Jump to content

User talk:Tijfo098

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by EauOo (talk | contribs) at 03:47, 7 October 2012 (→‎Ryukyu Islands reversion: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

On BLP wikibreak

ArbCom decided that mere editors cannot be trusted to edit BLPs, so I'm not editing them anymore. In fact, there are enough admins to edit Wikipedia among themselves, so I'll contribute much less here in the future. Tijfo098 (talk) 11:57, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics/Straw poll regarding lists of mathematics articles

Greetings! In light of your participation in the discussion(s) regarding the treatment of disambiguation pages on the "Lists of mathematics articles" pages, please indicate your preference in the straw poll at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics/Straw poll regarding lists of mathematics articles. Cheers! bd2412 T 20:22, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:The first law of Wikipedia

Wikipedia:The first law of Wikipedia, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:The first law of Wikipedia and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:The first law of Wikipedia during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Herostratus (talk) 02:20, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Amusing to see who turned up at that vote and how they've fared later:
Perhaps there was some truth in the those pages they disliked, which for the benefit of those who can't read them now, made some general observations about the functioning of Wikipedia. Tijfo098 (talk) 07:28, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

voting

Right then, voting is now taking place until July 14 to gain consensus on use of hyphens and dashes in relation to a request for arbitration on 5 May 2011. Please express your opinion there (apologies if you've voted on this before, but this one last time will be to get as large an input as possible and get a robust as consensus as possible). Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:48, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Idea

Create a mini-project to bring the articles of Neda, Mohamed Bouazizi, Khaled Said, and Hamza Ali Al-Khateeb up to GA/FA status. Possibly expand to include others whose deaths became symbols of war and peace (i.e. Pat Tillman). Would you like to work on something like this? Ocaasi t | c 23:47, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Completely new abortion proposal and mediation

In light of the seemingly endless disputes over their respective titles, a neutral mediator has crafted a proposal to rename the two major abortion articles (pro-life/anti-abortion movement, and pro-choice/abortion rights movement) to completely new names. The idea, which is located here, is currently open for opinions. As you have been a contributor in the past to at least one of the articles, your thoughts on the matter would be appreciated.

The hope is that, if a consensus can be reached on the article titles, the energy that has been spent debating the titles of the articles here and here can be better spent giving both articles some much needed improvement to their content. Please take some time to read the proposal and weigh in on the matter. Even if your opinion is simple indifference, that opinion would be valuable to have posted.

To avoid concerns that this notice might violate WP:CANVASS, this posting is being made to every non-anon editor who has edited either page (or either page's respective talk page) since 1 July 2010, irrespective of possible previous participation at the mediation page. HuskyHuskie (talk) 21:00, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

India FAR

Hi there, The history section expansion of India in response to FAR comments is now complete. All remaining issues have been addressed. Please weigh in at FARC. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:28, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further reading

I recently posted to Wikipedia talk:Further reading, and I want to get more people discussing what I said here, and as you posted in that section, I thought I'd ask what you think. I did consider going to the MoS talk page, but I fail to see how 'further reading' is a manual of style issue (the formatting of such a section, yes; the content of the section, no). Carcharoth (talk) 23:39, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note to alert you that User:James Cantor deleted a comment you placed on his User Talk page

Hello Tijfo098! I wanted to let you know that I have come across an edit made here on 4 March 2011 by User:James Cantor in which he deleted an admonition regarding his approach to editing in Wikipedia which you had left at this point, 21 Oct 2010. -- thanks! -- bonze blayk (talk) 01:29, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

News and progress from RfA reform 2011

RfA reform: ...and what you can do now.

(You are receiving this message because you are either a task force member, or you have contributed to recent discussions on any of these pages.)

The number of nominations continues to nosedive seriously, according to these monthly figures. We know why this is, and if the trend continues our reserve of active admins will soon be underwater. Wikipedia now needs suitable editors to come forward. This can only be achieved either through changes to the current system, a radical alternative, or by fiat from elsewhere.

A lot of work is constantly being done behind the scenes by the coordinators and task force members, such as monitoring the talk pages, discussing new ideas, organising the project pages, researching statistics and keeping them up to date. You'll also see for example that we have recently made tables to compare how other Wikipedias choose their sysops, and some tools have been developed to more closely examine !voters' habits.

The purpose of WP:RFA2011 is to focus attention on specific issues of our admin selection process and to develop RfC proposals for solutions to improve them. For this, we have organised the project into dedicated sections each with their own discussion pages. It is important to understand that all Wikipedia policy changes take a long time to implement whether or not the discussions appear to be active - getting the proposals right before offering them for discussion by the broader community is crucial to the success of any RfC. Consider keeping the pages and their talk pages on your watchlist; do check out older threads before starting a new one on topics that have been discussed already, and if you start a new thread, please revisit it regularly to follow up on new comments.

The object of WP:RFA2011 is not to make it either easier or harder to become an admin - those criteria are set by those who !vote at each RfA. By providing a unique venue for developing ideas for change independent of the general discussion at WT:RFA, the project has two clearly defined goals:

  1. Improving the environment that surrounds RfA in order to encourage mature, experienced editors of the right calibre to come forward, pass the interview, and dedicate some of their time to admin tasks.
  2. Discouraging, in the nicest way possible of course, those whose RfA will be obvious NOTNOW or SNOW, and to guide them towards the advice pages.

The fastest way is through improvement to the current system. Workspace is however also available within the project pages to suggest and discuss ideas that are not strictly within the remit of this project. Users are invited to make use of these pages where they will offer maximum exposure to the broader community, rather than individual projects in user space.

We already know what's wrong with RfA - let's not clutter the project with perennial chat. RFA2011 is now ready to propose some of the elements of reform, and all the task force needs to do now is to pre-draft those proposals in the project's workspace, agree on the wording, and then offer them for central discussion where the entire Wikipedia community will be more than welcome to express their opinions in order to build consensus.

New tool Check your RfA !voting history! Since the editors' RfA !vote counter at X!-Tools has been down for a long while, we now have a new RfA Vote Counter to replace it. A significant improvement on the former tool, it provides a a complete breakdown of an editor's RfA votes, together with an analysis of the participant's voting pattern.

Are you ready to help? Although the main engine of RFA2011 is its task force, constructive comments from any editors are always welcome on the project's various talk pages. The main reasons why WT:RfA was never successful in getting anything done are that threads on different aspects of RfA are all mixed together, and are then archived where nobody remembers them and where they are hard to find - the same is true of ad hoc threads on the founder's talk page.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of RfA reform 2011 at 16:04, 25 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]

RfC/Tenmei

Thank you again for your participation in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tenmei, especially for your endorsement of a comment by Beeblebrox here. You may recall reading,

I find the "evidence of trying to resolve the dispute" unimpressive. Especially [1] in which this RFCU is held over Tenmei's head as a threat. These goal of an RFCU is to come to a mutually agreeable voluntary solution to an unresolved problem. It is not a court and Tenmei is not on trial. RFCU is generally the last stop before ArbCom, if this effort fails to arrive at a solution I seriously doubt ArbCom would accept a case.

As it turned out, the RfC was cited as part of an ArbCom findings of fact which explicitly endorsed the complaints of Qwyrxian here and Bobthefish2 here.

Although Tenmei was counseled on this issue during the prior case, his manner and style of communications during disputes has not improved. Whether intentional or not, Tenmei's involvement in the current dispute has frustrated involved and uninvolved editors alike, amplifying and prolonging the dispute resolution process.(Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tenmei (see views by HXL49 and Taemyr); Evidence section "Tenmei", provided by Qwyrxian; [2])

As remedies, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Senkaku Islands/Proposed decision included:

Tenmei is advised that his unusual style of communication has not been conducive to resolving this dispute. Accordingly, Tenmei is urged to develop a different style of communication, which is more similar to that used by experienced Wikipedia editors. Until this happens, Tenmei is advised not to engage in topics which are the subject of a dispute.

In retrospect, I would have preferred you did something different in the RfC. It would have helped me if you and others had argued forcefully that the complainers needed to help me by addressing the direct questions I posted as an initial response:

A. In specific, what could I have done differently at any specific point?
B. In specific, what should I have avoided at any specific point?
C. In specific, how could I have parsed perceived options differently at any specific point?
D. In specific, what unidentified options were overlooked at any specific point?
E. In specific, what worked? What didn't? Why?
F. In specific, what illustrated good judgment? bad judgment?

I explain this now because I hope it will influence your thinking in the future. --Tenmei (talk) 14:52, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Dispute Resolution

You may be interested in this. Peter jackson (talk) 17:52, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Beverly Whipple listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Beverly Whipple. Since you had some involvement with the Beverly Whipple redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 22:49, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite

Hello Tijfo098. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.

Please click HERE to participate.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.

You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 11:30, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Robert K. Merton: tailor and Hebrew

On April 2, 2011, you edited Robert K. Merton, saying "Aaron Schkolnickoff ... officially identified at his port of entry in the United states as Harrie Skolnik, tailor and Hebrew." Are you sure you got that correctly? Could it have been, for example, "... tailor and Hebrew teacher"? —Anomalocaris (talk) 04:46, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I fixed it. —Anomalocaris (talk) 01:05, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Hi, regarding your suggestion at the arbcom amendment, I think that letting everybody editing again at Sathya Sai Baba is re-opening a can of worms. The subject is still highly polarized and little biographical sources exists. Even I did not ask the regain writing rights at Sathya Sai Baba, though I always tried to write with reticence in spite of my personal negative opinion about him. Many users have shown in the past that they are not able or willing write with reticence at Sathya Sai Baba. I think that your suggestion would give the arbcom volunteers unnecessary work in future for a case Sathya Sai Baba 3. Andries (talk) 18:29, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you misunderstand my intentions regarding the disruptive editors there. I want to make the job of dealing with those easier via WP:discretionary sanctions on obviously tendentious ones, rather than by having to prove that they are some formerly banned editor as in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wikisunn/Archive, for example. (On a side-note, an now-banned administrator decided to do this at one point. I understand he was later site-banned by ArmCom for going to ridiculous extremes, like interviewing someone's neighbors in order to find evidence of some COI or sockpuppetry--I didn't follow that closely. That's just the wrong way to go about dealing with Wikipedia edits one disapproves of.) Tijfo098 (talk) 22:39, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the sources, btw. Andries (talk) 18:30, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Tijfo098 (talk) 22:39, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

May be you are not aware of the article Sathya Sai Baba bibliography. Andries (talk) 20:56, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alas, that kind of list tends to fall foul of WP:LISTN/wp:indiscriminate. Tijfo098 (talk) 04:46, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow

In this issue:

  • Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
  • Research: The most recent DR data
  • Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
  • Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
  • DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
  • Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
  • Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?
Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->

--The Olive Branch 19:34, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Re: 16:10 ANI

Hi, just wanted to say thanks for filing that ANI report (on the 16:10 dispute/edit war). Couldn't have hoped for a swifter resolution. All the best. Indrek (talk) 12:44, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gateway LT3103U, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Computer Shopper (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) 17:59, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to comment at Monty Hall problem RfC

You are invited to comment on the following RfC:

Talk:Monty Hall problem#Conditional or Simple solutions for the Monty Hall problem?

--Guy Macon (talk) 22:14, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nooooo, not that again. Some stuff never gets solved on Wikipedia, I suppose. Tijfo098 (talk) 22:16, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mega-semi-wikibreak

I see the PC2 crap is back, so I'm not going to contribute here for the foreseeable future. Tijfo098 (talk) 23:52, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

your recent RfC oppose

Hey there Tijfo. I put a small thing about it, seen here. It would be nice if you were to respond. --Mysterytrey 00:29, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Netbook, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages PC World and PCWorld (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) 09:48, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

patent court case articles

Thanks for your kind note! I see that you have gone over the Mayo article and improved it. Thanks for that.Jytdog (talk) 23:53, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Tijfo098. You have new messages at Wikipedia_talk:Teahouse.
Message added 18:46, 20 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 18:46, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Until duration of the Caste RfC

Hi there, We are by common agreement not making changes to the Caste article for the duration of the RfC. Yes, the Italy (and other European sections) have been commented on. If you remove it, it will be difficult for others to understand the RfC. I would urge you to self-revert until there is more resolution. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:43, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I thought the conclusion was clear though. I was about to yank the absurd section on Poland based on that 1903 (!!) source. The wholesale abuse of old documents which used "caste" for what modern sociology calls social class is simply appalling. Piotrus called it "simply idiotic", but it's really just superlame POV pushing or gross incompetence. Tijfo098 (talk) 13:47, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question

I would like to ask, why do you think that was a copyright violation per WP:ELNEVER? Do you mean that www.scribd.com violated someone's copyright? Thanks, My very best wishes (talk) 13:51, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio books are uploaded to Scribd all the time. Tijfo098 (talk) 13:56, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I never heard about Scribd before, but according to their disclaimer, they follow and enforce copyright rules, just like Wikipedia does. OK, I have no problem with not using it. My very best wishes (talk) 14:32, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. :) Not really just as Wikipedia does. While the WMF of course follows the laws for online service providers, Wikipedia allows anybody to report copyright issues, not just the designated agent of the copyright holder. It is one of the things I appreciate about our site: an ethical approach to copyright that goes beyond the minimal legal requirement. Many people use Scribd legitimately, but unfortunately not everybody does. The likelihood that the uploader owns the rights to all of the books he's uploaded there are slim, especially considering that they come from diverse authors and publishing houses. We have to look carefully at all content on Scribd, just as we do Youtube. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:24, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And especially since I don't see Infobase Publishing giving redistribution rights to "molox@europe.com" (likely a fake email anyway -- google it). One hit is:
Does he sound like a legit book redistributor? Tijfo098 (talk) 15:44, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! Rephrasing the guy, "who has the time, money, effort and courage" to check if sites like Scribd made copyvio in every instance when you are trying to use their books? Better never link anything to sites like this. Sure. My very best wishes (talk) 17:08, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re:By the by

Thanks for stubbing this. But please see the merge notice. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:20, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added that. There's some difficulty finding more detailed sources and there are discrepancies between the two wiki articles. See BLPN discussion. Tijfo098 (talk) 04:29, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Psychotherapies ArbCom

Thank you for notifying me of the request.--SGCM (talk) 12:40, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers

A beer on me!
I have seen your contributions around the wiki and I just wanted to take a moment and say thanks. To your health! Binksternet (talk) 18:10, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate deletion

Please don't do that again. I founded WikiProject Gibraltar and created that page, and I think it's fine to link to GibraltarpediA. I've restored the link, albeit with some amended wording. Prioryman (talk) 22:47, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No way

Contrary to your assertions, I am actually not interested in Israel at all. Incidentally, the least you could have done would have been to notify me about your SPI claims against a third party. That would be good etiquette. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 17:40, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to Article Rescue Squadron WikiProject

Hello, Tijfo098.

You have been invited to join the Article Rescue Squadron WikiProject,
a collaborative effort to rescue articles from deletion if they can be improved through regular editing!

Please visit the project page to learn more about improving Wikipedia articles considered by other editors as based upon notable topics. Northamerica1000(talk) 18:05, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Military animal, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page White Pelican (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) 11:11, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SPI

I have followed MCUKR since it was created and AFAIK there were no active editors whose blocks or edit restrictions are still in place, with the exception of the article's creator. Most of the editors who received restrictions were arguing from a very different position from the new editor. Also, I do not see a pattern of behavior in the new editor that would would have lead to a lengthy block or topic ban in the past. While I agree that this editor probably edited as an IP or under another account name before this account was registered, that in itself is not grounds for blocking. You could ask AmateurEditor for his opinion, since he has also participated in the article since its inception. TFD (talk) 18:57, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba 2

By a vote of 9-0, the Arbitration Committee has passed the following motion:

Remedy 1.1 of the Sathya Sai Baba 2 arbitration case is suspended for three months. During this period, Andries may edit within this topic area, provided that he carefully abides by all applicable policies. After three months, Andries may request that the topic-ban remedy be vacated permanently.

For the Arbitration Committee, NW (Talk) 23:36, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Good Humor
You're funny! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:20, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The IP editor on here

Just so you are aware, 199.101.61.190 is also posting on my talk page about you undoing him, blaming me. Thanks, Mdann52 (talk) 16:57, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right now I'm applying the RI part of WP:RBI. I have a feeling that the B part might hit him if keeps at it. Tijfo098 (talk) 17:00, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care if you block me, what grounds will it be on, harassment? i'm trying to get clairification on a statement you made, and you refuse to clairify. so go ahead and block me, i don't mind. i won't be able to make that edit to Kirsty Hawkshaw regarding what year she started in if i'm blocked, nor will i be able to make an edit to the Zoroark master of elusions article regarding Grings Kodai, who is the main antagonist of the film. I also won't be able to ask a user if they would be able to create an article on this encyclopedia about Italian dj Christian Marchi or Antillas either. I don't care if you block me, it doesn't matter at all. 199.101.61.190 (talk) 18:04, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

an/i

I am posting a disgussion about you on an/i as you have refused to discuss with me exactly what is going on here, i am clueless. 199.101.61.190 (talk) 17:37, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"the manual"

I wanted to thank you for linking to "the manual", but when I woke up the thread was closed already. They don't tell us n00bs anything; we must ferret it out for ourselves, or wait for it to drift onto a talk page. This is a truly sublime piece of humor. Neotarf (talk) 23:33, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ryukyu Islands reversion

I reverted your addition to the Ryukyu Islands article because it was incorrect. The island arc is one of five chains that form three systems of the Boso Triple Junction, there are more than two arcs and this one is geologically unique and important, it is the equivalent of deleting the article on the Morrison Formation. Eau(W)oo (talk) 03:47, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tijfo098&oldid=516419970"