User talk:Idfubar

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Idfubar, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! DMCer™ 07:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Thanks a lot for all your work! Let me know if you want a second pair of eyes or a hand with something. II | (t - c) 03:53, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Grammar check

I have seen your grammar checks, can you provide a quick one for Mudhugauv also explain the problems in the edit summary. Thank you.117.248.60.4 (talk) 13:00, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

-> Done deal; summaries of movies are probably better placed on IMDB or 'themoviedb.org'... but a best effort was made nonetheless... idfubar (talk) 03:56, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Hey, thank you. What would you say the grammatical issues were.(To avoid future issues.)117.215.195.208 (talk) 04:20, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Uhhh, hard to say... I am not a linguist (or language expert) so my assessment is only casual - but if there is a problem it seems to stem from a pair of factors (i.e. the fact that the content is better placed in another forum/medium & that the content is non-typical of that which is written in English, i.e. a summary of a complicated story which relies upon references to multiple characters and complex interactions); there might also be some issue about the grammar of listing a given set of things in English... but it's nothing worth getting preoccupied with, IMHO...idfubar (talk) 23:29, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Idfubar. 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)

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Idfubar. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. Editing for the purpose of advertising or promotion is not permitted. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, company, organization or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
• disclose your COI when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
• do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:46, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks Kudpung; it's always nice to hear from other community members - and especially so with respect to those who spend countless hours making Wikipedia an invaluable, impartial source of knowledge (all for no personal gain on their own part - as WP:ABOUT makes clear!); such contributions put my own humble financial & editorial contributions in perspective... though, to be fair - and honest - were contributions truly comparable in such a sense the community would not be as robust as it actually is: the fact of the same is evinced by the spirit of friendly, collegial learning per the other posts on the page; further, your comment wouldn't be accompanied by a second, hidden comment serving as an automatic, near-infinite WP:COI sanction (expiring in "a while", specifically the year 5000, per as-yet unreferenced administrative guidelines regarding the volume of such concerns & the managability of the same). Please do try to think for yourself in determining if you could be creating as many conflict of interest arguments as you're likely purporting yourself to have solved - as bullying goes hand-in-hand with lessons of hatred (and tends to detract from actual diversity, i.e. that not of the tempramental kind) & is fully consistent with a compulsive obsession to have the last word in any disagreement; further, if the scrutiny already afforded to the nature & detail of my Wikipedia editorial activity has not yielded satisfaction please allow me to suggest that, given some concern about conflict of interest, the WP:INCIDENT process be used to clarify that any given volunteer whose employer has a broad scope of interest, e.g. federal government, IBM, university, etc., would not only present the same concern but would also be better served by a declarative understanding of expressed editorial suspicions being better relegated to silent, rather than expressed, bias (as, again, we are all volunteers who work under the same honor system - no matter how daunting & inaccessible initial contribution may appear to be). Fair enough?

PS: Your thoughts - but not your suspicions (given the accompanying authority, time-intensive process of remediation, and irrevokable damage to the reputation of Wikipedia) - are welcome; hope you feel the same way... idfubar (talk) 02:28, 25 December 2017 (UTC)