User talk:Tifego

Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end.
Start a new talk topic.

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:

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
- 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)}[reply]

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)}[reply]
- I believe that the template you're looking for may be {{clear}}. Hbackman 04:27, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks, that was it. Now I know how to use <nowiki>, too. –T_if_eg_o^(t) _{04:32, 12 March 2006 (UTC)}[reply]
  - 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)}[reply]
    - Go right ahead. I think I stole a couple of your userboxes, so we're even. ;) Hbackman 22:14, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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. — Preceding unsigned comment 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)}[reply]

Forgot to log in

in the superpower article...sorry!! — Preceding unsigned comment 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 — Preceding unsigned comment 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)}[reply]

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)[reply]
- It's no problem, and it looks like it's getting better... –T_if_eg_o^(t) _{00:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)}[reply]

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)}[reply]

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)}[reply]
  - 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
- 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)}[reply]
- 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)}[reply]
- 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)}[reply]

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)[reply]
- 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)}[reply]

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)[reply]
- 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)}[reply]

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. Aucam an^Talk 04:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

missing

Good change on the template, but you forgot to vote. RJII 00:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- 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)}[reply]
  - Well, I voted, and it looks like the template was kept. –Tifego^(t)_{06:20, 10 April 2006 (UTC)}[reply]

Barnstar

The E=MC² Barnstar

Hereby I award Tifego with this E=MC² Barnstar for his tireless contributions towards C++ and related articles. D e ryc k C. 14:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)}[reply]

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.

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???