User talk:Wikitiki89

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Proposed deletion of Los Colorados[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Los Colorados, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

No independent sources to show how this passes WP:BAND, doesn't meet the inclusion criteriae

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. MLauba (talk) 08:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


File source and copyright licensing problem with File:Irmologion.PNG[edit]

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:Irmologion.PNG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, we also need to know the terms of the license that the copyright holder has published the file under, usually done by adding a licensing tag. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged files may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the file will be deleted 48 hours after 06:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Salavat (talk) 06:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Rules of chess[edit]

I saw your addition to the rules of chess about time runing out while being one move away from checkmate. I can't find this in either the FIDE rules or the USCF rules. Can you give the rule number? Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 04:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I guess it was a mistake. This was a rule my chess tutor (who is a grandmaster) taught me. I looked for it online just now and I actually found a USCF rule that contradicts it. I think it would be alright to say rule is used in some tournaments. If you disagree, you may change this or remove it completely. --- Wikitiki89 (talk) - 06:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, the closest thing I could find about it is in the USCF rulebook, rule 14G1 says that if both flags are down before checkmate, it is a draw. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 07:01, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
There is a rule that if a player's time runs out and there are insufficient chances that he would lose, it is a draw. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 07:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
I was under the impression that "insufficient losing chances" was something you had to claim, and that you had to claim it before your time runs out. The rules described here don't mention a possibility of claiming a draw after the time runs out. (But I gather that Bubba73 is a tournament director, while I am not so I'll defer to him.) Regarding checkmate on the next move, if player A is forced to checkmate player B on the next move but oversteps the time limit, the game is drawn because no sequence of legal moves leads to player A being checkmated, however it is very rare that a player is forced to checkmate the opponent. --Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
"Insufficient losing chances" is a USCF rule and is in contrast to the FIDE rule. It has to be in a sudden death time control and the player has to claim it when he has less than 2 minutes left, but before his time runs out, Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 16:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm with Sjakkalle on it's something you had to claim. SunCreator (talk) 16:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

There is a condition where I think you are right about checkmate on the next move, see "Insufficient losing chances" section on my talk page. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 16:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Chicken Dance[edit]

Hi! I notice you tagged Chicken Dance as self contradictory. I can certainly agree it's not well written, but I can't see a contradiction. As such, I've removed the tag, but if I've missed it, feel free to put the tag back with a note on the talk page. Cheers -- WORMMЯOW  13:27, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Good work[edit]

I noticed you added vowels to a word in the lead of Ketubah. That is a good thing you are doing. Many more articles could use your help in this. Debresser (talk) 09:03, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Teahouse talkback[edit]

WP teahouse logo 3.png
Hello, Wikitiki89. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived. Message added by Sionk (talk) 13:25, 5 November 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template.
WP teahouse logo 3.png
Hello, Wikitiki89. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived. Message added by NtheP (talk) 15:17, 5 November 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template.

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages![edit]

WP teahouse logo 3.png
Hello, Wikitiki89. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived. Message added by NtheP (talk) 17:59, 5 November 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template.

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages![edit]

WP teahouse logo 3.png
Hello, Wikitiki89. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived. Message added by Gtwfan52 (talk) 01:10, 6 November 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template.

Book of Ezekiel[edit]

Hi Wikitiki89, Til Eulenspiegel and Student7 - Grace and Peace! Might I invite you to the discussion topic I've started on the Book of Ezekiel talk page regarding the use of 'God' vs 'YHWH' in this article. You all clearly have knowledge of and passion for the subject and I would really appreciate seeing that harnessed into a new section. Wikipedia covers well the 'Yahwist'/'Elohist' source ideas that arise in higher criticism, but there is little on how the use of different references to the Deity has been interpreted through succeeding generations of Rabbinic and Christian interpretation. The Book of Ezekiel has its own emphasis here, particularly in the use of 'Lord GOD', so it's as good a place to start as any, and your collective enthusiasm makes you the ideal team! ;) For what it's worth, I come from a conservative Christian position, well-read but formally untaught in Theology. Blessings of Hannukah just past and Christmas about to come!John M Brear (talk) 09:51, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, and merry Christmas to you! BTW, I replied at Talk:Book of Ezekiel. --- Wikitiki89 (talk) - 19:44, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

?[edit]

You think that the status of the West Bank is entirely irrelevant in an article about a media organization that represents the views of the Israeli settler movement living in the occupied West Bank. Why ? It's entirely relevant, it was deemed relevant by the cited reliable source and it's not at all like Paris. If it wasn't occupied and administered by the military as a territory under belligerent occupation, Arutz Sheva wouldn't be there. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:03, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

All of the necessary connotation is supplied by the word "settlement". The Israeli settlements in the West Bank are where many people who would support Arutz Sheva choose to live. It is only natural that they would set up a studio among these people. Whether Arutz Sheva would have a studio in the West Bank if the West Bank weren't "occupied and administered by the military as a territory under belligerent occupation" is POV speculation. --- Wikitiki89 (talk) - 19:10, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
If all of the necessary connotation were supplied by the word "settlement" the RS cited would not have regarded it as necessary to supply the words "the occupied territories". You are making a content decision based on the premise that you are a reliable source. The reasoning is also a slippery slope. Similar reasoning could be used to argue that the combined attributes of being Israeli and in the West Bank indicate that it must be a settlement. The word settlement is therefore unnecessary and can be replaced by the word city, village etc. These are the kind of methods used to engineer language in the WP:ARBPIA topic area to move article content away from the language used by RS that we are supposed to reflect, towards the language preferred by organizations that advocate for the State of Israel. The premise that a reader can reliably derive information about the status of the West Bank from the term "settlement" is certainly not the case in my experience. Many readers are apparently misinformed about the status of the West Bank. Edits that treat Israeli settlements as if they are in Israel rather than the Israeli occupied territories are commonplace. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:18, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Well there's a difference between "misinformation" and "a belief other than yours". I'm not going to argue that the West Bank is not occupied, but I will say that there are people who believe this and not because they are misinformed, but because they have a different point of view. So essentially what you are saying is that if these people make "edits that treat Israeli settlements as if they are in Israel rather than the Israeli occupied territories" then the solution is to add the word occupied to every article that mentions the West Bank? Back to the more important point about sources, this source in particular does not use the term "occupied West Bank", but "occupied territories". The only mention of "West Bank" in the source is the following quote from the Introduction (page xiii): "[…] in the areas occupied by Israeli military forces […]—in particular the West Bank of the Jordan River and the Gaza Strip […]". In other words, it uses West Bank, to define part of the occupied territories. I can find sources that use the words "West Bank" to describe the location of Arutz Sheva's studio, but none that say "occupied West Bank" (that doesn't mean that none exist, I just can't find them). --- Wikitiki89 (talk) - 04:57, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
You misunderstand. My belief, the only one that matters, is that Wikipedia content is built from reliable sources using documented decision procedures. What I believe about the real world doesn't matter. So, while I agree that there's a difference between "misinformation" and "a belief other than yours", misinformation in this context is information that is inconsistent with policy, information that is wrong from a Wikipedia perspective no matter what I think about it. My solution is certainly not to 'add the word occupied to every article that mentions the West Bank'. In fact, I have removed occupied as a prefix to West Bank from several articles when it has been redundant given the context. Either way, I see that removing this word is important enough for you to violate 1RR over it and edit without gaining consensus. I shall leave you to it then because my continued involvement seems likely to cause you to commit editing suicide by getting yourself blocked or topic banned and I'm not going to help you do that. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:23, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
It looks like you misunderstood me as well. My latest revert was based only on evidence from the sources, as was the latter half of the argument in my previous post here, which I think was important than the former half, yet you failed to respond to it. I am not familiar with all of Wikipedia's policies, so if I am breaking any rules, it's news to me. I always thought the rule was three reverts, and so far I have made two. --- Wikitiki89 (talk) - 06:32, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Okay, all articles related to the 'Arab-Israeli' conflict 'broadly construed' are covered by WP:1RR. It's part of the discretionary sanctions that cover the WP:ARBPIA topic area. Sometimes this will be indicated by a header on the talk page, sometimes it won't. If you are unaware of this restriction that's okay, but bear it in mind in future whenever you edit an article or content within an article (even just one sentence) that could be considered (by admins) to be within scope of the WP:ARBPIA topic area's restrictions. It should at least be clear to you that you do not have consensus for your change and therefore should not be imposing it on the article. I didn't respond on the content issue because I don't think anything I say will affect your view. You believe that the status of the West Bank is entirely irrelevant in an article about a settler media organization based in the West Bank, you believe that the status can be derived from the word "settlement", you reject the approach used by a book published by University of Illinois Press (e.g. you could have followed the source and used the term 'the occupied territories) and instead have cited a book written by a partisan author published by WorldNetDaily. WorldNetDaily is not treated as a reliable source for facts in Wikipedia and has been discussed many times (see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_62#WORLD_NET_DAILY_final_answer_needed for example). Sean.hoyland - talk 07:04, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for the explanation of the policy. Regarding the sources, again you did not respond to what I said. The source that was there (which you consider to be reliable) uses the word "West Bank" to refer to a subset of the "occupied territories". "West Bank" is more specific than "occupied territories", so changing to the latter would be removing information. The source I added may be considered "not generally acceptable as a source for factual material", but that does not make it unreliable for terminological material. Anyway, if the fact that the West Bank is occupied is relevant to the article, then this relevance should be mentioned in the article, rather than just slipping in the word "occupied" where it doesn't belong. I have attempted to do this in my most recent edit to the article. --- Wikitiki89 (talk) - 07:22, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Wikitiki89. You have new messages at Malik Shabazz's talk page.
Message added 02:40, 1 April 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

WP:ARBPIA notice[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svg The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to the Arab–Israeli conflict. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, satisfy any standard of behavior, or follow any normal editorial process. If you inappropriately edit pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read at the "Final decision" section of the decision page.

Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page before making any further edits to the pages in question. This notice will be logged on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions system.

— Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 16:17, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:19, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

This is the only way I could contact you. This is a wiktionary issue.[edit]

You're making obnoxious rollbacks of correct edits, such as those on the glucinum and Baha'i Faith page. Would you care explaining why you continuously redact correct (and verified) information? BedrockPerson (talk) 14:29, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Because all your edits are careless, sloppy, and misleading, even if they happen to be based on real information. --- Wikitiki89 (talk) - 16:17, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
I fail to see how adding a translation and an etymology according to the correct formatting rules is sloppy, careless, or misleading. What was careless and sloppy was you mass-reverting a number of correct edits, evidently without even looking at a single one. BedrockPerson (talk) 16:18, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
If you are talking about your edit to “Baha'i Faith”, the transliteration was incorrect. I was going to fix it but hadn't had time yet. So in the meantime, I reverted it. Please don't make edits in languages that you clearly have very little knowledge of. I looked at every single edit I reverted, in fact, if you had been paying close enough attention, you would have noticed that there were a few edits I did not revert. --- Wikitiki89 (talk) - 16:22, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Point on the Bahai page conceded. Glucinum's issue still stands. Referring to your newest argument, I went back to my contributions, and found the opposite. You also reverted correct edits from the Yahweh page on the grounds that I was 'untrustworthy'. Even Bing Translate will tell you each of the translations were accurate, with the possible exception of the Burmese entry (may translate to Lord) BedrockPerson (talk) 16:26, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
The fact that you think Bing Translate is a trustworthy source is exactly why you are untrustworthy. --- Wikitiki89 (talk) - 16:28, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
That's the idea. It's called making a point, bub. Speaking of, let's go back to the Moses incident. You know, the one that got me blocked. Here's your first edit claiming that I had no source and that my Egyptian wasn't correct. Wherein, I linked not only to the wiktionary pages that proved my definitions were correct, but also an additional source to supplement my point. You claimed this source proved nothing, seemingly missing the entirety of the passage in question:
"...for the Egyptians call water mou and those who are saved. These two terms are transcriptions of the Coptic words for "water" and "saved". With regard to an Egyptian etymolgy of the name Moses we may add that Moses may be based on msw, "child of..." ...thus, Moses would mean "Child of the Nile" (mw-se)"
It seems in your hurry to correct what you supposed what was erroneous information, you missed the entirety of what was correct. Thoughts? BedrockPerson (talk) 16:35, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
All it says there is that this is the opinion of Abraham H. Yahuda and that Rivka Ulmer agrees with it, which is only two people. Also, the transliterated Egyptian word given was mw-še, not mw-se or mw-s3. In fact I'm not even sure what is meant by e, which is not a symbol used in any transliteration system of Ancient Egyptian, but the source makes clear that še is meant to mean "pond, lake, expanse of water", with mw meaning "water, seed" and thus "child". --- Wikitiki89 (talk) - 16:50, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Wikitiki89. 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)

Again, this is the only way I could contact you.[edit]

Yeah sorry about coming back to this issue yet again but I was wondering if I could possibly appeal my ban from Wiktionary. I don't know if there's a protocol against it considering the block time I was given was set for my specific kind of offense but I really want to continue improving the wiki, and while I acknowledge I was disruptive with my editing I feel six months is a bit steep. If there's a zero tolerance thing in place for this sort of thing I understand. Thanks. BedrockPerson (talk) 13:18, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

It's not that there is zero tolerance. It's that this is a pattern with you. This is not your first block. If you want to contribute, wait out the six months and then don't repeat your mistakes. To clarify, you were not blocked for the content you added, but for the persistent edit warring. If you think a reversion of your edit is unjustified, please discuss it rather than repeating the edit. --- Wikitiki89 (talk) - 16:01, 28 November 2016 (UTC)