User talk:Tijfo098/Archive 1

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)

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)

MfD nomination of The first law of 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 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)
 * Amusing to see who turned up at that vote and how they've fared later:
 * User:Badmachine -- indefinitely blocked by ArbCom.
 * User:Will Beback -- from admin to site-banned in one ArbCom case.
 * User:TreasuryTag -- community banned.
 * 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)

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)

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? Ocaasit 23:47, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


 * WikiProject_Council/Proposals/HistoryBioLife. Might need a new name, but check it out... Ocaasit 04:01, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

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)

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&amp;fowler  «Talk»  20:28, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

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)

News and progress from RfA reform 2011
(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: 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.
 * 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.

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).

RfC/Tenmei
Thank you again for your participation in 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 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.


 * Tenmei and disputes
 * 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.(Requests for comment/Tenmei (see views by HXL49 and Taemyr); Evidence section "Tenmei", provided by Qwyrxian; )

As remedies, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Senkaku Islands/Proposed decision included:
 * Tenmei advised
 * 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.


 * Tenmei banned for one year

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)

WikiProject Dispute Resolution
You may be interested in this. Peter jackson (talk) 17:52, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

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)

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

Every nick editing at Sathya Sai Baba related subjects
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)
 * 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 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)

thanks for the sources, btw. Andries (talk) 18:30, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Tijfo098 (talk) 22:39, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

May be you are not aware of the article Sathya Sai Baba bibliography. Andries (talk) 20:56, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Alas, that kind of list tends to fall foul of WP:LISTN/wp:indiscriminate. Tijfo098 (talk) 04:46, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

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. In this issue: Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->
 * 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?

--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)

Disambiguation link notification for September 8
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)

Invitation to comment at Monty Hall problem RfC
You are invited to comment on the following RfC:

Talk:Monty Hall problem

--Guy Macon (talk) 22:14, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Nooooo, not that again. Some stuff never gets solved on Wikipedia, I suppose. Tijfo098 (talk) 22:16, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

Disambiguation link notification for September 16
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)

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)

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

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&amp;fowler «Talk»  13:43, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * 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)

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)
 * Copyvio books are uploaded to Scribd all the time. Tijfo098 (talk) 13:56, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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:

Loadsa nice stuff... elikkä paljon kaikkee mukavaa... although I must comment on that anarchy stuff in real life.. sure you got lotsa information but who has the time, money, effort and courage to start making tons of C-4 or other XXXplosives? Löytyykö muuten suomalaisia puhelimen kanssa leikkijöitä? ois mukava lukea sellasta suomenkielistä phreakkitekstitiedostoo niinkuin toi puskajupin keittokirja... FUCK THE FINNISH PHONECOMPANYS!!!! Molox  Turku, Suomi - Wednesday, December 29, 1999 at 22:54:42 (EET)
 * Does he sound like a legit book redistributor? Tijfo098 (talk) 15:44, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * 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)

Re:By the by
Thanks for stubbing this. But please see the merge notice. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 00:20, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * 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)

Re: Psychotherapies ArbCom
Thank you for notifying me of the request.--SGCM (talk)  12:40, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

Disambiguation link notification for September 29
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)

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)

Motion regarding 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)


 * Discuss this

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)
 * 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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)
 * Thanks for notifying me. I replied to you on the article's talk page. Tijfo098 (talk) 04:02, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Maurice Larkin


The article Maurice Larkin has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Not notable. Obituaries are an example of a source that can't be used alone to establish notability.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. - Balph Eubank ✉ 15:06, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Maurice Larkin for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Maurice Larkin is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Maurice Larkin until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. - Balph Eubank ✉ 18:06, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Larkin
Apparently he is notable. However, when writing these stubs on professors and other people who aren't universally famous outside of their academic areas, it may be advisable to include in the article what makes them notable. Why not include a paragraph about his books if those are what make him important, with citations to those academics who note him as being important? Otherwise, to anyone who isn't familiar with him or his field, it just looks like an article on a random professor who happened to author some books. It may save you some headaches in the future. - Balph Eubank ✉ 20:38, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Category
Please be careful about where you add categories, and make sure that they are appropriate to the article or category content. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 16:30, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Surely the appropriate action is to remove the inappropriate Christianity supercategory, reducing the problem rather than extending it? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 17:12, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure others would agree. Those have been in place for a while, although I can't find any prior discussion. Tijfo098 (talk) 17:26, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * After looking at the contents of those cats some more, I think you are probably right about the fundamentalism cat being too broad to be included the persecution cat. The censorship one seems fine though. I'll do that in both the Christianity and Muslim cats and see what happens. Tijfo098 (talk) 17:41, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I've included them the other away around (persecution in fundamentalism) based on the premise that religious persecution is often enough done by fundamentalists. Yeah, there are some historical cases where it was supported purely for pragmatic resons by some rulers, but even then it involved fundamentalists at the grass-roots level. Tijfo098 (talk) 17:58, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I think reverse inclusion is definitely the way to go, good call. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 18:35, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think censorship is an appropriate subcategory of persecution, however. It simply does not fit the definition of systematic mistreatment of one group by another. There are instances of censorship which might form part of a broader pattern of persecution - for instance, if a state were to ban the holy books of another religion - but the topic as a whole is not contained. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 18:37, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Your request for arbitration
Your request for arbitration has been declined. Some of the voting arbitrators noted that the issue appears to have been largely resolved without recourse to the Arbitration Committee. For the Arbitration Committee --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 12:08, 10 October 2012 (UTC)Hello,

Just a question
Hello,

I think that a user may not request for remedy for any personal attacks that do not concern him except for extraordinary reasons such as blackmailing, death threat, or when the attacked user is inactive. However, Iadrian yu showed up at WP AE making demands for admin action against me for purporated personal attacks aimed at active users he has never ever encountered on Wikipedia while he "forgot" to notify the attacked users in question. What do you think of it?--Nmate (talk) 07:03, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Mediation
Could you please comment on this on the MKuCR talk page. Thank you in advance. --Paul Siebert (talk) 20:10, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't have time for (gasp) time-consuming stuff like that. I pick the low-hanging fruit in fixing controversial articles on the wiki, i.e. where I can still get common-sense edits in, even if crazy and obsessed editors are around. That's impossible in that article, sorry. Tijfo098 (talk) 21:13, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Zrdragon sockpuppet IPs
Hi Tijfo098, there's several IPs that are popping up that have exactly the same time of edits and editing behaviour as the blocked user Zrdragon, which concludes that these IPs are sockpuppets by Zrdragon. These IPs are 68.68.17.37, 68.68.17.21 and 31.7.57.198. 68.68.17.37 posted more delusional, false criticism about me "edit warring" on the War Remnants Museum article even though i didn't, and everything's all settled and resolved for a few days now on that article since Zrdragon's block. This was posted to Zrdragon's talk page, with the same type of writing style and content as Zdragon. 68.68.17.21 ([]) was used by Zdragon to make personal attacks and insults on my talk page [], and censor out things they didn't like []. 31.7.57.198 is also used for more censorship of articles and edit warring, and it's an anonymous proxy just reported as a spamming source ([]). Can you please act quickly to these IP puppets before any more vandalism occurs? Thanks Nguyen1310 (talk) 00:21, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Nguyen1310 (talk) 00:58, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Re Hans Eysinck
Yeah, I'd say that's AE worthy; I see a couple editors there who are more than deserving of some sanctions. I don't know how involved you are with the article or topic area, but if you're uninvolved for administrative purposes you can impose sanctions yourself; otherwise, obviously take it to AE. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 04:58, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Article you requested per fair use
https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B86iegI5pG5TYzBaUWhTc05yd00

Let me know when you are done. Churn and change (talk) 01:01, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Article you requested per fair use
https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B86iegI5pG5TR29oVy1aSjVtbkE

Let me know when you are done. Churn and change (talk) 02:26, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Your recent comment at ANI about my AFD close
Please see here. I'd be grateful if you could respond to my comments when you have time. I see you appear to have stopped editing for now so I'm making a request in case you don't notice my comments on your return. Thanks. Spartaz Humbug! 18:52, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I've responded on ANI. Thanks for notifying me here. I would have probably missed it otherwise. Tijfo098 (talk) 13:30, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

SPA spam
The comment you left at Articles for deletion/Drupal Connect suggests that you have encountered many instances of spam articles by WP:SPA accounts. I am interested in these cases. Do you have examples? I am annoyed with the current policies allowing for the legitimate creation of articles about commercial organisation. It is turning Wikipedia into a psuedo-advertising rag. Cheers. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:19, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * See Articles for deletion/Officeautopilot for examples. Tijfo098 (talk) 08:09, 22 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 09:32, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

._.
I hereby try voting without blanking half of the page. No, I don't know what happened. I know I tried to fix it but had to vote again because you jumped in.  Rcsprinter  (chat)  @ 16:40, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No biggie. I was probably sounding a bit too irritated in my message (than I actually was)... Tijfo098 (talk) 16:42, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Apparently it's software bug, because I've done it too! . And not just the two of us  . See  for explanation. Tijfo098 (talk) 22:44, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Cheers
Thanks for the recognition. :) James086 Talk  10:32, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Logical consequence
Greetings. Can we interpret your remarks as supporting the move from "entailment" to "logical consequence?" This issue has plagued that article for a long time now, and I would like to move forward with it. The term "logical consequence" is more common in the scholarly literature (65k v 53k on google scholar). Furthermore, most of the most notable experts, (Quine, Carnap, Tarski, Russell, others) use the term "logical consequence" as well as all four of the reference resources I provided. Would you be willing to clarify your position by appending Support to your remarks? It is not clear at all that it will work at all out yet. Anything you could do to help move it forward would be greatly appreciated. Be well, Greg Bard (talk) 08:27, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I haven't evaluated the issue of which is more common myself. I'll take a look at it later. Tijfo098 (talk) 11:52, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Your AE report about Hans Eysenck
Hello Tijfo098. No admin besides myself has seen fit to comment at WP:AE. One might imagine this article would easily become an R&I battleground, but at present the article is rather quiet and sensible. The talk page discussion appears to be making progress. The objectors are offering proper sources. Your report does call attention to a tasteless comment by Sirswindon. Unless you can offer evidence that the named editors are obstructing article improvement, the report may be closed with no action. If Eysenck held far-right political views, why can't people quote him to that effect? It remains evident from the current article that Eysenck held peculiar beliefs and made a poor choice of colleagues. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 03:57, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Your opinion is not shared by me. And Eysenck was quoted aplenty on the article's talk page (with quotes excerpted from secondary sources where they have been commented upon as well, I should add). I've added more details to the AE page with recent events. Tijfo098 (talk) 18:15, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I've notified Sirswindon that he should agree to accept Wikipedia policy. He should not keep reverting the Siegfried Jäger quote, but the latter quote states: "..in the April issue of the extreme right National newspaper from 1990 Eysenck writes an article in which he accuses Freud of deviousness and lack of sincerity, while Freud's Jewish heritage is referenced." The actual quote (in German) is " In der April-Ausgabe der rechtsextremen Nationalzeitung von 1990 schreibt Eysenck einen Artikel, in dem er Sigmund Freud der Verschlagenheit und mangelnder Aufrichtigkeit zeiht, wobei zugleich auf Freuds jüdische Herkunft verwiesen wird." (.. in the April issue of the extreme right National newspaper from 1990 Eysenck writes an article in which he accuses Freud of deviousness and lack of sincerity, while Freud's Jewish heritage is referenced.) This is not quit the same as saying Freud is unreliable because he is Jewish. Jäger's observation (even if it's an editorial opinion) is certainly legitimate to be considered by editors for inclusion in the article, but Sirswindon demands to see what Eysenck actually wrote in NZ in 1990. Though he is *not* entitled to demand that under our policy, finding the text of what Eysenck wrote would help avoid the second and third-hand paraphrases of what he may actually have asserted. The third-hand paraphrase occurs when a Wikipedia editor writes "In the National Zeitung he reproached Sigmund Freud for alleged trickiness and lack of frankness by reference to Freud's Jewish background". This appears to suggest causality (Jewishness accounting for trickiness and lack of frankness) that does not even occur in Jäger's version. Maybe the Wikipedia editor was trying too hard to avoid close paraphrasing, so he made it sound worse. EdJohnston (talk) 19:42, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * WSC's native language is (obviously) not English. His writing often needs copyediting. But subtle differences in meaning is not at all what Sirswindon is invoking in his edit summary or on the talk page. And Sirswindon + Magnussen have also removed other, better written passages as my AE report shows. (Amply discussed on the talk page too.) For example, there's still noting in the article about Rose or Billig and the public row centering on the interview in National Front's Beacon, etc. I don't care to revert that in again if admins are enabling disruptive editors. I post quotes from the sources on practically every challenge. Sirswindon + Magnussen post kilobytes of rants, drivel and personal experiences. That's called filibustering and is covered by WP:DE. And since you're an admin, you can use your magic powers and read what I think about this in a nutshell. I'm not planning to compete in the game of who can post the most on the talk page while reverting every few days. Tijfo098 (talk) 20:12, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * And User:Collect/Collect's Law (which I've discovered a few seconds ago) probably applies there as well. Tijfo098 (talk) 15:14, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Discuss
Knock of the edit warring at Emailing users‎ and use the talk page. I gave you the courtesy of letting your version(s) stand until additional editors weighed in. If you don't like the result start an RFC etc. Nobody Ent 15:50, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Local consensus of you and Nikkimaria on an obscure help page cannot override the policy WP:POSTEMAIL. You start a RfC if you want to change policy. Tijfo098 (talk) 15:54, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * And your memory seems rather short, because we did discuss this on the talk page a couple of days ago, albeit without Nikkimaria's participation, who seems content to just edit war while asking others to discuss. Tijfo098 (talk) 16:05, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

ANI Revert
This is the only warning I'm going to give you. If you revert a closure by an administrator on ANI again you will be blocked. If you have an issue with the closure you bring it up with the admin on their talk page, you do not revert their decision. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  essay  // 01:23, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * If you do that I'll go straight to ArbCom (by email). You have been behaving in a highly irrational manner for an administrator. You didn't sign your closure, so when I deleted it, I had no idea an admin could have written something so poorly reasoned; the discussion wasn't even a ban discussion. I see you also took upon yourself to fully protect his page. Did you drink something WP:ROUGE tonight? Tijfo098 (talk) 01:28, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Excuse me? "poorly reasoned", "highly irrational"? I think the question is what have you been smoking... The discussion was about a permanent block which is the same as a site ban (especially in the context of the discussion)... as the problem lies not with the particular user account but with a long-term editor who wouldn't be allowed to edit under any other account. I'm also well within my bounds to fully protect his page, but from the context of this discussion I wouldn't expect you to realize that. You were way outside your bounds to reverse my closure of that discussion, as even if another admin had done the reversing it would have been considered wheel-warring. If you were in doubt as to who closed it a quick click on "history" would have opened your eyes, so that's simply not an excuse. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  essay  // 02:53, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Since he request and unblock/unban, I think it's best this is discussed on ANI. Tijfo098 (talk) 02:55, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I've given Coffee a sound *thwap* on his talkpage - sorry, as another admin, for how this went down :(. Ironholds (talk) 12:43, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * "Sorry" seconded by me. Hope this won't get you down. I've weighed in at ANI in favour of reversing Coffee's close. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 12:49, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I've asked Bull to explain OR and all that, and if he can demonstrate he "gets it" and will agree to some basic and easy restrictions, I'm liable to just unblock him myself. The whole affair was overly dramatic, but it is how we move forward that counts.  And looking at the now deleted "thwaping", I couldn't have said it better myself. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 01:12, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

sorry
Spelled your name wrong here -- was in a hurry and wanted to get the revert committed before someone else posted. Nobody Ent 23:02, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Do me a favor....
...while I understand your skepticism regarding BStudent0, throwing around the "sock" word isn't something you should do unless you are willing to file an SPI and name a master. I'm sure it wasn't intentional, but it is considered uncivil, and often just starts drama. If there is one thing that any MMA discussion doesn't need, it is more drama. I'm quite familiar with the MMA disputes and have been very involved in mediating there, something few admins will touch. I am also already familiar with this editor's contribs, so it has already been noticed. Since MMA discussions tend to cause drama (something we try to avoid) it is better to just let a closed discussion die. Topic ban only discussion aren't even supposed to originate at ANI anyway, that is what WP:AN is for. Dennis Brown - 2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 23:05, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but when multiple single-purpose accounts show up at AfDs or attack other editors, that's the usual conclusion. Sockpuppet investigations/BStudent0 filed. Tijfo098 (talk) 23:11, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I know it is. MMA mediation is basically what got me the votes at RfA to get the admin bit.  I'm quite familiar.  And I clerk at SPI.  But claiming "sock" is still something to avoid unless you file, as it is an unsubstantiated claim, ie: uncivil.  Not trying to rip you a new one, just giving you some information.  I have looked and didn't find a match yet, but will look at that SPI.  There is still a "due process" to follow, which is there mainly to protect the innocent.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 23:13, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I've endorsed for CU and backed it strongly, but it is up to them. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 23:16, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * And now more drama at ANI....I've done this 100x. This is why I'm so anal about avoiding drama with MMA topics.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 23:24, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

crocs and conspiracies
hi t - you said that the article was subject to an AE ruling about not adding new theories unless talked about first. i wrote: "i don't even see those AE restrictions. i don't see them on the talk page, nor on the edit page. maybe it should be made more clear?" Soosim (talk) 08:29, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Read the talk page more carefully. It's not the standard IP notice. It says: "No editor may add or readd any alleged instance of a conspiracy theory, unless such addition or readdition has been proposed on this talk page at least 48 hours in advance, and either [...]". Tijfo098 (talk) 08:37, 7 November 2012 (UTC)