and personal biases and NOT on solid FACT. If my "arguments" were not allowed, neither should the ones on the LIU, CW Post site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.189.35.249 (talk) 23:16, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tip

The author of the article I edited is a close friend of mine.... He is an outstanding writer in Spanish and Knowing the Ballet and him well I took on the edit.. This is the number 4 classical ballet in the world. Ms. Alonso is a personal friend of mine as well.. I am sorry about the summery.. I have no idea how to do that..... LOL Frankly, this is a one time deal for me in all probability.... If you could somehow fix it I would be grateful, as would my friend Migual Cabrera.

Cheers, Sr.Pastel de Manzana

Your RFA has been closed

Hello, I took the liberty to close your request for adminship here because there was no chance it could have succeeded. I want to encourage you to attempt to become an administrator again soon and take into consideration any advice that you have received during the nomination. Thanks for your contributions and don't let this stop you from contributing more, Sometimes unsuccessful RFA's can be difficult to deal with however it is my hope that you can try again in a few months and succeed. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Aw, too bad. Sorry, better luck next time. I know you would make a great admin! - Rjd0060 00:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Good luck next time! I'll be happy to nominate you:)--SJP:Happy Verterans Day! 00:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Nice try! Good luck next time.   jj137 (Talk) 00:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Of course! I was neutral this time but I'll definitely support you when you run again.   jj137 (Talk) 00:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, don't be discouraged - I'm sure you'll get there. You were rather hit by the Curse of Asharid-apal-Ekur! Johnbod 00:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

RE: Jon Muncaster

I agree with you, probably is a hoax. However, the criteria for speedy deletion specifically mentions that hoaxes, no matter how blatant they are, are not suitable for speedy deletion. After a second look, it might be able to go via CSD A1, so I tagged for that. If not, AfD or PROD. Make sense? - Rjd0060 23:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, you can't tag something for SD A7 unless the subject doesn't assert notability. Just because you and I think something is speedy-able, doesn't give permission to add any speedy deletion tag to it. Those specific criteria are there for a reason. - Rjd0060 00:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Whoops. Sorry. I got a little defensive. I was going to send you a message about that right when I removed the A7 tag in case you are like me, and follow up on your tags and warnings, which I now see that you are. - Rjd0060 00:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I looked at the article. I agree with Rjd0060 that there is too much of an assertionof notability for A7 to apply. I also understood what the article was asserting about this person, even though I am not a computer person. Therefore I removed the A1 tag. If you think this is a hoax, the proper course of action is Proposed deletion. Dsmdgold 00:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! Tiptoety 00:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Get ready to AfD it when that user removes the PROD. I don't think the A1 should have been removed, as that has nothing to do with the possible hoax, but it is a short article, providing little context. Everybody has their different ways. - Rjd0060 00:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Probably is. Not much we can do though. - Rjd0060 00:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

RE:EC

Yeah, that happens sometimes with Twinkle. Usually does stop but sometimes, when the timing is just right, it thinks it tagged when somebody else does. - Rjd0060 01:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Little thankyou spam

Thankyou for supporting my successful rfa which closed with 58 supports. If i am honest i am rather humbled by the unanimous support and i hope to live up to everyones expectations. If you ever need any help, don't hesitate to ask. Thanks again. Woodym555 13:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Jadeed

Thanks for the note about Jadeed. I remembered the criteria wrongly, and I'm a very new administrator, having been made one just two days ago :-) I've restored the article for someone else to deal with, since I'm not sure what to do. Nyttend 13:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ioeth

There's no particular need for us to strike the inappropriate comment, because it's so obviously made in bad faith. Sometimes you can learn a lot of good things about a candidate by learning what kinds of editors dislike him... -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Chapel of the Good Shepherd (Chautauqua, New York)

No problem. I never seem to know where the stubs go. I guess they go at the bottom. Thanks for correcting it.clariosophic 02:47, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow...

Not only did you beat me to AIV there, you had exactly the same wording as I had ready :O) FlowerpotmaN·(t) 05:07, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

RE: User talk:75.55.14.162

Yup, I got it. :) GlassCobra 05:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

OK

Yes, if you look at the context of my comments, without looking straight down the line, they were probably in order. But i will take your advice regarding it, repeating their comments is probably not the best idea. Point taken. Keep up your good work. Twenty Years 07:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Gil Montilla

I wish I could take credit for that one! Basically I'm a super AfD stickler, so I figured I'd AGF and google the guy just in case... and lo and behold, prominent politician man! Of course, it said nothing about him going into outerspace ;) ~Eliz81^(C) 08:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of Christianity

Hi,

I've been a watcher of the Criticism of Christianity page and was wondering if you could help moderate some of the alterations. Two the people have been debating back in forth. I believe one is against some of the additions (C logan) and he is erasing it because he doesnt like it. I'm not sure if his reasons are valid. In all fairness, I think it should be left but I'm not sure. C Logan and another guy (I think they're friends because they alter similiar articles) are known throughout wikipedia for deleting comments that they dont like. Thanks for being a mod, we need them.

68.58.71.152 02:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I've already explained the problems with these additions. The addition of "Bible contradictions" which use the Bible itself as the sole source is indefensible, as it is in violation with WP:OR, as primary sources are unsuitable for the formation of personal interpretations (i.e. original research). The existence of the entire section is dependent on the editor's own opinion on what constitutes a "contradiction"- many people disagree with those conclusions, and I believe it is fair to note that there is little support for the inclusion of such quotes save for Alastair's opinion, in which he lays down the requirement for secondary sources- the same thing which I have explained to you.

Additionally, I'm confused that there are two anonymous users that misunderstand the concept that "removing all the arguments of a particular side" for no apparent reason other than "bias" is actually a violation of WP:NPOV, not an adherence to it. The fact of the matter is that there are multiple views on the relationship between science and Christianity. Whether you or whoever else disagrees with the conclusions of a particular side is irrelevant; in the interest of NPOV, we must present the topic with neutrality (i.e. representation from both sides of the discussion). As it is, I think it is clear that removing all information of a particular viewpoint while simultaneously adding to the information of the opposing viewpoint is a violation of WP:NPOV, and a rather clear one at that.

I'm very surprised to read your impression of me, because I've already explained all of this to you on my talk page and your own talk page as well. Again, before accusing my reasons of being "invalid", please look at the policies which I'm presenting for your reading pleasure. I'm also very surprised for being "known throughout wikipedia for deleting comments that they dont like". If there is some sort of newsletter or mailing list that you receive which tells you this, I'd be eager to read it, because I'm fairly certain that I'm not "known" for that, and when I do delete information, it is for a reason related to policy. Apparently you have again ignored my referral to WP:AGF.

Additionally, the user who added the information is of very unusual persuasion. If you'd check the edit summary, it would seem rather clear that the editing habits are similar to that of this anon; for this reason I'd assumed that they were the same (and perhaps I still assume this to be the case, because of this rather off-the-wall comment above). In any case, the original editor who had inserted this material had the same problem understanding policy, and continued to argue that I was promoting "propaganda". Ironically, he made it rather clear that he simply didn't like the theories on the Criticism of Christianity page, as he personally finds them to be invalid- again, editing to suit one's own taste, which is a possible example of one attempting to "own" an article and also avoiding WP:NPOV (while ironically making edits by its name).

As far as I'm concerned, that user had stepped over the line and was essentially pushing his own beliefs in the matter, both on the article page and my own talk page, where he addressed me in a rather condescending manner as if I had no clue concerning the subject (on the contrary, I do, but this is again largely irrelevant to the reasons behind the removal of his text). This user continued to endorse his own viewpoint to me, and I had to ask him to stop doing so. I don't mind all that, although I was rather insulted by the notion of my edits catering to bias, and I was doubly insulted for the accusation of being "misinformed" on the subject.

In summary, the information is an unquestionable violation of WP:OR, and a rather clear violation of WP:NPOV. Furthermore, the editor himself (Biblical1) had refused from the get-go to assume good faith concerning my involvement in the article. Somehow, I don't think that the anon's presentation of facts above is very accurate. Feel free to take a look.--C.Logan 03:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

On a side note, this individual does not appear to be an administrator.--C.Logan 03:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

 – IP warned, page protected. Tiptoety 06:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

WPOR's newest COTW

Thank you to all those editors who helped improve Cayuse War and Portland Trail Blazers last week as part of the Collaboration of the Week. They are looking much better. This week, with the election season over, we’ll tackle a request for Oregon Ballot Measure 37 (2004), which should have plenty of WP:RS available to work with on improvement. Our other article is another Stub in the High category, our only Miss America, Katie Harman. Once again, to opt out or suggest future collaborative efforts, click here. Legal disclaimer: WikiProject Oregon and its affiliates are not liable for any personal injuries acquired while editing on the COTW including but not limited to carpel tunnel syndrome, Wikistress, alcoholism, anxiety attacks, or extreme emotional distress. Aboutmovies 20:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Ep1002oregonstatepolice.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Ep1002oregonstatepolice.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 17:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

 Done (I have requested deletion, there is a better image to take its place.) Tiptoety 19:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Copernicia et co.

It's all right. Those were a rash of unnecessary redirects mostly from List of palms of the Caribbean. Circeus 05:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Negative Liberty

I made clearly referenced additions to this page, including an Overview & Criticism section which was not present before. These sections should be present on all pages, so please don't delete them again. Every topic has an overview and every topic has a critic. -- Jamesia 05:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Pardon me for my inexperience on wikipedia! Thanks for the help. --Jamesia 06:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Free image

You tagged my free image with a fair use tag. It is a 1905 image. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 06:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

LOL! Good night, dude! -- Ssilvers 06:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Rodge D. Compose

Deleted and salted. Kwsn (Ni!) 23:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

"If It Makes You Happy" - Hope this brightens your day

"If It Makes You Happy"

I've been long, a long way from here Put on a poncho, played for mosquitos, And drank til I was thirsty again We went searching through thrift store jungles Found Geronimo's rifle, Marilyn's shampoo And Benny Goodman's corset and pen

Well, o.k. I made this up I promised you I'd never give up

[Chorus] If it makes you happy It can't be that bad If it makes you happy Then why the hell are you so sad

You get down, real low down You listen to Coltrane, derail your own train Well who hasn't been there before? I come round, around the hard way Bring you comics in bed, scrape the mold off the bread And serve you french toast again

Well, o.k. I still get stoned I'm not the kind of girl you'd take home

[Chorus]

We've been far, far away from here Put on a poncho, played for mosquitos And everywhere in between Well, o.k. we get along So what if right now everything's wrong?

[Chorus]