I noticed your username commenting at an Arbcom discussion regarding civility. An effort is underway that would likely benifit if your views were included. I hope you will append regards at: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Civility enforcement/Questionnaire Thank you for considering this request. My76Strat (talk) 11:45, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[1]

The prose here needs a quote to substantiate the information here.Curb Chain (talk) 12:18, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which prose? Copy the sentences you deem unsupported to the article's talk page. The quote you deleted is actually found in the source cited. Tijfo098 (talk) 13:33, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Such a far claim needs a solid source. I could not access the page at the time so I deleted it. I will look into this source.Curb Chain (talk) 07:40, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You know what. I don't care. You can restore the material though it is repugnant. I am not going to edit war with you and I show you I DON'T EDIT WAR. Your provocations are uncalled for so I will leave your version.Curb Chain (talk) 07:48, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...to undo any changes you have made to your original ban proposal. You cannot ethically modify them AFTER !voting has already begun, and doing so is extremely disruptive (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:27, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's simply a note that the would be !voters should read the entire discussion. I don't see anything inappropriate about it; it is timestamped. Tijfo098 (talk) 14:29, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not. Literally - you have a minute from now before I take the actions required. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:40, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's "your" noticeboard, so you can delete it if you think it's inappropriate. I don't think it is. Tijfo098 (talk) 14:42, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've done it already. [2] Tijfo098 (talk) 14:43, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll let you move the subsection you created about SELFREF down to below the current ban proposal right away as it has no place belonging where you put it. What's up with you today? You've look like you've completely gone off the deep end...you know better than what you're doing. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because I had replied to the section right above and added it one edit. [3] I don't see the big deal to where that is placed, so I've moved it now. Tijfo098 (talk) 14:50, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have collapsed your latest bits - none of that belongs on ANI. If you want to file an RFC/U, please do it - but I'd say you have shot down any chance of it doing anything positive by your actions on ANI this morning (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:12, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to hear you're so eager to shoot the messenger. Tijfo098 (talk) 15:13, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I had blocked you for disruption like I had originally considered, that might have been considered shooting the messenger. You KNOW how these things work. You cannot jump to a ban the way you did. You know that RFC/U was the right step. You know that none of your posts belonged on ANI. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:19, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shaz0t was blocked after I posted to ANI what kind of editing he engaged in. Which isn't terribly different from what CC has been doing. But fine, I'll go the RfC/U route given that CC is a longer term contributor (with apparent wikifriends although that looks more like a case of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend"). For the record, I've disagreed strongly with BMK on some stuff in the recent past—Lake Michigan-Huron, cough, cough—so I'm not doing this as any sort of personal favor him. I just think CC has been editing disruptively, just as Shaz0t has. Tijfo098 (talk) 15:25, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure they have wikifriends as you suggest :-) I'm just sayin' you know how things work, and what you were doing sure doesn't work. I honestly think you call for a ban was one of the oddest things I have ever seen you do! (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:32, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have my limits :-) Tijfo098 (talk) 15:35, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So everyone I disagree with is reason to file an SPI?Curb Chain (talk) 08:28, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After some consideration, given how hard it is to do anything about obviously disruptive editors, I decided to no longer donate any of my time to Wikipedia. Trolls, vandals, Randys, POV pushers, spammers, and wiki-potentates: rejoice! Tijfo098 (talk) 15:51, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't overreact. Your contribution is appreciated. Tkuvho (talk) 16:15, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Whatever you do, WP:DIVA is the wrong thing to do :-) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:16, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to distance myself from User:Bwilkins's diva comment, which is unhelpful. Tkuvho (talk) 16:28, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tijfo knows it was meant in humour, even without the smiley (perhaps you missed the smiley yourself) - and they also know how I commend their work overall (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:38, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. Tkuvho (talk) 17:11, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently I'm the malicious editor here [4], so there's no reason for me disturb this great project anymore. Good luck with the good faith edits of CC. And remember User:Jagged_85. Tijfo098 (talk) 18:28, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You should at least file a WP:RFC/U against User:Curb Chain before leaving for good. I have wholeheartedly agreed with your complaints against him. That such appalling behavior would be ignored simply because complaints about such appalling behavior were made in the "wrong" avenue is...well...appalling. 108.60.139.170 (talk) 05:46, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be a "wuss". I expanded the DIVA thing because of an editor (or two or three) that epitomized the concept. That's not you. Suck it up and get back to work. Doc talk 06:36, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please. My editing is a content dispute not a conduct dispute. User:Beyond My Ken is irascible with editors. Yes that is disruptive. Wikipedia is not a titfortat game. And pray tell, what is your username so you can face me instead of lurking behind a number.Curb Chain (talk) 08:11, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your editing is indeed a conduct dispute, as I explained with this reply. But you of course decided to get the last word on your talk page by archiving the material. Too bad that you can't archive things at this talk page to get the last word. Not that your "last word" is even valid. The only response you have to valid complaints made against you is to assert that you are right. The fact that you refuse to acknowledge any wrongdoing in your editing shows your very real WP:COMPETENCE issues. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that you remove any of the words listed at User:Curb Chain#WP:NPOV, no matter that these are very often needed words, and are often used by reliable sources in the articles that they are in. Some buildings are large, while others are small, for example. Some people smoke frequently. And so on and so on. I've already pointed out one of your other competence issues -- I emphasized that it is not at all okay to remove text from articles simply because the text is supported by a dead link. This is made explicitly clear at WP:Dead link. If all of the information in the WP:FA article Big Bang was throughly supported by dead links, does that mean that most or all of the information in that article should be removed? No! It means that you are supposed to tag those links as dead links and/or take yourself to Internet Archive and restore some or all of those links. You don't understand that, of course, which is one reason why you are a problematic editor. Yes, you were warned by an experienced WP:MED editor -- Jmh649 -- to follow WP:MEDMOS about using "In other animals." You speak of your edits to the WP:MEDMOS guideline. Yes, you are the one who changed the guideline to just state "Other animals" instead of "In other animals." And looking at this edit again, you should stay away from all medical information. Your removals were completely justified, you state? Laughable. Tijfo098 explained quite well why you've been wrong, and so have I. You can't even handle Wikipedia:Third opinion (30) requests correctly.

As for my identity, having a registered user name does not make me any more accessible to you. It's none of your business who I am. A lot of IPs edit Wikipedia without ever registering to this site. Just like a lot of problematic editors are blocked or banned from this site only to return later (looking at you when I state that).

Oh, and you know that it's not in any way a good idea for you to even be responding at this talk page. Yet...here you are. 108.60.139.170 (talk) 13:17, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you are hiding behind a number so you can harass people then you can see yourself blocked, or purposefully attacking people since you are not logged in. Seeing as you are an experienced editor you should know what archiving does not mean I get the last word. And your opinion of User:Jmh649 baffles me as he obviously erred in judgement with his communication and what you would note: WP:COMPETENCE issues.

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Levy hierarchy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Equality

Metavariable (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Reification

Triple bar (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Congruence

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:03, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to join the discussion at WT:MMA#MMA_Event_Notability. Kevlar (talk) 19:15, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey all :).

I'm dropping you a note because you've been involved in dealing with feedback from the Article Feedback Tool. To get a better handle on the overall quality of comments now that the tool has become a more established part of the reader experience, we're undertaking a round of hand coding - basically, taking a sample of feedback and marking each piece as inappropriate, helpful, so on - and would like anyone interested in improving the tool to participate :).

You can code as many or as few pieces of feedback as you want: this page should explain how to use the system, and there is a demo here. Once you're comfortable with the task, just drop me an email at okeyeswikimedia.org and I'll set you up with an account :).

If you'd like to chat with us about the research, or want live tutoring on the software, there will be an office hours session on Monday 17 December at 23:00 UTC in #wikimedia-office ^connect. Hope to see some of you there! Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:24, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Tijfo. I tried to email you your HighBeam access code but your email is not enabled. Could you change that in your Special:Preferences or just shoot me a note at wikiocaasiyahoo.com. Cheers! Ocaasi ^{t | c} 04:38, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research.

• The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code that was emailed to you.
• To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1
• If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:HighBeam/Citations.
• HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
• Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi 18:11, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! We tried to send your your WP:Questia account access but your Wikiedia email was not enabled in Special:Preferences as requested by the signup application. To remedy this, could you please email me using the emailuser feature or directly at wikiocaasiyahoo.com. Your code will be on the way shortly thereafter. Thanks! Ocaasi ^{t | c} 17:53, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good news! You are approved for access to 77,000 full-text books and 4 million journal, magazine, newspaper articles, and encyclopedia entries. Check your Wikipedia email!

• • Then go to https://www.questia.com/specialoffer
  • Input your unique Offer ID and Promotional code. Click Continue. (Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive).
  • Create your account by entering the requested information. (This is private and no one from Wikipedia will see it).
  • You'll then see the welcome page with your Login ID. (Your account is now active for 1 year!).
• If you need help, please first ask Ocaasi at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com and, second, email QuestiaHelpcengage.com along with your Offer ID and Promotional Code (subject: Wikipedia).
• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a Questia article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free Questia pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:Questia/Citations.
• Questia would love to hear feedback at WP:Questia/Experiences
• Show off your Questia access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/Questia_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check the applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi 18:27, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the disruption but apparently the email bot failed. We'll resend the codes this week. (note: If you were notified directly that your email preferences were not enabled, you still need to contact Ocaasi). Cheers, User:Ocaasi 21:17, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Check your email. Enjoy! Ocaasi ^{t | c} 21:42, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Neo-paganist. Since you had some involvement with the Neo-paganist redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). —Sowlos 13:50, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See talk:Sathya Sai Baba scroll down. Andries (talk) 14:44, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been mentioned at Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians. XOttawahitech (talk) 16:05, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Beach bunny, 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/Beach bunny and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Beach bunny 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.  Sandstein  14:16, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Beach bunny 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beach bunny (2nd nomination) 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 notice from the top of the article.  Sandstein  18:12, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 14:51, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As an FYI, the LG Williams article has been nominated again for deletion. You, and other contributors, @Qworty, Uzma Gamal, Stalwart111, Dream Focus, Yunshui, David Eppstein, JFHJr, Ohnoitsjamie, Black Kite, Purplebackpack89, Ducknish, Stuartyeates, Jean-no, and Jusanotherwikidope:, may wish to weigh in at Talk:LG Williams#Proposed deletion.--CaroleHenson (talk) 02:30, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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) 14:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You participated in an MfD discussion about an essay by Collect that was in mainspace. The result was userfy and it was moved to user space accordingly. The essay has been moved back to mainspace. There is a discussion as to whether it should be renamed and moved. The discussion is here. Writegeist (talk) 00:57, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on The Wargamer (website) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about web content, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. GamerPro64 23:46, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Bureaupathic has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 23 § Bureaupathic until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 20:17, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]