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,, 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 (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --vineeth 04:28, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

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! -- De ryc k C.  15:35, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Sure, although I might not be able to do very much on it for a while. – T i f e g 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 i f e g o(t) 04:25, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe that the template you're looking for may be

. Hbackman 04:27, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that was it. Now I know how to use , too. – T i f e g 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 i f e g 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 i f e g 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 i f e g 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 i f e g 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 i f e g 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 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 i f e g 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. &rArr;    SWAT Jester   [[Image:Flag_of_Iceland.svg|18px|]]  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 i f e g 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 i f e g 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 i f e g 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 i f e g o(t)08:04, 1 April 1906 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Userfying userboxes

 * 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 i f e g 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. Auca m anTalk 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 i f e g 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)

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
I made a subuser page, and have moved this discussion to its talk page. – Tifego (t)04:11, 29 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)

Reply to your comments
Please see my talk page for reply to your comments here []. Talk - The Invisible Anon 22:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

<!--
 * Hi. I noticed your addition to the RfC.


 * You might like to look at this [] 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, 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 [].  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
I made a subuser page, and have moved this discussion to its talk page. – Tifego (t)04:11, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the 3RR warning -- I won't revert it again for a day or so. I hope, however, that he/them/whoever won't revert back, because it's really rather ridiculous. Dandan 20:07, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:SockpuppetCheckuserNoBlock
Template:SockpuppetCheckuserNoBlock has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. ADNghiem501 04:50, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. (I weakly support its deletion.) – Tifego (t)05:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

909er/UCRGrad
Apparently 909er, who may or may not be UCRGrad, just decided to become a userpage vandal:. You think it's getting to be time for an RFC? Maybe even an RFAr? szyslak (t, c,  e ) 06:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I made a subuser page, and have moved this discussion to its talk page. – Tifego (t)04:11, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to help, what can I do, how can we go about it? Every single one of my edits has been reverted without explaination because HE didn't approve. He's not a moderator. TheRegicider 07:14, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, then please take a look at this page; you'll notice it's incomplete, so you could help by adding to it. Once it's done, we can use it to file an RFC or possibly RFAR against UCRGrad. Also, until then, I'd like for further talk about this to go on this discussion page. – Tifego (t)07:23, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Why am I being targeted for investigation? Insert-Belltower 04:15, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * You're not. I specifically said I doubt you're a sockpuppet of UCRGrad, and mentioned you even further down on the list than a completely inactive sockpuppet, so you shouldn't be investigated directly. – Tifego (t)06:05, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Why have me on the list at all then? Insert-Belltower 14:18, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * So the admin will know it means something on the off chance that doing the check on UCRGrad or UnblockingTau causes your username to come up. – Tifego (t)15:25, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

RFI Report
I keep on meaning to look into this, but as you can see there RFI has pilled up again... Anyway is there anything relatively simple that needs doing (like a confirmed sock puppet needing a block) or...? Cheers, Petros471 20:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, well the checkuser results were that UCRGrad and Insert-Belltower were both using sockpuppets (to attempt to win a content dispute). The sockpuppets confirmed through that were indef-blocked. The problem now is that there is still a dispute with UCRGrad and Insert-Belltower and they are opposed to any third-party mediation, but that's not something that needs investigation. – Tifego (t)09:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, thanks. So ok to archive the RFI then? Petros471 09:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Abbe Land, part II
This has been a previous topic for a small Living People page, but the same thing is happening again. A single individual, who mascarades as a group, is intent on defaming Abbe Land. He is determined to sneak his website in, which interestingly enough is not linked by anyone else in the world. Thus his insistence. You are familiar with his website; it refers to commissions that comprise of him alone, it's unreferenced, and in all honesty is beside the point (this individual's hatred of Abbe Land doesn't actually stem from campaign finances).

I have posted two warnings to the IP, but wasn't sure that I had the authority to post a warning that it was his final chance before getting blocked (because I can't actually do that). I realize there is a page to request blocks, but thought I should post to you first, seeing as you are familiar with this situation. Just to note- the IP of the new effort to mess with the site is from the same, problematic individual as the last IP.Avogel 17:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I was going to suggest you ask at Requests for page protection, but it looks like an admin has already sprotected the page. If this is a recurring problem, maybe it's worth reporting that IP range at the new Abuse reports page. – Tifego (t)00:51, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

RFARB filed against UCRGrad
Please consider adding a statement here if you are still at all concerned with this.--Amerique 16:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello. Am new at Wikipedia. I am just curious as to how to get the alphabets such as in your username, in the subscript?
Hello. Am new at Wikipedia. I am just curious how to get the alphabets such as in your username, in the subscript.Is there any tool in wikipedia which generates such subscripted alphabets or do i have to refer back to unicode? Could you pls point me in the direction of how you did it? And how best to do it? Thank you.

Calling programmers
We need coders for the WikiProject Disambigation fixer. We need to make a program to make faster and easier the fixing of links. We will be happy if you could check the project. You can Help! --Neo139 09:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Relevance drafts ready for editing/comments
Hi Tifego,

Father Goose and I (WikiLen) have developed competing versions for a possible guideline on relevancy. I note you have previous participated at this project. Your contributions would be timely now. My draft is the current proposed guideline only because I made mine after Father Goose did his. This is not to suggest either version is favored. Thanks for your interest... —WikiLen 03:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Draft REL2 REL2.1 by Father Goose
 * Draft REL3 by WikiLen

WP:COMPUTING Invitation
I have noticed that you are already a member of a related project and thought you might be interested in this wikiproject also and hence leaving this note ... - From the outreach dept

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:44, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Not censored 2
Template:Not censored 2 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. &#91;Username Needed&#93; 15:19, 28 January 2019 (UTC)