User talk:TippyGoomba: Difference between revisions

<pretentious quote>Il semble que la perfection soit atteinte non quand il n'y a plus rien à ajouter, mais quand il n'y a plus rien à retrancher.</pretentious quote> (Terre des Hommes, 1939)

Are you aware that "Goomba" is considered pejorative slang mocking Italians? It very well may have a different meaning to you but in fact it will undoubtedly offend some users. Would you consider changing your username? My76Strat (talk) 05:55, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Goomba refers to quite a few things, including a Super Mario character (which is how I interpreted it). I think this request is a little overly politically correct. SÆdon^talk 06:07, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Saedon hit the nail on the head. No, I was not aware it is pejorative slag. If it really deeply offends you, I would consider changing it. If you're just trying to preempt a more sensitive user, perhaps we could just wait and see. TippyGoomba (talk) 14:45, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your reply. You are very kind and your words; sound. No I am not offended personally, I was thinking it might offend an Italian person; maybe not. I'm sure you'll be fine. Cheers - My76Strat (talk) 22:22, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's cute. GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:29, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, when you make changes to text, particularly when you change the meaning, it is important to ensure that the inline citations still verify the text. I reverted the change here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Astrology&curid=2122&diff=499170112&oldid=499162235]. The text since it has not demonstrated its effectiveness in controlled studies and is typically unfalsifiable moved away from what the reference A Cosmic Perspective stated. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:36, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your attention and for taking the time to retain most of my edit. TippyGoomba (talk) 13:49, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your insight! Still not quite sure how that happened, except that I went via view changes. I'll try not to do it again... One is one and one is one (talk) 23:36, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your assessment, but I would think that having the articles associated with criticism would be useful for readers. I don't think burying them will make it go away. What do you think? Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 02:59, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was sweeping through a number of articles when I made that edit perhaps I didn't consider it carefully enough. If I was too hasty, please revert and I'll do my best to fix up the references I took issue with. TippyGoomba (talk) 03:02, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was more interested in your views on the matter. I really don't care for the subject matter either. If you wish, you can email me. You might need to enable email in your preferences. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 03:07, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Jim1138. I noticed that you recently removed some content from List of homeopathic preparations without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks, Jim1138 (talk) 05:25, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looked like crap to me. My bad. Thanks for the heads up. TippyGoomba (talk) 05:33, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did to Talk:Global warming controversy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:18, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to Climate change. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, satisfy any standard of behavior, or follow any normal editorial process. If you continue to misconduct yourself on pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read at the "Final decision" section of the decision page.

--Guy Macon (talk) 02:18, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your well reasoned discussion re improving the alternative medicine article, resulting in air tight MEDRS sources for the lede first two sentences, and RS for the first paragraph. Now lets see if we can keep the content and sources from being slowly removed as appears to have happened in the past. Thanks again. :) ParkSehJik (talk) 17:20, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The pseudoscience talkpage isn't a forum. Don't encourage other editors to treat it as a forum by prolonging the discussion. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:59, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I declined your CSD an improper because article clearly asserts subject is notable. If you feel an AfD is appropriate, that avenue is open to you. Cheers.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 05:31, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...and the same goes for James Tin Yau So. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:54, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why have you accused me of edit warring? This is harassment. You deleted content without speaking to me. You didn't write anything on the talk page. I undid your deletion. Please give a reason somewhere. Unless you give a reason to remove cited information, I will add the information back.

A similar user User:Dominus Vobisdu deleted content a couple days ago, asking me to read a bunch of policy. I responded. - s t a r c a r (talk) 00:32, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Responded on my talk page. - s t a r c a r (talk) 00:41, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Pisces (astrology) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—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—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Odie5533 (talk) 01:18, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I noticed a bit of difficulty with finding consensus about the Pisces (astrology) article. I get the impression that your objection is due to the unscientific nature of the information being added, so I've tried to help re-integrate the information within a more scientific context (i'e': "Although proven by experiments to be false, traditional belief holds that ...".

I also left a message to Starcartographer on his talk page that you may want to read. Please tell me what you think, and whether there are further improvements to be made!

InternetMeme (talk) 04:51, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Please note, I did not file the report; I am merely notifying you that a user has filed it. --Odie5533 (talk) 01:19, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, TippyGoomba. Thanks for removing your comment. Just for future reference, when you'd like to withdraw a comment you've made that someone has already replied to, a good way is to strike it instead of actually removing it. (To do that, just place the <s> and </s> commands, respectively, before and after the text you want stricken.) That way, you're not removing the reply (as you did this time) or leaving the reply there without context (as you correctly didn't). It's no big deal in this case—I doubt that anyone else will bother to comment there—but fwiw I was actually making a sort of general entreaty to anyone else who might happen along. I wasn't meaning to pick on you, and I did consider your point valid. Rivertorch (talk) 08:53, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote, "I'm sure the IP will be back any day now. Keep reaching for that rainbow." How as that comment helpful for improving the article? Readin (talk) 13:44, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was being sarcastic. The IP will never be back. Never put your faith in an IP who fails to give sources in the first post. TippyGoomba (talk) 03:54, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't find your battle-remarks helpful there, either. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:11, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? TippyGoomba (talk) 04:25, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I get what you're doing, and I do understand how passionate you are about your issue, but it's really important that we stick to the actual facts and the science. Please don't revert things reflexively, without reading them, and without checking them first. When you roll back a correction of a basic issue of fact it's really counter-productive. Please use the article talk page to air any problems that you have. Thanks, Tilapidated (talk) 02:44, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:BRD. TippyGoomba (talk) 04:05, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove or refractor others comments. Thank you. DVMt (talk) 04:30, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:REDACT for the correct way to delete your own comments. TippyGoomba (talk) 05:07, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, WP:REDACT says "Please do not apply any such changes to other editors' comments without permission." The correct approach would be to inform DVMt on his/her talk page, not edit his/her comments for them. Moreover, as DVMt had deleted his/her comments here before any other editor had responded (first response was by TippyGoomba 5 min after deletion here ), I believe that WP:REDACT implies that deletion was ok, as it says "Removing or substantially altering a comment after it has been replied to may...." . Puhlaa (talk) 02:59, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The correct course in that case would have been to unredact the comment, which DVMt promptly reverted. Apparently my actions were an acceptable compromise. Feel free to ask DVMt if he'd like to redact the comments in some other way. TippyGoomba (talk) 06:12, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, you clearly broke the rules and spirit of WP with that one. Just an attempt to make a point. DVMt (talk) 06:33, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you think so, you should check with the people at WP:REDACT, the wording of the rules should be tweaked if I've done something wrong. TippyGoomba (talk) 06:36, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your point was already made. I wasn't the only one who thought your actions yesterday were offside. With that, I'm done with the matter. Regards, DVMt (talk) 06:45, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TippyGoomba. Glad you're watching, but I'm not sure what you mean by "We most certainly can not."

(1) Do you mean the article "cannot" include U.S. Census Bureau data and CDC data? (SlimVirgin is saying that a newspaper article is preferable to U.S. Census data.)

(2) Or, are you saying that "secondary sources" only should be the policy. The link you posted says,"Best practice is to research the most reliable sources on the topic and summarize what they say in your own words, with each statement in the article attributable to a source that makes that statement explicitly." The U.S. Census is the best source, no? Go for the best I say--as your link recommends!

Could you explain better your issue?

Centamia (talk) 10:53, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was responding to the only question you asked: So, can we drop all this jazz about "secondary sources" stuff?. We most certainly can not.

Your point (2) is essentially Slippery slope, so I won't bother addressing it. TippyGoomba (talk) 18:35, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tippy, there are a variety of opinions on the alt med page and it gets pretty heated, pretty quickly, so it might be better to list a reason for your reverts or add some comments on the talk page so we can see where you're coming from. It's not difficult to start an edit war on that page and there are rarely any winners. Thanks Aspheric (talk) 01:09, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:DTR. As for the revert, I suggest you review WP:BRD. I'll happily wait for someone other than I to revert you the second time. TippyGoomba (talk) 01:26, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My fault, it is quite a provocative template with the big red hand. Point still stands though, it's a good discussion and worth teasing out, would be a shame if it got buried under cries of sock and revert.Aspheric (talk) 01:31, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your blanking of a section on Pandeism. Your summary stated it was unsourced, but there was a book source in the very section you deleted. I assume this was an oversight. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:49, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There was no source for relevance to pandeism, please see the talk page. TippyGoomba (talk) 20:56, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted myself, after looking again and realizing th != d in that source. My mistake. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:02, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I should have provided a better edit summery, I see now what I wrote doesn't map well to what the actual issue is. TippyGoomba (talk) 21:03, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is what civil discourse and WP:BRD are all about. It's a topic I'm interested in, but don't do a lot of heavy editing on. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:06, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article has extensive WP:OR and WP:SYNTH issues. If you are interested in the subject, we could definitely use more input. TippyGoomba (talk) 21:18, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm more likely to be in an administrator role, helping filter some stuff out, rather than an editor role, as I don't claim it as a subject I have any expertise in. Interesting subject, and I read a great deal of philosophy, but I'm not expert enough to contribute except as a referee. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:00, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think this WP:SPA should just be blocked. Short of that, just delete everything he posts to the WF articles without comment. But I'm no admin so that's just my feeling on this. Colin°^Talk 19:37, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested in WP:RANDY and WP:BITE. Generally, I hat things that are pure WP:FORUM or when there's an actual content suggestion, respond with the appropriate policy issue. It would be nice if we could simply ban disruptive SPAs but they have to do a lot of damage first. Usually, they just give up and leave before it gets to that level. Occasionally, they actually change their minds on the topic or switch to making non-disruptive edits. TippyGoomba (talk) 19:47, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Over-familiar with them. Just seems that hatting is too many keystrokes when there's a bloody great big [<--Backspace] key on my keyboard. Life is too short for this crap. Colin°^Talk 22:16, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Muhammad, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. don't remove those references again prior to discussion. Faizan (talk) 06:20, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BRD and, of course, WP:DTR. TippyGoomba (talk) 06:56, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WHich problem you have with the references? They are reliable, please don't remove them prior to discussion! Faizan (talk) 06:57, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Take it to the talk page. TippyGoomba (talk) 04:07, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at PIGS (economics) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—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—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Additional comment: Edit warring while warning the person you are edit warring with about edit warring? Seriously? --Guy Macon (talk) 20:24, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon? TippyGoomba (talk) 02:41, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This opening sentence is misleading. Often, fluoridation is without the consent of the individual and is forced medication. Controlled should be changed to mandated or required . . . medication of the water supply fluoride is being used as a medication to enhance teeth health, controlled implies the person is knowingly adding fluoride to their water when in fact that is rarely the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.50.119.13 (talk)

I removed "controlled". Not really onboard with the rest. TippyGoomba (talk) 02:33, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

"The goal of water fluoridation is to prevent a chronic disease whose burdens particularly fall on children and on the poor." - Third paragraph, first sentence Wiki article on "Medication."- "A pharmaceutical drug, also referred to as a medicine or medication, can be loosely defined as any chemical substance - or product comprising such - intended for use in the medical diagnosis, cure, treatment, or prevention of disease."

?

"or prevention of disease."

"is to prevent a chronic disease" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.50.119.13 (talk) 02:50, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Do you understand WP:BRD and WP:V or should I template you with regard to how to edit wikipedia articles? Puhlaa (talk) 19:16, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I simply undid a WP:3RR violation [1] [2] [3]. You should apologize in the talk page before someone reports you. TippyGoomba (talk) 19:56, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And another [4]. TippyGoomba (talk) 19:58, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would be happy to defend my actions in a 3RR report....I have initiated discussion at the talk page (although it was not my responsibility, but that of the editors trying to make the controversial change). Also, I dont think that reverting POV vandalism will get me blocked. Myself, DVMt and Bullrangifer have said that it is a profession, as have multipple reliable sources that you can find at the talk page. Feel free to contribute to discussion rather than tag-team reverting with Alexbrn. Could you justify your tag-team reverting if you are reported? You have added nothing to the discussion, only to the edit war.Puhlaa (talk) 20:02, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Go check with an admin on that. TippyGoomba (talk) 20:17, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		Thank you for your efforts in supporting the content of Wikipedia's more controversial medical articles! These aren't easy articles to work on as they attract a lot of attention from motivated editors. Your work to ensure these articles continue to be in line with Wikipedia policy and guideline, and (where appropriate) maintain their WP:GA or WP:FA quality standard, is very much appreciated. Zad68 04:34, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TippyGoomba, I'd like to ask you to continue monitoring the Huizhou University page. Anonymous user113 continues to add unsourced and non-neutral information to the page now that it has been unlocked. I wonder if it wouldn't be possible to partially lock the page, so that only logged-in user can edit. Otherwise, this anonymous user, I feel, will continue to vandalize the page. As I'm sure you've notivced, reasoning with him has gotten me nowhere. What do you suggest?
AndreGallant (talk) 00:43, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The user:AndreGallant has not been reasoning, s/he has been vandalising the page by removing secondary sources she dislikes as a paid employee of the Huizhou College (which goes under the assumed, but illegal name of Huizhou "University" -- in China the name in Chinese is the only legal name, and that name in Chinese is "xueyuan", a COLLEGE, NOT a univrsity).

To the contrary, user:AndreGallant has never explained when s/he last received money for vandalising the page, as well as what her/his role was in having a Palestinian-Australian employee fired by the school user:AndreGallant works, or has worked, or will be working, or all of that, which is the one the page in question is about.