Misplaced Pages

User talk:Tifego: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 01:35, 29 April 2006 editCalwatch (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users6,322 edits →909er/UCRGrad← Previous edit Revision as of 04:11, 29 April 2006 edit undoTifego (talk | contribs)2,129 edits moved to new subpageNext edit →
Line 104: Line 104:
== Re: Sockpuppet problem == == Re: Sockpuppet problem ==


⚫ I made ], and have moved this discussion to ]. &ndash;]<sup>]</sup><sub> 04:11, 29 April 2006 (UTC)</sub>
Hi Tifego, and thanks for being one of the few voices of sanity editing the UCR article. I stumbled upon that whole mess while I was doing unrelated cat work on UC-related articles. The funny thing is, it's the first college/university article I've encountered that has a ''negative'' POV. Most of the ones I've seen go on and on about how "prestigious" and "distinguished" the school is, and about how this or that famous person went there...

Yep, I think the 909 guy is probably a sock of UCRGrad. If not, he's a troll/vandal who showed up at the right time. Either way, it's an abusive account created in bad faith to disrupt the article. Whether or not 909 is UCRGrad, the account should be blocked for simple trolling, so going the RFI route is the best way IMO. <font color="green">]</font> <small>(], ], <font color="green">]</font>)</small> 08:03, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

: I'd feel happier if it was checkuser confirmed before blocking a suspected sock. You've got plenty of grounds for placing a ]. Let me know the outcome (or place it on RFI) and I'll see if a block is appropriate. ] 21:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

::Oh, sorry, I did in fact place a request at ]. Currently it is there under user requests at the top. &ndash;]<sup>]</sup><sub> 22:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)</sub>

::: Did you place a ]? My message above was in response to your ] report. ] 22:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

::::Oops, no, I thought the ] linked to RFI. I'll put a checkuser request in , then. &ndash;]<sup>]</sup><sub> 22:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)</sub>

⚫ ::::But, honestly, I am more concerned about convincing UCRGrad to stop this sillyness than about getting one of his sockpuppets blocked. &ndash;]<sup>]</sup><sub> 22:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)</sub>

:::::Ok, I'll take a look at this again in the morning, as investigating RFI reports late at night is not a good idea ;) ] 22:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I too believe 909er is a sawkpuppet of UCRGrad. In addition, a simple search on google revealed a lot of bias from users under the same handle "UCRGrad" - coincidence? Here is the link http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/archive/index.php/t-149891-p-2.html <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) {{{2|}}}.</small><!-- -->

:Huh, well now UCRGrad is starting to say increasingly insulting things to me , and then a new sockpuppet of ''somebody'' appeared a few hours later with an even more blatant/leading personal attack against me . I suppose I should just ignore such comments, as annoying as they are, but I can only assume the sockpuppeteer is UCRGrad, given that he's the only one who has shown such animosity toward me on that page. If he's trying to convince me that he wants to focus on making a good encyclopedic article, he's doing a very poor job of it.

:&ndash;]<sup>]</sup><sub> 07:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC)</sub> <span style="color: #eeeeee">Oh, and... "sawkpuppet"? Of the bawksor rawksoring variety?</span>

::I only find this a waste of my time until mediation or any other form of authoritative decision-maker can intervene. I will wait for such before I continue posting as it is apparent that UCRGrad in his/her many forms are highly opinionated/vocal and highly stubborn – the worst combination. In addition: should I (or you) remove the bold facing and caplocks? I guess I got carried away, you’re right, it’s not going to help him/her understand my point any better. ] 00:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

:::You should probably be the one to remove the caps if you want to, because it's normally inappropriate to modify the posts of others. Also, mediation is actually a method of coming to an agreement that requires both parties to cooperate. If it works, great, but I have a feeling we won't suddenly start getting along. Another possibility is to file a user-conduct RfC on UCRGrad's behavior, to get community opinion on the appropriateness of his actions. To do that would require evidence of more than one other person trying and failing to reach agreement with him on the same issue, however... I'm sure it's happened at least 2 times but I haven't been keeping track of when. Chances are low that anybody will intervene without such steps being taken first. &ndash;]<sup>]</sup><sub> 00:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)</sub>

::::RfC sounds like a more viable solution; I am fairly sure at least two more opposing posters (regarding the hate crime part) including us will be willing to vouch for his behavior and obvious bias. I'm really only interested in having an authoritative figure judge the arguments that have been presented; users with strong voices and stronger stubbornness cannot even help themselves. I wouldn't dream of seeing such selectivity of information appearing in a Britannica Encyclopedia. Ironically, I would agree with him on the notion that UCR grads aren't the brightest people. LOL, alright, so I don't "officially" sponsor this personal attack on UCRGrad ] 02:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC).

:Hi Tifego!
I'm new to editing wikipedia articles. Thank you for your work on the UCR article. It's still a complete mess, but it's very helpful to have someone not associated with the school editing the article too. I'm rather concerned with UCRGrad and his apparent use of sockpuppets. In fact, from reading the collegeconfidential thread that pimpclinton pointed out, it really felt like he set up a completely unbelievable story on one handle just to bash UCR on his UCRGrad handle. Are there any safeguards in wikipedia that could prevent such heavyhanded bias? ] 20:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

:There's a list of helpful pages on the right ] and ], and there's ]. It seems to me like there aren't very many actual safeguards in place anywhere for this sort of thing, but there are these various inefficient (out of necessity) processes for dealing with it when it happens. I've already posted about this UCRGrad incident at ] and ], btw. &ndash;]<sup>]</sup><sub> 23:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)</sub>

Tifego, thank you for your time and effort on the UCR article. For what it's worth, please note that ] recently added a photo of an overweight girl, emphasising that she was in a sorority (with the obvious intent being to cast a certain image of what UCR's sorority population looks like, disregarding the irrelevance of such a discussion in an encyclopedic article). The image was later removed and added by ] . Noteworthy is the fact that this is BeerDrinker's very first edit on WP. ] 00:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

:Hmm, BeerDrinker is probably somebody's sockpuppet, but it's all very confusing, as it depends on whether Insert-Belltower is really UCRGrad. Initially I thought Insert-Belltower couldn't possibly be UCRGrad, and there are several reasons to believe they are different people, but they have started acting more and more alike recently. &ndash;]<sup>]</sup><sub> 09:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC)</sub>

Tifego, I departed from this debate in the past right as you were beginning your participation in it, and I never got the chance to thank you for your continuing attention to this problem. I submitted the RfC under the assumption that the considerable bias in the article would be obvious to everyone, but I didn't imagine that UCRGrad's POV-pushing agenda, sockpuppetry, and other malfeasances would become obvious to so many as well. I guess back then people just weren't interested in involving themselves as more than casual readers, and I got a bit discouraged. Anyways, if anyone wants to start a RfC against UCRGrad, I'd be glad to second it. I had actually suggested it to my advocate, but I didn't get a response, so I assumed it wasn't the best idea for whatever reason. A request for arbitration or some sort of administrative intervention is probably also a good idea, since the debate has raged long enough and has already gone through quite a few Misplaced Pages processes (Advocate, Third Opinion & RfC by me, and now WP:RFCU & WP:RFI). I actually believe that UCRGrad isn't stubborn, but rather just devoid of any integrity. He's perfectly willing to change his points and debate tactics as long as they serve his needs, but refuses to acknowledge any good points made against his arguments. At around that instant, a putative sockpuppet leaps out of the woodwork and proclaims that "(UCRGrad) took the time to respond to all of your complaints, yet you really didn't respond to his," nevermind what the reality was. Or makes an ''ad hominem: circumstantial'' accusation. Or throws a tantrum over perceived uncivility. Hypocritical, of course, coinsidering his current behaviour. --] 08:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

:It's good to know I'm not crazy for thinking the same things about the article's neutrality and UCRGrad's effects on it. I agree about the probable lack of integrity (and certainly there's no point in assuming good faith in him after he has been so disruptive and made so many provocative personal attacks), although I'm sure some of his actions are more childish reactions to being frustrated than anything. I'd definitely support an arbitration request, but I think it'll depend on checkuser results; it makes a big difference if there's proof that he's been running a sockpuppet farm, and would save the trouble of addressing the actions of 909er, UnblockingTau, etc. separately from UCRGrad. BTW, where is/was this RfC for UCRGrad? I didn't know of it, or of the advocate. &ndash;]<sup>]</sup><sub> 09:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC)</sub>

I apologize for the confusion, but I meant that I created the RfC for the article "UC Riverside". No RfC was ever started for "UCRGrad" as I did not receive supportive feedback about this proposed action from my advocate. I assumed that the lack of support implied that I was taking it too personal, turning it away from the goal of addressing the bias in content (I guess the advocate was still asumming good faith on UCRGrad's part) and turning it into a personal attack. One other thing to note is my observation that UCRGrad/sockpuppets? have mananged to defeat other debaters with shrill accusations of civility violations, nevermind what they do themselves. This works because the vast majority of Misplaced Pages participants are participating in good faith and do try very hard to adhere to Misplaced Pages standards of conduct. Once assused, they probably feel that they have weakened their case and basically give up from due to their perceived exacerbation of what they now realize is an uphill battle. Don't let that sort of thing discourage you at all. --] 18:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

:Hello Tifego, DtEW, and to whomever else this concerns. I am sorry to conclude that I have made every effort possible to keep the argument structured, clear, and concise for you and for UCRGrad but somehow he managed to go against even this basic organization (for rebellion's sake?). The truth of the matter is that UCRGrad simply cannot be helped – he has rebelled against the one thing - organization and clarity - that was meant to help him understand the issue. Discussion is impossible with him as he isn't digesting what I state, he has falsely inferred conclusions I don't make, or he attempts to pin a motivation/bias to my (or other's) claims. Please email me when an authoritative “decision-maker” arrives (not mediation). I should have adhered to my original philosophy - that naïve realists are self-sufficient. In the meantime, good luck! ] 05:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC).

::Sure, but one thing: I think you should give him at least one more response, because otherwise you're giving him the possible idea that you don't ''have'' any counterargument if you suddenly leave the discussion now that he has asked you to state it. &ndash;]<sup>]</sup><sub> 05:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC)</sub>


== Vandalism from this IP == == Vandalism from this IP ==
Line 192: Line 147:
== UCR == == UCR ==


⚫ I made ], and have moved this discussion to ]. &ndash;]<sup>]</sup><sub> 04:11, 29 April 2006 (UTC)</sub>
How are the discussions on UCR coming along? I'm not really interested in that article, so I haven't been following the discussions, but let me know if you need any help. I appreciate your efforts in solving these conflicts. ]<sup>]</sup> 06:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

:Well, more editors seem to have joined in, and I'm not very interested in that article either, so for now I am mostly waiting to see what will happen. It is a little discouraging, though, when I see "impossible-to-revert" changes like made by UCRGrad. &ndash;]<sup>]</sup><sub> 03:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)</sub>

As I have noted on the discussion page over there, I don't think debating with UCRGrad is worth the effort. As much as I'd like to believe that the Misplaced Pages guiding concept of users discussing to reach concensus works, it only works for reconciling misunderstandings between intellectually honest individuals. If a slimeball is bent on introducing bias, you will expend twice the effort just to elucidate all his subtle slurs and misrepresentations. Then you will "debate" with him, wasting three times as much effort to dismiss his non-sequiters, pin down his evasive statements, correct him on his misinterpretations, and generally a lot of to-do to point out the obvious. But of course, the sheer volume of debate will serve to the slimeball's interest by muddying the point much further for the casual observer. Even assuming you manifest this superhuman level of dedication, in the end somebody (casual observer? sockpuppet?) will remark that its just one opinion vs. another and all your hard work is reduced to square one. Even in the off-chance you beat the slimeball into submission on a certain point, he will just introduce more bias in two or more areas. I think the only productive way to go is to establish his status as a slimeball and get him banned from participation. Again, IMHO. --] 03:46, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

:Yes, you're probably right, although I think it would be counterproductive to actually say so on the article talk page. Is it even possible to file an RfAr on him, or do we need a lengthy RfC on him first? (I wish there could be some sort of automated checks done per article to prevent sockpuppet POV-pushing like this from being so easy for anyone to do.) &ndash;]<sup>]</sup><sub> 04:21, 27 April 2006 (UTC)</sub>

::I honestly don't know. I've actually never been a Wikipedian prior to finding the blatant bias in that article. I'm still learning about the various volunteer processes and committees here. I don't think a RfC could hurt, though. That said, I do see on the ] page that a RfC could be turned against the filer(s), which is something to be concerned about considering the apparent willingness with which UCRGrad employs sockpuppets. I think the RfC could be phrased so that sockpuppetry is prior declared, minimizing its potential influence upon the casual and uninitiated. Should we consider wording? --] 05:48, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

:::For charges of his sockpuppetry we can of course link to ]. There's no need to worry about a "backfiring RfC", that's only referring to frivolously made RfC's, which this one clearly wouldn't be, and an RfAr would be even more serious than an RfC. And either way there is an abundance of evidence in the form of edit diffs of UCRGrad saying insulting things (''"There's no need to whine and make retarded accusations."'') in response to people who were attempting to be reasonable, and of UCRGrad changing sentences in the article from neutral to biased, in addition to the sockpuppetry as a response to his 3RR violation. I'm hesitant to start this up now, though. It can probably wait for further investigation, and if our accusations are truly well-founded, then he will most likely continue to incriminate himself with his actions anyway. (Boy, he really jumped on opportunity.) &ndash;]<sup>]</sup><sub> 06:38, 27 April 2006 (UTC)</sub>

:Note that I think he's perfectly entitled to his POV, but I object to his pattern of aggressively defending unencyclopedic statements while making demeaning comments and personal insults from multiple usernames. &ndash;]<sup>]</sup><sub> 05:09, 27 April 2006 (UTC)</sub>

I would also point out that there is an outstanding ] on suspected sockpuppets which has not yet been addressed. The end of the one-week window in which edits by the suspected sockpuppets have occurred is quickly approaching, so I think it is becoming increasingly-urgent that this RfCU be looked into. ] 13:46, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


== TfD nomination of Template:SockpuppetCheckuserNoBlock == == TfD nomination of Template:SockpuppetCheckuserNoBlock ==
Line 215: Line 156:
== 909er/UCRGrad == == 909er/UCRGrad ==


Apparently 909er, who may or may not be UCRGrad, just decided to become a userpage vandal: . You think it's getting to be time for an RFC? Maybe even an RFAr? <font color="green">]</font> <small>(], ], <font color="green">]</font>)</small> 06:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC) Apparently 909er, who may or may not be UCRGrad, just decided to become a userpage vandal: . You think it's getting to be time for an RFC? Maybe even an RFAr? <font color="green">]</font> <small>(], ], <font color="green">]</font>)</small> 06:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

:He assumed you put the tag there? I put it there days ago. Well, I think there should be an RfAr (and you're not the first to suggest that), but it depends on ]. It's annoying to have to wait for that, but as I understand it it's a tricky undertaking, and I don't think pestering the admins about it will help. If it comes up positive then that's grounds enough for an RfAr<sup>*</sup>, but if it's denied or isn't addressed soon enough to be able to give results<sup>**</sup>, then I think we should try an RfC first. Either way, I don't really feel like starting either of those right now (it seems like such a waste of time to prepare and undergo an RfC or RfAr just to convince someone to make him stop wasting everyone's time...)

: *(it might also make things more complex; maybe there are 2 people, both with multiple sockpuppets)<br>
: **(which might be in a few days if he's started switching computers to use different usernames)

⚫ :&ndash;]<sup>]</sup><sub> 08:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)</sub>

::On second thought, after taking another look at the most recent changes to the article and its talk page, it's clear he's really asking for an RfAr. He is unwilling to deal with anybody in a civil manner and unwilling to admit that he might possibly be wrong about anything. For all intents and purposes he has hijacked and now ] the article. It also looks like he is purposely trying to piss you off. Someone as abusive and unproductive as that shouldn't be editing here. (Also, it looks like he has already been banned for harassment at some forums where he was vocal at, and his claims to not be the same person as that are preposterous.) &ndash;]<sup>]</sup><sub> 08:52, 28 April 2006 (UTC)</sub>

:::I'm not sure we should jump right into filing an RFAr immediately. He does have it coming sooner or later, but why don't we make sure we can show we've tried other methods of dispute resolution, perhaps an RFC. All depending on how the CheckUser comes out, as you were saying earlier. I think we should go ahead with your suggestion for a user subpage to discuss this matter and put together material for a potential RFAr. <font color="green">]</font> <small>(], ], <font color="green">]</font>)</small> 09:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

::::Of course; I meant (considering my other post) that we should put together what evidence we have, and see if we can convince ourselves that it is both enough to warrant an RfAr and enough to be used in an RfAr. If not (it may well not be, although I believe there have been several other attempts at dispute resolution), then it will still work as evidence of complaints that could be brought to an RfC. &ndash;]<sup>]</sup><sub> 20:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC)</sub>


⚫ I made ], and have moved this discussion to ]. &ndash;]<sup>]</sup><sub> 04:11, 29 April 2006 (UTC)</sub>
:::I agree with the call for the RFC. I think I'm coming to the point where I have wasted enough time with it. ] 01:35, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 04:11, 29 April 2006

Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end.
Start a new talk topic.
Please add to the bottom instead of the top when possible.
I will usually reply to questions on this page, although I might leave a note on your talk page if I want to make sure you don't miss my reply.

Welcome

Hello, Tifego, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --vineeth 04:28, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject C++

Formatting question

  • Anybody know to force a section break to begin below everything above it instead of possibly alongside it? My user page looks terrible if its containing window is resized to be somewhat small in Firefox (although it looks fine in Internet Explorer). I suspect the way I set up these boxes alongside each other is wrong, but couldn't find any other way to get it looking close to this. –Tifego 04:25, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Revert

  • Exactly what am I vandalizing? The Archbishop of Westminster is indeed the Primate of England and Wales. Both of these are official titles. The President of the Bishop's Conference is a de facto office, not an official title. I find your reverts to be silly. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.61.130.151 (talk • contribs) .
    • Sorry for the confusion. In the future, consider adding justification when you are undoing a revert that another user has already made to your work. –Tifego 10:39, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Forgot to log in

Editing Nonsense

  • Why do you need to remove something that is not nonsense out of an article? It is factual information and it gets removed. Why?
    -JSFrk328 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.174.0.61 (talk • contribs) .
    • Whether "God loves math" has nothing to do with Algebra, and the last edits you made before that, changing "shirt" to "shit", definitely seemed vandalistic. –Tifego 23:32, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Camp Barton - Camp Tuscarora

  • Tifego-
    Sorry about that, guess I should've looked around Wiki first to see about precedents. I will most likely be relocating these directions to an exterior site. Just thought it would be helpful for prospective campers. I welcome any other suggestions. Thank you for alerting me to this.

    Ebac on keyboard 23:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

DEFCON Editing Stupidity

  • Sorry about the defacement on the "DEFCON" page. I just got a bit carried away with my stupidity complex and such. I'll refrain from such immature defacement in the future.

    68.148.183.107

Trying to understand edits

  • Hi Tifego,

    I'm a relatively new Wikipedian (about a couple of months old). Been contributing to the pornography page, removing vandalism, adding relevant info. I recently reverted an edit by someone who had removed the adult databases section out of external links and sources. He reverted it back. Then you posted a comment saying that I explained my decision in summary while he didn't. But, my changes weren't reverted back. I'm trying to be a good Wikipedian and make the sections I contribute to the best possible. I've looked around Misplaced Pages and still believe that it was best to return Adult databases where it was. Since I'm new, I'd love any advice on how to do so. Best, Coolmojito
    • I think the issue was that some of the links you put back under the "external links" section were actually internal links. It's the difference between ] and . You might try splitting up the "See also" section if you think it's too large, but I don't think I've ever seen that done. Also, know that certain articles like pornography are probably tagged as "highly likely to be vandalized", so some people are over-hasty of reverting edits to them under the assumption that it was probably vandalism. If that happens and you believe they were wrong to revert it, add a comment explaining your reasoning in a new section at the bottom of the article's discussion page, and then redo your change to the article with "see discussion page" at the start of your summary. Just don't revert it more than 2 or 3 times. BTW, you should sign with ~~~~ instead of ~~~ so that your signature gets a time/date displayed after it. –Tifego 00:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
      • That's really helpful, Tifego. Actually those links had been there since I started with Misplaced Pages. I'd added the only external link in that category. But now, the edits makes sense. Thank you for taking the time to help me understand this. Much appreciated. Coolmojito 23:11, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

your edits to Persian Gulf naming dispute

  • Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Misplaced Pages has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by admins or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. ⇒ SWATJester Aim Fire! 23:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Excuse me? I don't see how that could possibly have been interpreted as a personal attack. In any case, I don't care at all about the issue at hand, so you don't have to worry about me continuing whatever it was you thought was objectionable... –Tifego 00:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Oh, I think I see what you meant. It's because I was too lazy at the time to make a new template to better express the nature of the dispute, I guess it was worded poorly. I'll try making that template after all. (edit: I found {{POV-check}} instead, didn't realize there was already a tag for that.) –Tifego 00:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Another note: I find it ironic that you were the one who went ahead and made the very edit that I was trying to avoid for fear that MB would be offended by it. Hopefully you don't mind that I reverted that to something closer to what he wanted. –Tifego 00:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Signature timestamp

Misplaced Pages talk:Userfying userboxes#Poll

  • I'm not quite sure I understand your comments here. Userfying userboxes is a policy proposal; I think debate has stalled and I called a poll. It's my theory that it's unwise to place {{rejected}} on a controversial page without the benefit of a poll, although I think we all know which way it will go.
    I'm not pulling anybody's leg; if you're pulling mine, that's okay. I just don't know; sorry. John Reid 23:52, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
    • It really sounded like an April Fool's joke to me, suddenly exclaiming "all possible arguments have been made" and calling for a poll, on April 1st. I thought there was a lot more to be discussed in terms of coming up with an acceptable replacement policy, but you're right that there's not much else to say about this particular one. –Tifego00:34, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Ibn Khaldun

  • Could you get involved in this article again? The dispute tag you placed is being removed, and I have posted some specific questions that have gone unanswered. The "quote" there doesn't appear to be a direct quote and is coming from a source that has nothing to do with Ibn Khaldun. Aucaman 04:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

missing

Barnstar

A Barnstar! The E=MC² Barnstar
Hereby I award Tifego with this E=MC Barnstar for his tireless contributions towards C++ and related articles. Deryck C. 14:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Abbe Land

Thanks for your help. Abbe's minions have been emailing info-en@ and are (understandably) a little cross about this whole thing. I'm trying to keep an eye on the article. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

ED

They say that direct links to the site in the article is a bad idea. I didn't take them off, someone else can. DyslexicEditor 04:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

They said inline links to the site are bad. I didn't add any inline links, only external reference links. I don't mind if they're removed anyway, though. –Tifego 05:17, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


Abbe Land

Hey Tifego, re: the content on the Abbe Land site. It seems that you are doing a lot of reverting. What exactly do you have a problem with. Is it the content that you are removing that you find objectionable? Please do not become a servant of a politician by repressing free expression. I'm new at this and I want to do it right. I believe I'm playing by the rules, as are several others...yet you insist on reverts. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.66.14.65 (talk • contribs) .

This is the first time you have attempted to discuss it anywhere that I can see. I suggest you discuss it further on that talk page instead of here. I am not the only one reverting your edits. Misplaced Pages is not about free expression of whatever anyone wants to say, it's about presenting the notable and verifiable facts neutrally. The website you keep adding into the middle of the article is an external link that appears to have the sole purpose of saying bad things about Abbe Land. I don't care how true they are, they're one-sided (not neutral) and they're not published in anything major (not verifiable) AFAIK. I don't know anything or care at all about Abbe Land, but your edits so far have simply not been encyclopedic, and could be seen as an attack against Abbe Land. If she really did all those things then you should back them up with reliable outside sources; provide a link to those after each potentially controversial statement. –Tifego 19:03, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

regarding the abbe land web site. It only includes facts that are attainable in the public records with complete foot noting for each entry. Certainly you cannot have a problem with that. And you took out a link to the wik page for Paul Koretz. Why??? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.66.14.65 (talk • contribs) .

There is no footnoting whatsoever in what you're adding, and you're not linking directly to those public records. Also, that was an external link of some sort, wiki links are like ], I'll restore that... –Tifego 19:03, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: Sockpuppet problem

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

Vandalism from this IP

I just wanted you to know that this IP is a public lab computer. Sending messages to it about vandalism is probably not going to be very effective.

Regards.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.84.178.76 (talk • contribs) .

That RFC

Thanks. I'd forgotten to do that. I've put it straight into the 2-up-and-running section since it is now. Midgley 09:08, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Reply to your comments

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


UCR

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

TfD nomination of Template:SockpuppetCheckuserNoBlock

Template:SockpuppetCheckuserNoBlock has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. ADNghiem501 04:50, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Done. (I weakly support its deletion.) –Tifego 05:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

909er/UCRGrad

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

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