User talk:Ttiotsw

Material older than 30 days for 2006 is archived User talk:Ttiotsw/Archives/2006
Material older than 30 days for 2007 is archived User talk:Ttiotsw/Archives/2007
Material older than 30 days for 2008 is archived User talk:Ttiotsw/Archives/2008
Material older than 30 days for 2009 is archived User talk:Ttiotsw/Archives/2009
Material older than 30 days for 2010 is archived User talk:Ttiotsw/Archives/2010

Recommended action

I've given up trying to mediate at Talk:Provisional_Irish_Republican_Army, however other admins will keep a silent watch and will extend protection if consensus isn't reached. In the meantime if things don't improve it is likely appropriate to take this dispute, along with the actions of certain editors to Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Cheers, Nja²⁴⁷ 09:18, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As an uninvolved 3rd party who has never edited a Irish related subject (nor British I think either) I haven't seen such incivility before. The approach to contentious subjects and incivility is to use short blocks to clear the air but probably too late to start on that now so I think the fix is to get more inclusive sources for the information we have placed in the lead. I've never been blocked and I'm quite indifferent to whatever anyone can say about me (Zen and the Art of Wikipedia Editing) but if anyone else is reading this then I would suggest following WP:DR rather than redefining the boundaries of what is acceptable language for WP:CIVIL. Ttiotsw (talk) 10:20, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad

Just in case I wasn't clear, I actually support the original text, which I believe is yours. But unlike so many of those who criticize the article, User:Notedgrant is both civil and articulate, so I'm trying to make extra effort to discuss with him. Certainly I wouldn't accept any wording which blurs the line between historical fact on one hand and religous belief on the other. However, I've seen the same complaint made many times, and unlike the topic of images in articles (which is always a non-starter), it seems possible that here we might find a phrasing that would be accurate from our perspective while somehow being less jarring to Muslim readers. Then again, I thought you had done that already, with the current wording, so maybe I'm unduly optimistic. Anyway, thanks for participating. Doc Tropics 20:38, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's OK - it was the indentation - I should have placed my reply before yours and did two indents. The original text probably isn't mine though it is what I support but I also support the Muslim POV too if someone can tell us what they want. Ttiotsw (talk) 08:29, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE:Speedy deletion

I'm not attacking any group at all. In fact, my redirect is completely appropriate and doesn't break any Wikipedia policies. If you want to delete the Wikipedia biases redirect, you might as well delete the hundreds of redirects similar to it which serve a similar purpose (for other articles). -- ΙΧΘΥΣ T C 00:47, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given that you posted comments on the Intelligent design talk page in which you stated that "The sheer amount of bias is disgusting " and then within an hour or so you slapped up 3 redirects for various combinations of "Wikipedia" and "bias" I am pretty confident that your redirects are for WP:POINT rather than to help Wikipedia readers disambiguate searches. For instance "Wikipedia is bias" top hit in Google has a link to Yahoo answers that says that "I suppose Wikipedia is bias against made up bullsh*t."... Thus I'll be putting up the redirects for discussion and will work out a better target - probably to Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view as that is the higher weight destination. There are so few examples of bias in Wikipedia given the many millions of pages and edits. A few cherry pick examples from partisan sources isn't a systemic bias that justifies your "redirect bombing". Following on from the bullsh*t theme if we count the ghits for say "wikipedia is bias" then we get 2730 google hits whereas if we say count ghits for "bible is crap" then I get 63,500 hits (heck "wikipedia is crap" gets 29k hits. Now do you honestly think that "wikipedia is bias" should remain whilst we have no redirect for "bible is crap" ?. Ttiotsw (talk) 16:33, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marking edits as minor

Could you please ensure that you only mark edits as minor when they meet the criteria? "A check to the minor edit box signifies that only superficial differences exist between the current and previous versions: typographical corrections, formatting and presentational changes, rearrangement of text without modification of content, etc. A minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. An edit of this kind is marked in its page's revision history with a lower case, bolded "m" character (m)." Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 08:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear - I DO NOT mark edits to article pages as minor. I may mark edits to talk pages as minor so please be clear which you are talking about. When I started editing on WP then there were no guidelines to when you should mark talk page additions as minor. I didn't think my understanding of the policies was that wrong but I checked the WP:MINOR and sure enough around 22nd June 2009 this edit [1] adds "talk pages". Prior to that the WP:MINOR did NOT mention talk pages but only alludes to article pages. Thank you for highlighting this. This is great though as ALL my edits on talk pages are now not minor. This is easier for me. Before I have to think about the semantic implications of major verses minor on what I was saying on the talk page. Now its all major. Ttiotsw (talk) 09:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree it's only talk pages. I'm glad if I've made life easier for you. :-) Dougweller (talk) 16:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

February 2010

Ouch! You've used a template to send a message to an experienced editor. Please review the essay Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars or maybe listen to a little advice. Doesn't this feel cold, impersonal, and canned? It's meant in good humour. Best wishes. ~~~~

Eugene (talk) 21:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I have Twinkle at the top of my firefox and I didn't expect it to use that format. It's quite rare I warn people - I mostly ignore minor stuff. I should probably drop TW if it's going to do sill things like that - why can't it automatically check target editor' edit count and question the template use ?. Ttiotsw (talk) 21:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am disputing the pseudo history tag and notice that you have had issues here too. The two editors patrolling the page are not very polite to people who disagree, one has called me a anti christian bigot and the other has called me a liar! A template would have been a warm welcome ;o)89.242.159.206 (talk) 08:53, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA reassessment of Raëlian beliefs and practices

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns which you can see at Talk:Raëlian beliefs and practices/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chilling effect of FAQ

I agree with your assessment regarding the chilling effect of the current FAQ at Christ Myth. It does not represent consensus. You can quote me on that freely as a editor of that article for many years. jbolden1517^Talk 11:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]