User talk:TippTopp

Always Assume Good Faith

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Scott Griffith. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:01, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Dear TonyTheTiger: The nomination for deletion has been made in good faith, and your terse explanation for reversing it merely states: "nomination not completed". As the instructions on the template state, "please explain why you object to the deletion, either in your edit summary or on the talk page." If you believe that the subject of the entry meets Wikipedia notability standards, please explain it. If you think that the procedure for nomination for deletion has not been following, please provide a detailed explanation, including pinpointing the exact steps that you think should be followed. In the future, we hope that you will refrain from undoing others' work without proper explanation and documentation. Thank you, and have a pleasant day.TippTopp (talk) 17:22, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Your edits are clearly not vandalism. Please notice, though, that there are three steps to an Articles for Deletion nomination, and you have only ever completed one. See WP:AFD for instructions. Cheers. Hairhorn (talk) 01:40, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

References in Go article

You are correct that the first few paragraphs of the Go (game) article had lots of unsupported assertions, that's because it was an introduction - the assertions (well, most of them) are supported later on by lots of references. This is standard wikipedia practice for big, complicated articles like this. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 14:26, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

The style that has developed over time in Wikipedia is not, as a rule, to put references in the introduction, in order to keep it uncluttered and uncomplicated. The intro should be a quick, easy-to-read overview. It's not absolute, you can find references in intros in some articles, but I think it's a good rule - especially for an article like this, which includes exhaustive detail later on. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 12:49, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Allan Savory

Greetings. You reworded the following sentence in the introduction of the Allan Savory article:

"He is the originator of holistic management."

The first reference is of the trademark granted him for 'holistic management.'

The second reference is a Forbes article containing the quote:

"An African-born game ranger/biologist, politician and international consultant, Savory introduced the concept of holistic management as a framework for feeding the world while protecting the ecosystem services that make civilization possible."

With the comment "edited text to reflect the evidence, based on the references provided", you replaced the original with:

"He wrote of 'holistic land management' and obtained a U.S. trademark for the term 'holistic management' .

Both references support the uncontroversial and undisputed claim that Savory is the originator of holistic management. The original sentence stated clearly and succinctly what the man is primarily known for. Either of the two sources would be sufficient to back the claim, but I can cite other sources, using such terms as 'founder,' creator,' 'developed,' 'conceived,' and 'father of.'

Begging your indulgence, would you have a problem with me restoring the original? Danny Sprinkle (talk) 18:38, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Still working on 'sprung from his loins' . . . Danny Sprinkle (talk) 22:11, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for checking with me. My primary concern was that the previous text refies the concept of "holistic management". This is a controversial concept, as the entry exemplifies, and we -- as editors -- shouldn't take sides in the debate. My revision aims to keep the text strictly factual. If you can think of a better way to conveying the facts, without implying that "holistic management" is valid or fallacious, please go ahead. Cheers! TippTopp (talk) 19:27, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

The concept may be controversial but both its friends and enemies agree about what it means and who originated it. The controversy lies in whether it should be put into practice. Simply stating who originated it takes no side. It's his main claim to fame. It will be in his obituary. It's like stating L. Ron Hubbard originated Scientology (his trademark was granted in 1970). C'mon, can't you see fit to let me change it back? Danny Sprinkle (talk) 21:23, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I see your point. How about "founder of 'Holistic [Land?] Management' and registrant of the US trademark for the term." Please go ahead and revise it as you see fit. You have my blessing. TippTopp (talk) 23:42, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I just reverted to original. Much thanks! Danny Sprinkle (talk) 00:20, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Reference errors on 11 November

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Noodle page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:26, 12 November 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)

Grammar

Hi, TT.

Maybe it's the Miss Grundy in me as to grammar. Still, you might consider beginning the 4th para. of your User page as: "Other experts and I may... ". I hope I've have remembered my Strunk and White correctly.

Please feel free to delete this if you like.

BW, Thomasmeeks (talk) 22:56, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, TippTopp. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, TippTopp. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)