User talk:Tobus

Your WP:IFU Request
Hi and thank you for your request at Images for Upload! The image has been uploaded. You can find it at File:Ozone cfc trends.png. Regards, Robert Skyhawk So sue me! (You'll lose) 04:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Red links
Redlinks aren't dead links, see Red link. Per this and.  He  iro 03:47, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 21
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Black people, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sam Watson (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) 12:02, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 23
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Human skin color, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Han and Caucasians (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) 11:08, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pancake Parlour, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Victoria (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) 11:42, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited White people, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Persians (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) 23:18, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Let's settle this down
The site is already asking us to stop: leave my map alone for the migration topics on which it might be necessary (not the 192 i told you before) and i'll keep my word of not adding the map in the human skin color article so both will come out with something we wanted. Deal? Czixhc (talk) 02:40, 31 August 2013 (UTC)


 * No deal. Stop putting your map on any page until we've reached an agreement about it's WP:Verifiability. Tobus2 (talk) 02:48, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I hope you are aware that there is nothing to discuss already, he has the support of a third party (The Oxford Brookes University clearly backs him up on this). Czixhc (talk) 02:50, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * i'm currently waiting for your answer about how the map isn't reliable despite the oxford brookes University clearly backing him up, if you can't do it, put my map back in the international migration article and problem solved. Czixhc (talk) 02:53, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

(see ongoing discussion at Talk:Human_skin_color)

Status Quo
Tobus2, are you awaere that if we adhere to the status quo policy the map has to be restored right no in the human skin color article (for it being up for 3 weeks before boing taken down without a solid consensus about it, and we failing at acheiving a new consensus 6 weeks later?) i will put it up in the main article too. Czixhc (talk) 00:32, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you aware that you've already accepted that it's not suitable for that page. Please take it down again. Tobus2 (talk) 00:36, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It remains situable, i only said that would be more situable for migration topics, however, it was a proposition that you rejected, so no solid consensus yet, my proposal was that if you accept it as reliable on migration topics i would take it down from the skin color article, additionally, to keep it down of the human skin color article means that it will be up on migration articles, no consensus yet, the map will go up if you don't stop this discussion right now. Czixhc (talk) 00:41, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I hope that's not a threat. Tobus2 (talk) 00:44, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not a threat, it's a proposal by me that is weeks old. I just want to enforce the wikipedia status quo policy, you decide on which way, so both of us can come out with something we wanted. Czixhc (talk) 00:47, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Your map hasn't been up as Human Skin Color for over 6 weeks now - so the status quo now would be not to have it. I suggest you wait till the Admins confirm if it's up and down and then do what they say. Tobus2 (talk) 00:53, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That's not how status qou works, we could spent 10 years arguing about it's reliability, but regardless of time the fact that there is not a new consensus about it remains, or there is a new consensus of which i'm not informed? did you finally decided which of the two options you want? Czixhc (talk) 00:57, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I want clarification from someone who actually knows what they're talking about - I'll wait till and Administrator responds and do whatever they say. Tobus2 (talk) 01:00, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's necessary to wait, because a researcher backed up by an University is very reliable too. Czixhc (talk) 01:06, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

ANI
See this discussion: - you are mentioned. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:51, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

White Population in Venezuela
Very agree with your thoughts on the article, thanks for helping to preserve encyclopedic sense in Wikipedia. Greetings. «Jaam0121 (talk) 02:58, 25 September 2013 (UTC)»

This time, you are the one who have misunderstood the situation

 * Tobus, you've clearly misunderstood and need to catch up with the resolution of the ANI discussion. First i already accepted my mystake and i'm not insisting on using it on migration topics, however as that same diff states, the map was found to be very situable for topics regarding cartography (for it's creator having multiple publications and installations on the field of cartography ). That was the conclusion of the discussion at ANI . If i were trying to put it up on migration articles, then i would be breaking my own word, but this isn't the case, what i am doing here is to use it where it is completely situable and nothing else. I hope this is enough to clear up all your doubts. Have a nice day. Czixhc (talk) 23:29, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You are mixing up your noticeboards, the ANI discusses editor behaviour and has nothing to do with content/sources etc. - read Dougweller's comment immediately before the diff you just posted.
 * The RSN decision was clearly that you map is unverifiable, if you think you have additional info that will change that decision then you will need to open or reopen the case and try to get a different consensus. If your evidence is the October 2012 exhibition already discussed then I don't think you'll get a different outcome, but you are of course welcome to try.
 * Tobus2 (talk) 00:08, 29 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep in mind that the resolution of the RSN was the use of the map on migration topics, not cartography topics. And really as i said to dougweller himself, Hagos is overqualified on that field, is not only one exhibition there are more, but over 12 publications too. RSN isn't meant to deal with stuff as clear as this. Czixhc (talk) 00:20, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree - Hagos has zero qualifications in cartography (where do you get "overqualified" from??) and the publications you refer having nothing to do with cartography except for one exhibition which was clearly an art exhibition. If you think differently open a case at RSN and we'll see what more experienced editors think. In the meantime I've taken your map down (again!) from World Map as since it's "representing the effects of human displacement trends in the last centuries" - clearly related to migration. Tobus2 (talk) 00:45, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That's not true at all, various of these publications are related to cartography and architecture. And looking for the format, requeriments and recognizement that to be featured on that exhibition grants i'd say that hagos is in fact overqualified (citing the site of the exhibition) The exhibit will be public and will be displayed during the London Mapping seminar on the 20th and 21th September 2012 at UCL. As well as receiving a certificate, the chosen posters will be consider for a future publication and will be featured in the website as you can see isn't an art exhibition, it's mapping seminar, and the institution itself is very serious . There is no doubt at all about his aptitude on cartography or architecture. Czixhc (talk) 01:26, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Then you should have no trouble getting your consensus at RSN. Tobus2 (talk) 01:39, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The noticeboard isn't meant for cases as clear as this one, and Hagos already was agreed to be a situable cartographer on the discussion. Czixhc (talk) 02:07, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It is far from clear - Hagos has no qualifications in cartography, his "maps" are clearly artworks and this particular map is makes broad statements about skin colour that aren't verifiable by any reliable source. In the diff you provided a user suggested he *might* be considered an expert in cartography and this was disputed in the subsequent discussion - there was certainly no consensus that Hagos is an expert in cartography. RSN has clearly said that your map has no reliable source, if you want to contest this in specific regard to cartography then RSN is the best place to do it. Tobus2 (talk) 02:28, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The user didn't sugested it, he stated it. And, citing what is written at the beginning of the RSN Many sources are reliable for statement "X," but unreliable for statement "Y". This is one of these cases. Czixhc (talk) 02:37, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * So prove it - take it to RSN and show me that all the experienced users agree with you. Otherwise we'll stick with the advice already received from those experienced users - Hagos is not a valid RS for your map. Tobus2 (talk) 03:04, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You've misunderstod, Hagos isn't the source, The Barttlet Development Planning Unit which is part of the University College London is the source for him being a reliable cartographer, if you think that the first university to have been founded on London is unreliable you are out of your mind. Czixhc (talk) 03:21, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * As I said, take it to RSN. If you're right you'll get your consensus, if you're wrong you won't. Tobus2 (talk) 03:47, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Opting in to VisualEditor
As you may know, VisualEditor ("Edit beta") is currently available on the English Wikipedia only for registered editors who choose to enable it. Since you have made 50 or more edits with VisualEditor this year, I want to make sure that you know that you can enable VisualEditor (if you haven't already done so) by going to your preferences and choosing the item, " ". This will give you the option of using VisualEditor on articles and userpages when you want to, and give you the opportunity to spot changes in the interface and suggest improvements. We value your feedback, whether positive or negative, about using VisualEditor, at VisualEditor/Feedback. Thank you, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 20:19, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 7
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Black people, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Portugese (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) 09:05, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

White LatinAmerican
Greetings. Please not erase the editing of the article, keep in mind that there are several references to the ethnographic data from the Latin American countries, so it is necessary to consider both hypothesis as outlined in the article, ie with reference to both percentages to each of your references that support the information.

PLEASE NO UNDO or could be considered vandalism. "Jaam0121 (talk) 23:49, 18 December 2013 (UTC)"

Please see the discussion the article talk page. Tobus (talk) 09:16, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

White LatinAmerican
Greetings, from what you say you're right and I apologize for not having noticed mistakenly erase some parts of article. However there irregularities in the article regarding figures such as Colombia and Mexico as there are other references that point other figures in the course of days and will investigate these references modificvare article, and hope you're pending analyze and give your opinion. Thanks

I corrected the population of Colombia by this reference--> pointing to the 25% of the population is white, which results in 11,250,000 million´s. When you can you check the article Jaam0121 (talk) 12:52, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The source you used is the 1st edition of the Columbia Country Study. It was written in 1988 and published in 1990. The source you replaced is the 5th edition of the same study, published in 2010. I have reverted your change as the 2010 edition is more up to date than the 1990 edition. You can verify the date of your source here: ("Dennis M. Hanratty and Sandra W. Meditz, editors. Colombia: A Country Study. Washington: GPO for the Library of Congress, 1988."), and the original source here: (sorry it's a big PDF, pub date is on the 3rd page "Fifth Edition, First Printing, 2010. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Colombia: a country study / Federal Research Division, Library of Congress ; edited by Rex A. Hudson. -- 5th ed."). Also look at page 6 where it says "The fifth edition of Colombia: A Country Study supersedes the 1990 edition edited by Dennis M. Hanratty and Sandra W. Meditz", clearly showing the source you used is no longer current. Tobus (talk) 22:26, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

White LA
Greetings. That you delete the right issues? Not that you freely and you can not delete these editions without at least planterlo the discussion page of the article or mine.

You have to keep in mind that the reference to which points 37% of the white population in Colombia is defective and it gives rise to doubts about its accuracy because the same express other figures for some countries in the region which in turn are not taken into account in the article and other references are maintainest, this gives rise to doubts concerning the exact figures. It is far better to refer one that explicitly refer to COLOMBIA and not to other countries, this does not mean that these figures are bad but keep in mind that figures are in your reference which contradicts other figures in the article.

I saw the need to change it and you leave a message on my discussion page which not even know if you read, but it is of great importance. My editing support it and agree to solidad reference system POINT.

Again renove my issue in the article, and I hope you respect and do not wipe the edition as wasting time I spend writing serenely and is not at all fair to delete it when you are making a great truth. Otherwise chances are there is an edit war and the article is locked.

REMEMBER ME YOU MUST RESPOND ON MY PAGE ! Jaam0121 (talk) 19:18, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Please see the discussion on the article talk page. Tobus (talk) 00:10, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Help
Hello, greetings. I invite you to collaborate in the article Afro-Latin American and help me to restore order as the user "Abdelrahman93" is altering the figure of Venezuela (Which reestablished) and figures of Colombia which is obviously adulterated and contradicts so the information regarding your planteas Colombian ethnography.

Hope and help me, greetings.

Jaam0121 (talk) 00:18, 27 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Jaam, before I respond I think you should read WP:CANVASS which I believe you have broken with your comment above - it says notifications to other editors should be neutral in tone, inviting them to join a discussion, not asking them to take sides. I will assume you meant it in good faith and weren't aware of the proper way to go about it - to that end I'll pretend you said something neutral like: "There is currently a discussion happening at Afro-Latin American about which population figures to use. As you have shown interest in a similar topic on the White Latin American page I thought I'd let you know in case you wanted to add your input". Canvassing can be reported at WP:ANI and can lead to editors being blocked, so in the future be sure to word your requests neutrally and don't just target people who agree with you.
 * My reply: Thanks for letting me know, this is a topic area I'm interested in and I will join the discussion on the talk page about which figures should be used. I think the situation is a bit different to the "White Latin American" page which clearly says "White", not "Euro-" so there is scope to ignore "Black" on the census and use an ancestry-based figure instead. In the interests of transparency (see WP:Canvassing) I will mention in the discussion that I was invited there by you.
 * Tobus (talk) 09:00, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Afro-Lat
I agree with those planets in Article Afro-Latin American. At the same time you wonder how to report a user for vandalism issues? Excuse me, English is not my native language.

«Jaam0121 (talk) 21:31, 28 December 2013 (UTC)»,


 * You report genuine vandalism at WP:RVAN but I would STRONGLY recommend you read WP:VANDAL first, especially the "What is not vandalism section". Admins can get very grumpy at people they see as wasting their time reporting "vandalism" that is really just a content dispute. If you are having a disagreement/edit war with another use then you should follow WP:DISPUTE instead, there are options such as WP:3O, WP:RFC and the WP:DRN that are much better ways of solving problems with other editors.
 * If you have a particular problem you'd like me to look at I'd be happy to give advice as to the best way forward.
 * Tobus (talk) 00:48, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Black people". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot   operator  /  talk 12:26, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

January 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=589898831 your edit] to Afro-Latin American may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page]. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 09:26, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Regarding Black people
Hello, Tobus! Alright, basically I made a few edits a while back and it got reverted by another editor. Here is a link to my edit. I believe that in some sections "Black Africans" should be replaced with "Sub-Saharan African", which, in my opinion, is a better term and more fitting. I'll edit the article with the substitution of terms, and tell me what your opinion is. Afro- Eurasian  (talk)  01:13, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Here is my edit. Afro- Eurasian   (talk)  01:32, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I see that your edits have been reverted again, so I suggest you start a discussion on the talk page so the other editor can have input as well and explain why they think "Black" is better. I'll add my opinions to that discussion. Tobus (talk) 08:12, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Alright, thanks for the suggestion. Here is the discussion. Afro- Eurasian   (talk)  16:33, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Afro-Latino
Hi Tobus and happy new year. Recently I notice was amended article and I'm glad you have checked all the references to have more precise figures so. However, I think the reference population in Venezuela is erroneous.

It is necessary to note that the only witness against authority to provide demographic/ethnographic data in Venezuela 's National Statistics Institute ( INE). This organism according to official figures from the national population census (2011) showed that the "Black " population represented 2.8 % and 0.7 % Afro - Venezuelans ; contrasting with current reference that exists in the article which argued that represents 20 or 30 % of the total population: 8.5 million.

The fact raise the current standard is inconsistent if it is based on a 100 % as the two main ethnic groups in the country according to INE are Mestizo (49.9%) and White (42.2%). Providing the exposed reference surpass 100 % which makes no sense. «Jaam0121 (talk) 20:47, 12 January 2014 (UTC)»
 * I have replied at Talk:Afro-Latin_American Tobus (talk) 23:53, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Afro-Latin American
Would it be possible for you to add clara nunes back to the Afro-Latin American page? The image that was there was deleted but here's one File:Clara.Nunes.jpg166.147.76.36 (talk) 18:27, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I see that image was added very recently by a now-banned user... I won't be adding it anywhere. Tobus (talk) 02:57, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

The image was removed unfairly because I was deleted when someone said that I was a sockpuppetry editor, which means all my images would have to be deleted due to violations. But it has been decided that I am not sockpupeting and my images are fair use, and that they can be used. See my talk page - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Abdelrahman93

It makes no sense to have a blank slot in the infobox, it looks unprofessional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.147.72.159 (talk) 07:20, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Please pay attention to what I'm saying. I'm just reverting back to the official Brazilian government information, according to what Brazilians themselves have said. I don't think it should be changed, as it was, since a foreign report is no better description than the description provided by Brazilians themselves and released by the Brazilian government via the IBGE agency. I was off the wiki for awhile, and when I came back it was changed so as to place a foreign report instead.

As a Brazilian myself, I think this is very wrong.Grenzer22 (talk) 00:29, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I accept your point about you reverting to an earlier version and I'll leave the page with the earlier figures for Brazil until we resolve it. I've responded to your other arguments at the article talk page. Tobus (talk) 04:07, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 24
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Poliomyelitis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sensation (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) 09:07, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Copyright violation
Just FYI, I will be reporting you for this copyright violation from another source. Could you please respond here to describe whether it is your habit to take material from other sources and introduce it as your own in Wikipedia? If so, we probably have a lot of work to do to unravel the problems you've caused. Thank you. - 50.153.113.5 (talk) 14:25, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No, of course it's not my habit to do so. In this particular case the edit was controversial so I wanted to make sure I was representing the same key facts as the source (ie "most prevalent", "vaccine-preventable", "Western world" etc. etc.), and not adding my own interpretation. As you can see from the start of that sentence and the following sentence I haven't just copy/pasted from the journal but have summarised and rephrased what it says, but obviously I didn't find a better way of stating that particular phrase. I still can't find a better one so I've restored the edit and changed the offending phrase to a direct quote.


 * I follow this particular method of using the same keywords as the source whenever I make a controversial edit that I think will be scrutinised heavily, to make sure I don't misrepresent the facts and have people revert due to WP:OR, but I always write my own sentences and never cut and paste. Feel free to look over my edits and let me know if you find any other cases where there's apparent copyvio and I'll fix them up. The most likely places are Human skin colour, Black people and Discrimination based on skin color where I added large sections with lots of refs, and knew they would be controversial. Tobus (talk) 00:05, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Feedback needed on using special characters
Hello. Thank you for using VisualEditor! Having editors use it is the best way for the Wikimedia Foundation to develop it into the best tool it can be.

While we always welcome general feedback (please report any issues in Bugzilla in the "VisualEditor" product or drop your feedback on the central feedback page on MediaWiki.org), the developers are especially interested right now in feedback on the special character inserter. This new tool is used for inserting special characters (including symbols like ₥, IPA pronunciation symbols, mathematics symbols, and characters with diacritics). It is intended to help people whose computers do not have good character inserters. For example, many Mac users prefer to use the extensive "Special Characters..." tool present at the bottom of the Edit menu in all applications or to learn the keyboard shortcuts for characters like ñ and ü.

The current version of the special characters tool in VisualEditor is very simple and very basic. It will be getting a lot of work in the coming weeks and months. It does not contain very many character sets at this time. (The specific character sets can be customized at each Wikipedia, so that each project could have a local version with the characters it wants.) But the developers want your ideas at this early stage about ways that the overall concept could be improved. I would appreciate your input on this question, so please try out the character inserter and tell me what changes to the design would (or would not!) best work for you.

Issues you might consider:
 * How often do you normally use Wikipedia's character inserters?
 * Which character sets are useful to you? Should it include all 18 of the character sets provided in the wikitext editor's newer toolbar at the English Wikipedia, the 10 present in the older editor toolbar, or some other combination of character sets?
 * How many special characters would you like to see at one time?
 * Should there be a "priority" or "favorites" section for the 10 or 12 characters that most editors need most often? Is it okay if you need an extra click to go beyond the limited priority set?
 * How should the sections be split up? Should they be nested? Ordered?
 * How should the sections be navigated? Should there be a drop-down? A nested menu?
 * The wikitext editor has never included many symbols and characters, like ℗ and ♀. Do you find that you need these missing characters?  If the character inserter in VisualEditor includes hundreds or thousands of special characters, will it be overwhelming? How will you find the character you want? What should be done for users without enough space to display more than a few dozen characters?
 * Should the character inserter be statically available until dismissed? Should it hover near the mouse? Should it go away on every selection or 10 seconds after a selection with no subsequent ones?
 * Some people believe that the toolbar already has too many options—how would you simplify it?

The developers are open to any thoughts on how the special character inserter can best be developed, even if this requires significant changes. Please leave your views on the central feedback page, or, if you'd prefer, you can contact me directly on my talk page. It would be really helpful if you can tell me how frequently you need to use special characters in your typical editing and what languages or other special characters are important to you.

Thank you again for your work with VisualEditor and for any feedback you can provide. I really do appreciate it.

P.S. You might be interested in the current ideas about improving citations, too. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 00:20, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Vietnamese people
Wouldn't it be better if it started out introducing the article right away instead of saying "an Asian ethnic group..." in which most readers knows about it anyway? Also, reply on my talk page or here, but not my user page.--Koresdcine (talk) 06:00, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm happy if you want to reorder it, but I think the "originating from present-day northern Vietnam and southern China" isn't something most people would know and needs to stay. The "Asian ethnic group" probably doesn't need to stay if you introduce it they way you're thinking as it's already implied. Maybe something like:
 * "The Vietnamese people... are the majority ethnic group of Vietnam, comprising 86% of the population at the 1999 census. They originated from present-day northern Vietnam and southern China and are officially known as Kinh to distinguish them from other ethnic groups in Vietnam. The earliest recorded name for the ancient Vietnamese people appears as Lạc." ??
 * Also there's a 2009 Census which lists the Kinh population as 73.594.427 out of 85.846.997 (85.7%), so we should change the date in the intro to 2009 as well.
 * PS Apologies for posting to your user page, it was supposed to go on your talk page but I must have messed up :(
 * Tobus (talk) 07:28, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
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) 13:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Polio map
I note you recently edited the 2015 polio map. There was a late change to 2014, the addition of a Guinea case only announced when the Mali/Guinea 2015 case was logged. I am unable to edit the 2014 map to reflect this. Could you make this change. 50.37.113.64 (talk) 16:54, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * No worries, done. Tobus (talk) 01:32, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Cheers! 69.166.47.99 (talk) 23:11, 21 January 2016 (UTC) (different IP, same editor)

Refs
For medical content we reference every sentence. Best Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 16:11, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Really? Where does it say that?
 * WP:CITEKILL says "If one source alone supports consecutive sentences in the same paragraph, one citation of it at the end of the final sentence is sufficient. It is not necessary to include a citation for each individual consecutive sentence, as this is overkill.". There is no mention of an exception for medical content.
 * WP:When to cite says "Because the lead will usually repeat information also in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources".. it mentions exceptions for biographies of living people, but not medical content.
 * WP:MEDMOS, which is specifically about medical content, says "Adding sources to the lead is a reasonable practice but not required as long as the text in question is supported in the body of the article"
 * You also reverted the entire edit, which contained other updates and improvements to the content, not just the "missing" citations. Given that your reason for reverting seems at first look to be against WP guidelines, I have restored my edits pending further discussion.
 * Tobus (talk) 20:07, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:CITEKILL is an essay supporting a particular viewpoint, not a WP guideline. (Indeed, it would be quite strange for Wikipedia, which aspires to contain "the sum of all human knowledge", to adopt a policy minimizing the importance of citations.) WP:When to cite is also an essay and not a WP guideline. WP:MEDMOS, on the other hand, actually is a guideline.  All this should be discussed, I think, on the talk page of the article being edited rather than here, no?  - Nunh-huh 00:14, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! And do we need a graph?
I just read the Poliomyelitis eradication article. It seems that you do most of the useful per-year image/tables. Thank you.

The article suffers somewhat from the fact that it is in the form of a year-by-year journal. One good small fix would be a progress graph that incorporates the data from each of your yearly tables. Do you wish to do this? If not, I can try it. -Arch dude (talk) 01:50, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Mr Game &#38; Watch SSB4.png
Thanks for uploading File:Mr Game &. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:39, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Edit-warring on New York Police Department
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:34, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

NYPD: "previous consensus was to include positive statements"?
Where exactly is there a "previous consensus" "to include positive statements" in the lead of New York City Police Department? You've now on multiple occasions edit-warred a variation of this content into the lead when the content has never at any point had anything approximating consensus. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 06:03, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The RFC on 12th July. If I recall correctly you were the sole dissenting voice, which would make your continued attempts at changing the neutrality of the content "edit-warring", no? Tobus (talk) 06:09, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * In that RfC, there are only three commenters (you included) that specifically called for adding positive content to the lead. So there is no "previous consensus" "to include positive statements". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 06:13, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Snooganssnoogans, we now have a sizable Public opinion section in the article. Do you not believe that should be covered in the lead somehow? If yes, then maybe we can work something out. If not, I can't agree to that. WP:LEAD says to summarize the most important points of the topic; to include only criticism of the NYPD and not discuss the (on average) public support is a violation of NPOV. How could it not be? Wikipedia articles are not for presenting a one-sided view of the police (WP:NOTADVOCACY). Crossroads -talk- 06:20, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * As I have repeatedly explained: in general, I do not approve of adding individual public opinion poll content to Wikipedia. Near always, the content reflects cherrypicking. I have also pointed out to you and Tobus that the same polls that are cited in the body of the article also show that the public sees police brutality and corruption as severe problems, yet the two of you have of course omitted to add this to the body and have edit-warred to remove it from the lead. The complaints about NPOV ring hollow when you specifically seek to exclude public opinion polling that reflects negatively on the NYPD, but express outrage when public opinion polling that reflects positively on the NYPD is excluded. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 06:43, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Your opinion on public opinion polling is just that - your opinion. It's in the article, that's established. And the fact is that NPOV supersedes all such idiosyncrasies. Me and Tobus have done no such edit warring. Omitted to add it to the body? The section right now states, Approval varies by race/ethnicity, with black and Hispanic respondants consistently less likely to say they approve of the job the NYPD are doing than whites....71% said police brutality is a serious problem and 61% said police corruption is a serious problem. Why are you saying things that are not true? Neither have we ever advocated to remove the topic of brutality and corruption from the lead. The only editor here who wants to present only one side of the story is you. Crossroads -talk- 06:58, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Guess what happened when public opinion data on police brutality and corruption was added to the lead (from the very same polls you two were using)? It was immediately reverted by one of you. Very principled. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 07:14, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * "Blacks and Hispanics dislike the NYPD" is not the polling data that I pointed to. I've specifically mentioned on several occasions that the public sees police brutality and corruption in NY as severe problems (in the very same polls that are already cited), yet the content is of course omitted. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 07:14, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * That wasn't me doing that revert, in any case. And the sentence reverted there had redundancy with the sentence below, which also discussed the matter.
 * I propose the following for the lead, with sources. If we can all agree on this, then we should cancel the RfC extension and all move on to other things.
 * Public opinion indicates approval of the NYPD. Critics and a majority of the public also say that police brutality and corruption are a serious problem in New York City, while critics also highlight instances of discrimination on the basis of race, religion and sexuality. Crossroads -talk- 07:31, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * As I've said before and I'll say again: I do not think Wikipedia articles should be reciting individual poll content, and I certainly do not believe it belongs in this article's lead nor in any other lead. Furthermore, a RfC shows that most oppose adding your proposed first sentence. 08:01, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, I tried. That RfC was not about my proposal. It's not a blanket permission to exclude anything about public opinion. Crossroads -talk- 08:07, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * And my proposal was not any different in essence from your edit here: Do you no longer agree with that edit?Do you want to end this dispute or not? By my count it's been going on for 6 months now. Crossroads -talk- 08:15, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * My position has always been (1) polling content does not belong in the lead, (2) if it is to be covered in the lead, it needs to be covered neutrally. I staunchly oppose lumping "public opinion" into the sentence on verified instances of corruption, brutality and discrimination, which you're currently proposing that we do. I don't want to see in any polling rubbish in a sentence that currently cites peer-reviewed research and other excellent RS. If there's going to be rubbish polling content, it should be in a sentence of its own. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 08:39, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * With point 2, then we would have two sentences discussing the same thing for no reason, which is just bad writing. You seem to be putting your own opinions about public opinion polling above the V and NPOV policies. Whatever; guess we'll let the RfC run for another month. Crossroads -talk- 20:34, 24 December 2020 (UTC)


 * In that RFC there are 8 commenters (myself included) who expressed concern about the NPOV of the lead, and two who explicitly said to remove the corruption/brutality paragraph completely. Only one, yourself, wanted to keep the paragraph as it was (and what you are now trying to return it to) whereas 6 stated they wanted to keep the criticism paragraph but present it in a more balanced way. I understand you have strong feelings about this, but as Crossroads said, being neutral is the aim here - not presenting our own personal opinions. Tobus (talk)
 * Shifting goalposts. Expressing concerns about NPOV is not the same as wanting to shoehorn misleading polling data into the lead. Again, only three editors specifically called for adding positive content to the lead. Your claim that "a previous consensus" existed to do so is a brazen lie. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 06:43, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The goal has always been NPOV, since day one. You calling it "shoe-horning", "misleading" and "edit-warring" is a sign of your own internal bias - the peacemaker is often considered a traitor by both sides of the war. Tobus (talk) 08:11, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert
>>> Extorc . talk  18:29, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Terra Nullius
Hello Tobus

Sorry I didn't explain why I reverted your edits. I meant to here, but got distracted by an urgent matter. Please see my comment on the Talk page. Happy to discuss. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 12:20, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

CS1 error on Cleopatra race controversy
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Cleopatra race controversy, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:Qwerfjkl/Botpreload&editintro=User:Qwerfjkl/boteditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:Qwerfjkl&preloadtitle=Qwerfjkl%20(bot)%20–%20Qwerfjkl_(bot)&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 07:12, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * A "missing periodical" error. References show this error when the name of the magazine or journal is not given. Please edit the article to add the name of the magazine/journal to the reference, or use a different citation template. ([//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cleopatra_race_controversy&action=edit&minor=minor&summary=Fixing+reference+error+raised+by+%5B%5BUser%3AQwerfjkl%20(bot)%7CQwerfjkl%20(bot)%5D%5D Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:Qwerfjkl%20(bot)/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F1152273768%7CCleopatra%20race%20controversy%5D%5D Ask for help])

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 28 November 2023 (UTC)