User talk:Tifego

Please add to the bottom instead of the top when possible.
I will usually reply to questions on this page, although I might leave a note on your talk page if I want to make sure you don't miss my reply.

Welcome

Hello, Tifego, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --vineeth 04:28, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject C++

• The WikiProject C++ aims to increase the quality of C++-related articles on Wikipedia, and has discovered that you have participated in the editing of them! So don't hesitate, join us! --Deryck C. 15:35, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Sure, although I might not be able to do very much on it for a while. –T_if_eg_o^(t) _{21:40, 11 March 2006 (UTC)}

Formatting question

• Anybody know to force a section break to begin below everything above it instead of possibly alongside it? My user page looks terrible if its containing window is resized to be somewhat small in Firefox (although it looks fine in Internet Explorer). I suspect the way I set up these boxes alongside each other is wrong, but couldn't find any other way to get it looking close to this. –T_if_eg_o^(t) _{04:25, 12 March 2006 (UTC)}
  • I believe that the template you're looking for may be {{clear}}. Hbackman 04:27, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks, that was it. Now I know how to use <nowiki>, too. –T_if_eg_o^(t) _{04:32, 12 March 2006 (UTC)}
    • Actually, I noticed the nice formatting of the userboxes on your user page, so I'm going to also 'steal' that method of formatting for one of my userbox sections (since that's what I originally wanted to do with it). –T_if_eg_o^(t) _{05:15, 12 March 2006 (UTC)}
      • Go right ahead. I think I stole a couple of your userboxes, so we're even. ;) Hbackman 22:14, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Revert

• Exactly what am I vandalizing? The Archbishop of Westminster is indeed the Primate of England and Wales. Both of these are official titles. The President of the Bishop's Conference is a de facto office, not an official title. I find your reverts to be silly. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.61.130.151 (talk • contribs) .
  • Sorry for the confusion. In the future, consider adding justification when you are undoing a revert that another user has already made to your work. –T_if_eg_o^(t) _{10:39, 12 March 2006 (UTC)}

Forgot to log in

• in the superpower article...sorry!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cloretti2 (talk • contribs) .

Editing Nonsense

• Why do you need to remove something that is not nonsense out of an article? It is factual information and it gets removed. Why?
  -JSFrk328 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.174.0.61 (talk • contribs) .
  • Whether "God loves math" has nothing to do with Algebra, and the last edits you made before that, changing "shirt" to "shit", definitely seemed vandalistic. –T_if_eg_o^(t) _{23:32, 18 March 2006 (UTC)}

Camp Barton - Camp Tuscarora

• Tifego-
  Sorry about that, guess I should've looked around Wiki first to see about precedents. I will most likely be relocating these directions to an exterior site. Just thought it would be helpful for prospective campers. I welcome any other suggestions. Thank you for alerting me to this.
  
  Ebac on keyboard 23:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • It's no problem, and it looks like it's getting better... –T_if_eg_o^(t) _{00:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)}

DEFCON Editing Stupidity

• Sorry about the defacement on the "DEFCON" page. I just got a bit carried away with my stupidity complex and such. I'll refrain from such immature defacement in the future.
  
  68.148.183.107
  • OK, I hope you do, and maybe get an account sometime if you want to contribute more. –T_if_eg_o^(t) _{00:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)}

Trying to understand edits

• Hi Tifego,
  
  I'm a relatively new Wikipedian (about a couple of months old). Been contributing to the pornography page, removing vandalism, adding relevant info. I recently reverted an edit by someone who had removed the adult databases section out of external links and sources. He reverted it back. Then you posted a comment saying that I explained my decision in summary while he didn't. But, my changes weren't reverted back. I'm trying to be a good Wikipedian and make the sections I contribute to the best possible. I've looked around Wikipedia and still believe that it was best to return Adult databases where it was. Since I'm new, I'd love any advice on how to do so. Best, Coolmojito
  • I think the issue was that some of the links you put back under the "external links" section were actually internal links. It's the difference between [[internal link]] and [http://www.external link.com]. You might try splitting up the "See also" section if you think it's too large, but I don't think I've ever seen that done. Also, know that certain articles like pornography are probably tagged as "highly likely to be vandalized", so some people are over-hasty of reverting edits to them under the assumption that it was probably vandalism. If that happens and you believe they were wrong to revert it, add a comment explaining your reasoning in a new section at the bottom of the article's discussion page, and then redo your change to the article with "see discussion page" at the start of your summary. Just don't revert it more than 2 or 3 times. BTW, you should sign with ~~~~ instead of ~~~ so that your signature gets a time/date displayed after it. –T_if_eg_o^(t) _{00:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)}
    • That's really helpful, Tifego. Actually those links had been there since I started with Wikipedia. I'd added the only external link in that category. But now, the edits makes sense. Thank you for taking the time to help me understand this. Much appreciated. Coolmojito 23:11, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

your edits to Persian Gulf naming dispute

• Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by admins or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 23:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Excuse me? I don't see how that could possibly have been interpreted as a personal attack. In any case, I don't care at all about the issue at hand, so you don't have to worry about me continuing whatever it was you thought was objectionable... –T_if_eg_o^(t) _{00:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)}
  • Oh, I think I see what you meant. It's because I was too lazy at the time to make a new template to better express the nature of the dispute, I guess it was worded poorly. I'll try making that template after all. (edit: I found {{POV-check}} instead, didn't realize there was already a tag for that.) –T_if_eg_o^(t) _{00:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)}
  • Another note: I find it ironic that you were the one who went ahead and made the very edit that I was trying to avoid for fear that MB would be offended by it. Hopefully you don't mind that I reverted that to something closer to what he wanted. –T_if_eg_o^(t) _{00:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)}

Signature timestamp

• Hey, it looks like your timestamp in your signature is broken. Notice that you repled to a comment nine days before the original was posted. It took me a few seconds to figure that one out. Please fix it to prevent further confusion. GT 07:17, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Ha, good thing it's April Fool's day, or I wouldn't have spent the last 10 minutes being perplexed by the changelogs on that page and wondering if my edit could have gotten hacked somehow. Thanks. –T_if_eg_o^(t)_{08:04, 1 April 1906 (UTC)}

Wikipedia talk:Userfying userboxes#Poll

• I'm not quite sure I understand your comments here. Userfying userboxes is a policy proposal; I think debate has stalled and I called a poll. It's my theory that it's unwise to place {{rejected}} on a controversial page without the benefit of a poll, although I think we all know which way it will go.
  I'm not pulling anybody's leg; if you're pulling mine, that's okay. I just don't know; sorry. John Reid 23:52, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  • It really sounded like an April Fool's joke to me, suddenly exclaiming "all possible arguments have been made" and calling for a poll, on April 1st. I thought there was a lot more to be discussed in terms of coming up with an acceptable replacement policy, but you're right that there's not much else to say about this particular one. –T_if_eg_o^(t)_{00:34, 3 April 2006 (UTC)}

Ibn Khaldun

• Could you get involved in this article again? The dispute tag you placed is being removed, and I have posted some specific questions that have gone unanswered. The "quote" there doesn't appear to be a direct quote and is coming from a source that has nothing to do with Ibn Khaldun. Aucaman^Talk 04:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

missing

• Good change on the template, but you forgot to vote. RJII 00:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • The vote's only 2:1 now, right? I was thinking about maybe voting later after at least 1 other person comments on the change. –T_if_eg_o^(t)_{00:41, 4 April 2006 (UTC)}
    • Well, I voted, and it looks like the template was kept. –Tifego^(t) _{06:20, 10 April 2006 (UTC)}

Barnstar

The E=MC² Barnstar Hereby I award Tifego with this E=MC2 Barnstar for his tireless contributions towards C++ and related articles. Deryck C. 14:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Abbe Land

Thanks for your help. Abbe's minions have been emailing info-en@ and are (understandably) a little cross about this whole thing. I'm trying to keep an eye on the article. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

ED

They say that direct links to the site in the article is a bad idea. I didn't take them off, someone else can. DyslexicEditor 04:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

They said inline links to the site are bad. I didn't add any inline links, only external reference links. I don't mind if they're removed anyway, though. –Tifego^(t) _{05:17, 10 April 2006 (UTC)}

Abbe Land

Hey Tifego, re: the content on the Abbe Land site. It seems that you are doing a lot of reverting. What exactly do you have a problem with. Is it the content that you are removing that you find objectionable? Please do not become a servant of a politician by repressing free expression. I'm new at this and I want to do it right. I believe I'm playing by the rules, as are several others...yet you insist on reverts. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.66.14.65 (talk • contribs) .

This is the first time you have attempted to discuss it anywhere that I can see. I suggest you discuss it further on that talk page instead of here. I am not the only one reverting your edits. Wikipedia is not about free expression of whatever anyone wants to say, it's about presenting the notable and verifiable facts neutrally. The website you keep adding into the middle of the article is an external link that appears to have the sole purpose of saying bad things about Abbe Land. I don't care how true they are, they're one-sided (not neutral) and they're not published in anything major (not verifiable) AFAIK. I don't know anything or care at all about Abbe Land, but your edits so far have simply not been encyclopedic, and could be seen as an attack against Abbe Land. If she really did all those things then you should back them up with reliable outside sources; provide a link to those after each potentially controversial statement. –Tifego^(t) _{19:03, 10 April 2006 (UTC)}

regarding the abbe land web site. It only includes facts that are attainable in the public records with complete foot noting for each entry. Certainly you cannot have a problem with that. And you took out a link to the wik page for Paul Koretz. Why??? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.66.14.65 (talk • contribs) .

There is no footnoting whatsoever in what you're adding, and you're not linking directly to those public records. Also, that was an external link of some sort, wiki links are like [[Link]], I'll restore that... –Tifego^(t) _{19:03, 10 April 2006 (UTC)}

Re: Sockpuppet problem

Hi Tifego, and thanks for being one of the few voices of sanity editing the UCR article. I stumbled upon that whole mess while I was doing unrelated cat work on UC-related articles. The funny thing is, it's the first college/university article I've encountered that has a negative POV. Most of the ones I've seen go on and on about how "prestigious" and "distinguished" the school is, and about how this or that famous person went there...

Yep, I think the 909 guy is probably a sock of UCRGrad. If not, he's a troll/vandal who showed up at the right time. Either way, it's an abusive account created in bad faith to disrupt the article. Whether or not 909 is UCRGrad, the account should be blocked for simple trolling, so going the RFI route is the best way IMO. szyslak (t, c, e) 08:03, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd feel happier if it was checkuser confirmed before blocking a suspected sock. You've got plenty of grounds for placing a request. Let me know the outcome (or place it on RFI) and I'll see if a block is appropriate. Petros471 21:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I did in fact place a request at RFI. Currently it is there under user requests at the top. –Tifego^(t) _{22:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)}

Did you place a Requests for CheckUser? My message above was in response to your WP:RFI report. Petros471 22:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Oops, no, I thought the request linked to RFI. I'll put a checkuser request in [err, in a few days if nothing else comes up], then. –Tifego^(t) _{22:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)}

But, honestly, I am more concerned about convincing UCRGrad to stop this sillyness than about getting one of his sockpuppets blocked. –Tifego^(t) _{22:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)}

Ok, I'll take a look at this again in the morning, as investigating RFI reports late at night is not a good idea ;) Petros471 22:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I too believe 909er is a sawkpuppet of UCRGrad. In addition, a simple search on google revealed a lot of bias from users under the same handle "UCRGrad" - coincidence? Here is the link http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/archive/index.php/t-149891-p-2.html —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pimpclinton (talk • contribs) .

Huh, well now UCRGrad is starting to say increasingly insulting things to me [1] [2], and then a new sockpuppet of somebody appeared a few hours later with an even more blatant/leading personal attack against me [3]. I suppose I should just ignore such comments, as annoying as they are, but I can only assume the sockpuppeteer is UCRGrad, given that he's the only one who has shown such animosity toward me on that page. If he's trying to convince me that he wants to focus on making a good encyclopedic article, he's doing a very poor job of it.

–Tifego^(t) _{07:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC)} Oh, and... "sawkpuppet"? Of the bawksor rawksoring variety?

I only find this a waste of my time until mediation or any other form of authoritative decision-maker can intervene. I will wait for such before I continue posting as it is apparent that UCRGrad in his/her many forms are highly opinionated/vocal and highly stubborn – the worst combination. In addition: should I (or you) remove the bold facing and caplocks? I guess I got carried away, you’re right, it’s not going to help him/her understand my point any better. Pimpclinton 00:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

You should probably be the one to remove the caps if you want to, because it's normally inappropriate to modify the posts of others. Also, mediation is actually a method of coming to an agreement that requires both parties to cooperate. If it works, great, but I have a feeling we won't suddenly start getting along. Another possibility is to file a user-conduct RfC on UCRGrad's behavior, to get community opinion on the appropriateness of his actions. To do that would require evidence of more than one other person trying and failing to reach agreement with him on the same issue, however... I'm sure it's happened at least 2 times but I haven't been keeping track of when. Chances are low that anybody will intervene without such steps being taken first. –Tifego^(t) _{00:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)}

RfC sounds like a more viable solution; I am fairly sure at least two more opposing posters (regarding the hate crime part) including us will be willing to vouch for his behavior and obvious bias. I'm really only interested in having an authoritative figure judge the arguments that have been presented; users with strong voices and stronger stubbornness cannot even help themselves. I wouldn't dream of seeing such selectivity of information appearing in a Britannica Encyclopedia. Ironically, I would agree with him on the notion that UCR grads aren't the brightest people. LOL, alright, so I don't "officially" sponsor this personal attack on UCRGrad Pimpclinton 02:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC).

Hi Tifego!

I'm new to editing wikipedia articles. Thank you for your work on the UCR article. It's still a complete mess, but it's very helpful to have someone not associated with the school editing the article too. I'm rather concerned with UCRGrad and his apparent use of sockpuppets. In fact, from reading the collegeconfidential thread that pimpclinton pointed out, it really felt like he set up a completely unbelievable story on one handle just to bash UCR on his UCRGrad handle. Are there any safeguards in wikipedia that could prevent such heavyhanded bias? Dandanxu 20:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

There's a list of helpful pages on the right here and here, and there's WP:RCU. It seems to me like there aren't very many actual safeguards in place anywhere for this sort of thing, but there are these various inefficient (out of necessity) processes for dealing with it when it happens. I've already posted about this UCRGrad incident at WP:RFI and WP:RCU, btw. –Tifego^(t) _{23:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)}

Tifego, thank you for your time and effort on the UCR article. For what it's worth, please note that Insert-Belltower recently added a photo of an overweight girl, emphasising that she was in a sorority [4] (with the obvious intent being to cast a certain image of what UCR's sorority population looks like, disregarding the irrelevance of such a discussion in an encyclopedic article). The image was later removed and added by BeerDrinker [5]. Noteworthy is the fact that this is BeerDrinker's very first edit on WP. 71.110.253.193 00:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, BeerDrinker is probably somebody's sockpuppet, but it's all very confusing, as it depends on whether Insert-Belltower is really UCRGrad. Initially I thought Insert-Belltower couldn't possibly be UCRGrad, and there are several reasons to believe they are different people, but they have started acting more and more alike recently. –Tifego^(t) _{09:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC)}

Tifego, I departed from this debate in the past right as you were beginning your participation in it, and I never got the chance to thank you for your continuing attention to this problem. I submitted the RfC under the assumption that the considerable bias in the article would be obvious to everyone, but I didn't imagine that UCRGrad's POV-pushing agenda, sockpuppetry, and other malfeasances would become obvious to so many as well. I guess back then people just weren't interested in involving themselves as more than casual readers, and I got a bit discouraged. Anyways, if anyone wants to start a RfC against UCRGrad, I'd be glad to second it. I had actually suggested it to my advocate, but I didn't get a response, so I assumed it wasn't the best idea for whatever reason. A request for arbitration or some sort of administrative intervention is probably also a good idea, since the debate has raged long enough and has already gone through quite a few Wikipedia processes (Advocate, Third Opinion & RfC by me, and now WP:RFCU & WP:RFI). I actually believe that UCRGrad isn't stubborn, but rather just devoid of any integrity. He's perfectly willing to change his points and debate tactics as long as they serve his needs, but refuses to acknowledge any good points made against his arguments. At around that instant, a putative sockpuppet leaps out of the woodwork and proclaims that "(UCRGrad) took the time to respond to all of your complaints, yet you really didn't respond to his," nevermind what the reality was. Or makes an ad hominem: circumstantial accusation. Or throws a tantrum over perceived uncivility. Hypocritical, of course, coinsidering his current behaviour. --DtEW 08:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

It's good to know I'm not crazy for thinking the same things about the article's neutrality and UCRGrad's effects on it. I agree about the probable lack of integrity (and certainly there's no point in assuming good faith in him after he has been so disruptive and made so many provocative personal attacks), although I'm sure some of his actions are more childish reactions to being frustrated than anything. I'd definitely support an arbitration request, but I think it'll depend on checkuser results; it makes a big difference if there's proof that he's been running a sockpuppet farm, and would save the trouble of addressing the actions of 909er, UnblockingTau, etc. separately from UCRGrad. BTW, where is/was this RfC for UCRGrad? I didn't know of it, or of the advocate. –Tifego^(t) _{09:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC)}

Vandalism from this IP

I just wanted you to know that this IP is a public lab computer. Sending messages to it about vandalism is probably not going to be very effective.

Regards.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.84.178.76 (talk • contribs) .

That RFC

Thanks. I'd forgotten to do that. I've put it straight into the 2-up-and-running section since it is now. Midgley 09:08, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I noticed your addition to the RfC.

You might like to look at this [[6]] which is not the contribution of a "troll" (whatever that pejorative term means).

The three editor protagonists have a history together and keep adding to the RfC so I cannot really respond to it yet until I know they have finished their handiwork. The fact that they keep adding to it is odd - and you will later see that there is no "dispute" nor has there been any prior effort to resolve "it".

You seem to have made up your mind on the basis of what the protagonists have written without waiting to see the response? Care to wait?

^Talk - The Invisible Anon 06:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)  —The preceding comment was added by 86.10.231.219 (talk • contribs).

The statements and evidence appear to have stabilized already; I don't believe they will make any substantial changes, especially not after I've signed there. If they do add anything objectionable I can always withdraw my endorsement, as can you qualify your response, so the possibility that they might do so is not much of a reason on its own to delay proceedings. –Tifego^(t) _{06:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)}

Endorsement is supposed to be independent of the response, as well, which is why I didn't think it necessary to wait for your response. As for that link you provided ([7]), if that is not evidence of trolling (I am unsure of whether it is), it is at least unpleasantly long and was not endorsed by anyone but you. You should try being considerably more brief than that and avoid making as many statements that could be considered accusations; people just might become more willing to listen to what you have to say. –Tifego^(t) _{07:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)}

Thanks for your comments and the definitions of "trolling". It seems they have not yet finished adding in more issues as can be seen here [[8]]. It would assist if you could advise where the timescales and procedures for an RfC are found.

^Talk - The Invisible Anon 23:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Essentially, forget resemblances to a court of law. RFCs, like all Wikipedia documents, tend to accrete: someone posts a skeleton argument; co-signatories add to it; subject adds response; other editors for or against (either involved, or outsiders who've seen the RFC listing and offer outside views) add further, and so on. As long as editors stick to the prescribed sections (indicated by instructions in italics) the whole thing is fluid. It goes on until (with luck) some kind of consensus appears. Tearlach 00:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

For convenience (mine) I've copied this to the talk page for the RFC in question. THe section of advice (I'd say instructions, even) at the bottom of the template says that is where disucssion, not part of a particualr section, should go. That seems intensely sensible. Midgley 00:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

UCR

How are the discussions on UCR coming along? I'm not really interested in that article, so I haven't been following the discussions, but let me know if you need any help. I appreciate your efforts in solving these conflicts. Aucaman^Talk 06:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

You have just been "Midglied"

Dear Tifego^(t)_,

If you please read my talk page closely again you will see that "trolling" is accurate and not unjustified. You also seem to think there is a dispute, but there is not.

User:Midgley denied several times describing as "complete bollocks" what I and/or User:Ombudsman said and that he did this within 30 minutes of asking for mediation.

But in the passage you comment on he now admits it. He does it in a very lengthy passage and ends up claiming it was me all along. He also claims I am lying and accusing him of lying. That is classic "trolling" within the meaning of the definition you kindly provided. Proof of that is the fact you are blaming me for it and not asking User:Midgley to explain himself.

Further, as User:Midgley has now admitted the behaviour he previously was denying and which was disputed by him, there is no longer any dispute over it.

More Examples

How long have you been acquainted with what User:Midgley does?

User:TenOfAllTrades told him after he created a sockpuppet to impersonate me "You will be blocked from editing if you engage in any obnoxious behaviour from now on." - See [[9]]

If you want more examples of classic trolling, take a look here [[10]] and here [[11]].

You could also usefully ask User:Leifern about his experiences with User:Midgley. He has suffered extensively whilst trying to do what we are all supposed to try to do - write an encyclopaedia.

You could then ask User:Pansophia her opinion.

I intend to start dealing with the recent oppressively lengthy RfC on me by User:Midgley et al soon. You will then see more about this and that what I am saying is true.

If you check out the RfC listings you will also see to save himself the bother of having a dispute, then having to attempt to resolve "it" and mediate "it" he has "relisted" an old RfC. This is the RfC against User:Ombudsman. See here [[12]].

He also seems to have engaged in the "relisting" in order to coincide with the RfC on me which you will also see there and another RfC he has listed against john.

^Talk - The Invisible Anon 09:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)