User talk:Tufflaw
Welcome![edit]
Hi Tufflaw, and a warm welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you have enjoyed editing as much as I did so far and decide to stay. Unfamiliar with the features and workings of Wikipedia? Don't fret! Be Bold! Here's some good links for your reference and that'll get you started in no time!
- Editing tutorial, learn to have fun with Wikipedia.
- Picture tutorial, instructions on uploading images.
- How to write a great article, to make it an featured article status.
- Manual of Style, how articles should be written.
Most Wikipedians would prefer to just work on articles of their own interest. But if you have some free time to spare, here are some open tasks that you may want to help out :
Oh yes, don't forget to sign when you write on talk pages, simply type four tildes, like this: ~~~~. This will automatically add your name and the time after your comments. And finally, if you have any questions or doubts, don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Once again, welcome! =)
- Mailer Diablo 16:35, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I have read it. I stand by the Churchill article as a neutral, entirely factual review of his life of crime. Jolutz 02:55, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Opps[edit]
No problem, I can see that in the revision history, It's gone again--nixie 05:31, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Plea bargain/plea agreement[edit]
"Plea bargain" suggests a point of view (that the deals made are "bargains" for the defendant). A google search also shows that "plea bargain" only gets a nominally higher number of hits over "plea agreement." And on Google News, "plea agreement" gets 4,940 hits, while "plea bargain" gets only 4,330. This demonstrates that "plea agreement" is the preferred neutral term used in the news media. Warmest regards --Neutralitytalk 15:14, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
Accessory[edit]
Please take a look at the materiel I have added to the VfD for [[Accessory Before the Act] and to Accessory (legal term). I hope it addresses the issues you have raised. DES 23:35, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
DNA[edit]
I reverted to a clean version after protecting, thanks. --nixie 22:55, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the spelling corrections[edit]
Thanks! Wikipedia authoring on a friday afternoon on a week characterized by a hefty sleep-debt is clearly a bad idea. :-P --J-Star July 8, 2005 13:55 (UTC)
In my experience, the unwieldiness of titles is ultimately not a great consideration, as easier titles can be made to redirect to more comprehensive titles (see, e.g., De facto corporation and corporation by estoppel). I intend to fix the many links to self defense - part of the problem is that some of them mean to point to a non-existent article on the practical use of the term (e.g., how to defend yourself) as opposed to the legal. If an article is written on the former, I'll make the term a disambig pointing to both uses - but the current title makes it clearer that this is a discussion of the legal defense. Also, in answer to your second query, this is how I'm studying for the bar! ;-) -- BD2412 talk 12:50, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
Please keep in mind that this is not a US-specific encyclopedia. While possibly in the US it is courts that impose that the excuses of "self-defense" and "defense of others" are applicable only if the means of defense are proportionate to the offense, in other countries it is statute law that imposes such restrictions. You are free to make a US-specific section if you wish.
Also, you are not supposed to revert contributions for "bad grammar" (unless one can barely understand the meaning of the text). If you are unhappy about grammar, please fix it. David.Monniaux 05:31, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
District attorney[edit]
And I'll be reverting again. While I'd understand this move if there was no content at district attorney, there is a perfectly good article that explains what the office does and how it works in the United States, which is markedly different from many other countries. You're not a mindreader, either - if I go to a "district attorney" page, chances are I'm likely to be looking for the district attorney page. It should link fairly prominently to the prosecutor page, though. Ambi 23:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
- They don't, however, mean the same thing. District attorney is the American variant of a prosecutor. Prosecutor is a generalist article. We don't need detailed explanations of how the office works in specific countries in that article, particularly when we already have it in a perfectly good link at district attorney. Ambi 23:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
eweek.org[edit]
Hello, I saw your addition of eweek.org, just wondering why it needs it's own article and isn't a subsection of the main page at National Society of Professional Engineers? Thanks! Tufflaw 23:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
- I wondered the same thing. If you'll notice, I took it from eWeek, where it was posted by another user, who had not yet been welcomed. My only reason for splitting it is that it didn't belong in the main eWeek article, and was most likely by someone who didn't understand WP editing policices. I'm up for AfDing it if you are. Best, Mysekurity(have you seen this?) 23:25, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Subst:[edit]
Thanks for welcoming so many new users. However, when you use welcome templates, you should substitute them by placing subst: in front of he template name. For example, instead of {{welcome}}, type {{subst:welcome}}. Transcluding templates adds stress to the Wikimedia servers, which can be avoided by substituting. Plus, substituting templates prevents template vandalism from appearing througout the encyclopedia. For more information, see Wikipedia:Subst. And note that many templates actually should be transcluded. Also, you might be interested in joining the Welcoming Committee and reading about its strategies and techniques for welcoming newcomers. --TantalumTelluride 03:35, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
- You're welcome. All templates technically can be substituted, although many of them should always be transcluded. In fact, some of them contain syntax that doesn't function properly when substituted. Others contain syntax that don't function properly when transcluded. Go figure. --TantalumTelluride 03:42, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia Arbitration Clause[edit]
Hi. Please add your lawyerly comments to the Arbitration clause discussion at MediaWiki talk:Edittools. Cheers! BD2412 T 04:12, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
wpspam invite[edit]
Hey there! I saw you reverting or removing linkspam. Thanks! If you're interested, come visit us in Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam so we can work together in our efforts to clean spam from Wikipedia. -- Perfecto 06:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
the wub[edit]
Kind of, although I hadn't actually read it until recently. A friend of mine was reading it a few years ago. I saw the cover, and "wub" just struck me as a very cool word. When I was trying to think of a pseudonym later I remembered it. the wub "?!" 17:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Rfa thanks[edit]
| Hello Tufflaw. Thank you for supporting my Rfa! :) I will try my best to be a good administrator. Please ask me if you need any help. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 17:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC) |
Jack McCoy barnstar[edit]
While I appreciate the award, the use of that image likely does not fall within fair use.... but thanks! BD2412 T 04:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Inquiry[edit]
You opposed my candidacy for the Arbitration Committee with the following comment: "it is based primarily on her comments following the userbox fiasco" and suggested that my comments violated WP:CIVIL. Could you elaborate on this for my benefit? I would like to know how you feel my comments were incivil. Kelly Martin (talk) 19:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Helping Law Students[edit]
You might be interested in the Cyberlaw project where a group of Harvard Law School students are taking a class, where part of their exposure is to Wikipedia. I volunteered to help out. I am somewhat of a Wiki newbie, with fluctuating time availability, but experienced in a diversity of Cyber topics. I got your name from User:TantalumTelluride who says you are both a lawyer and a very active Wikipedian. I can see from your user page that you are also very active in the legal community and have great shoes to fill. In my professional community I am just an ordinary computer programmer.
It seems to me that the students are intensively studying some topics that the Wiki community could also benefit from knowing better, especially in some contentious areas where the more inexperienced think consensus trumps the law. One of the class assignments was to figure out how Wikipedia could do a better job coping with a variety of issues. Seems to me the students reccommendations ought to have better exposure to the Wikipedian community for general discussion of their merits. There is also the fact that the next Wikimania will be held where these students are located and I wonder if there is good enough cooperation between the different interests intersecting here. User:AlMac|(talk) 13:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Suggestions?[edit]
Hi Tuflaw. Thanks for removing the link spam on Alcohol expectancies. In response to someone's call for establishing the importance of the subject, I added a sentence which you've removed because it expresses a point of view or is not neutral. Could you suggest a statement that establishes (or suggests) the importance of alcohol expectancies? Many thanks for any help you can provide.David Justin 01:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Opie and Anthony[edit]
Finally starting to agree with you on the O & A edits. Thank you. Still disagree on the AOTM section though. (Count Zero 22:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC))
Why do you like Opie and Anthony? I thought an educated person like yourself would know better. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.144.42.148 (talk • contribs) .
You are very... forceful in your edits and opinions on topics though. I think you forget that this isn't the courtroom sometimes just in the way you present things. Payneos 05:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Thank you![edit]
Hey! Thanks for your warm welcome to Wikipedia a while ago. I have since gone on to create a few pages. You make this a more pleasant place to work with. :) NIRVANA2764 02:44, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot[edit]
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways, from comparing articles that need work to other articles you've edited, to choosing articles randomly (ensuring that all articles with cleanup tags get a chance to be cleaned up). It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 17:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Hello Tufflaw : ) Right after Nightscream filed the the arbitration case, I began working to end it. Nightscream didn't understand the content dispute resolution process. Once I explained it to him, he immediately agreed that the case was premature. I encouraged him to build consensus by getting experienced editors to comment. That is the reason he put messages on the user talk pages, I think.
I bet you are annoyed by Nightscream actions. : ( (I know I would be) If that is the case, I hope you will assume good faith and not make too much of a fuss about it. As odd as it may seem, Nightscream honestly thought you were hurting Wikipedia. I hope you can look past the mistakes. Give Nightscream some time to think this through. Now some of the most active editors on WP are involved. I'm pretty sure the outcome will be satisfactory to you. If you have any questions or need to ventilate your frustration leave a message on my user talk or email me. regards, FloNight talk 21:20, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Mediation Case: Clay Aiken[edit]
You have indicated that you are willing to accept an assignment as a mediator. I have assigned this case to you. If you don't want to take the case on, just say so at the bottom of the request, delegate it to someone else and update the case list accordingly. Before you begin the mediation please read the suggestions for mediators. You can also review earlier mediation cases to get an understanding for possible procedures.
- --Fasten 13:01, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
- While I readily admit that my tone of voice is probably more sarcastic than the other side might wish, and while I also understand that you were randomly assigned the topic, you have to understand that I've been present for this discussion since more or less its inception, and have come to the conclusion that reasoning with these people is less likely to result in an agreement than expecting the Pope to advocate gay marriage. I'm not aware if you've had the chance to pour over the entire debate on both Clay Aiken and John Paulus and I don't fault you if you haven't, because it's a lot to read, but their arguments have shifted and morphed and changed depending on what time of day it is. When I presented rational explainations and arguments, those were shot down and my own personal website, which has nothing to do with this at all, was brought in to try and "explain" the fact that I care about this issue because I seek to out all celebrities in the media. So after fielding this kind of ridiculousness as well as everything else, I'm frustrated and quite rightly so. Two quick polls have shown there's no consensus even though they argue that the consensus is to keep the story off. Two quick polls have showed the majority of those voting not only vote that it belongs, but even those completely uninvolved in the debate have gone so far as to say that the bias against Paulus is staggering. So forgive me if my tone isn't quite where everyone else would like it, but I believe in a world where adults can take criticism without complaining. If it's fine to drag me in the muck then they shouldn't cry foul when I return fire. I'll also say that though I'm sarcastic and bitchy, I've never insulted anybody, which is contrary to their own actions. That having been said, I do believe that this mediation will ultimately result in nothing, if only because they're unwilling to compromise and clearly, clearly prove that to be the case. That's different from not wanting the mediation to work out, because I'd be a lot happier with everyone agreeing to something as opposed to having the issue decided. But I won't stand by while his fans hijack control of the article, yet still complain that they only care for Wikipedia's success. And no, I don't think you need to step aside, but keep in mind where I'm standing--- despite the majority in my favor, I'm the only one really consistently arguing against them. That will whittle down anyone's resolve for civility. - mixvio 20:56, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
- On another aside, correct me if I'm wrong but I thought the purpose of mediation was to come to a compromise, not consensus. Two quick polls initiated by other users already showed there was no consensus, though the majority of voters in both were of the opinion that it belonged. I don't think we need a third source to show there's no consensus and that's not what I was under the impression mediation was for when I submitted the request. I don't think this issue has any hope of consensus or supermajority, I think the only hope we have is coming to a compromise between all concerned parties and short of that, having it go through an arbitration decision. - mixvio 18:53, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
I am satisified with the arguments that have been offered by others for the removal of the Faber pic, and I apologize if I came off wrong to you, but please do not misrepresent my words or actions to others. I just saw your post on FloNight's talk page, and would point out that there was nothing "random" about the people I contacted. I contacted the people who had participated previously on Faber's Discussion page, which seemed the most relevant group of people to contact. I do not know how I "slanted" anything toward you; I merely explained that there was a disagreement, and I that I thought your arguments at the time were irrational. I'm not sure what exactly I was supposed to "inform" you about, since every contribution an editor makes is visible on their Contributions page. Yes, perhaps I am somewhat in the dark about procedures like this, but this is because the pages that explain these things are, IMO, a lot more labyrinthine than say, the tutorials that teach you how to edit a page. I'm still learning, after all. Take care. :-) Nightscream 05:43, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks![edit]
Thanks for your work on the Clay Aiken / John Paulus mediation case - I bet you didn't know what you were getting into! Disputes about this issue have been going on for at least a year - and I imagine they will continue to go on for a while. I just didn't want you to feel unappreciated. --Hamiltonian 05:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Ditto to what Hamiltonian said. This isn't the first dispute over this article and I doubt it will be the last. You sure did get your feet wet. I liked how you tried to organize and I'm sorry you didn't get more cooperation. Don't blame yourself. - Maria202 16:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Don't let them wear you down[edit]
The Opie_and_Anthony article is constantly under attack by vandals who so dislike Opie and Anthony that they will include false rumors into it. These include disgruntled fans and fans of competeting radio shows, most specifically Howard_Stern. They are coordinating edits of this article and since you are only one person, the continued vandalization by multiple people are wearing you down. 172.139.78.24 20:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Howard Stern Informal Mediation[edit]
Howdy Tufflaw, remember me? I know we had our past run-ins, but I figured because of your experience with such mediation, you would be fit for helping to solve a problem we have over at the Howard Stern article. A member, MGlosenger, is insistent that Opie and Anthony are not radio enemies, however, I am. I've provided a cited source where he explicitly states that they are, in fact, competition, while he claims Howard Stern said they are not enemies, wishes them well, but has no real sources to back him up. Your help would be greatly appreciated. Payneos 11:51, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Many thanks for the advice, good sir! Keep up the good fight elsewhere. Payneos 18:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Welcome to VandalProof![edit]
Hi Tufflaw, thank you for your interest in VandalProof and Congratulations! You are now one of our authorized users, so if you haven't already simply download VandalProof from our main page, install and you're ready to go!
If you have any problems please feel free to contact me or post a message on VandalProof's talk page. Once again congrats and welcome to our team! - Glen TC (Stollery) 04:23, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Bruce Lee[edit]
Hi there Tufflaw. Is there any particular reason you reverted my removal of linkspam in the Bruce Lee article? Maybe you were just testing your new VandalProof tool, but I'm not sure why that would appear to be vandalism to you. Anyhow, just a friendly heads up. --Alan Au 05:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oh, indeed, looks like I reverted to the wrong version. --Alan Au
gay stuff[edit]
on Gannon's page ""....a question that some in the press corps considered "so friendly it might have been planted." and it was a planted question which makes him a plant. BTW he also was a hooker. 132.241.246.111 05:51, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Orphaned fair use image (Image:Clockworkorange2.jpg)[edit]
Thanks for uploading Image:Clockworkorange2.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 04:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello Tufflaw, an automated process has found an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, such as fair use. The image (Image:Opieandanthony.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Tufflaw/sandbox/opieandanthony. This image or media will be removed per statement number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. The image that was replaced will not be automatically deleted, but it could be deleted at a later date. Articles using the same image should not be affected by my edits. I ask you to please not readd the image to your userpage and could consider finding a replacement image licensed under either the Creative Commons or GFDL license or released to the public domain. Thanks for your attention and cooperation. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 03:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello Tufflaw, an automated process has found an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, such as fair use. The image (Image:Opieheader.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Tufflaw/sandbox/opieandanthony. This image or media will be removed per statement number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. The image that was replaced will not be automatically deleted, but it could be deleted at a later date. Articles using the same image should not be affected by my edits. I ask you to please not readd the image to your userpage and could consider finding a replacement image licensed under either the Creative Commons or GFDL license or released to the public domain. Thanks for your attention and cooperation. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 03:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for File:Karelin throws blatnick.jpg[edit]
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Karelin throws blatnick.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 18:19, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Question[edit]
Hi Tufflaw!
Titally random, but I have a question. I couldn't help but notice that you're an ADA (THAT'S SO COOL!!!) ~ So you may be able to answer this question:
What is the difference between an Assistant District Attorney and an Assistant (?) Corporation counselor? (sorry if the latter makes no sense)?
I need to know this, because there is a guest character in Law & Order: Special Victims Unit in the 10th season (S10x"Crush"), who isn't from the DAs office (like most prosecutors on the show), rather the Corporation counsel ~ but she seems to do a simmilar job to the normal ADAs.
(I know you may not be able to answer anytime soon, as I can see you haven't made an edit in a few months, but just hopefully, you'll see this message! :) )
Thank you! -- MST☆R (Chat Me!) 12:50, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
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) 12:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]
Hello, Tufflaw. 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 2017 election voter message[edit]
Hello, Tufflaw. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Unblock request[edit]
Tufflaw (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
It looks like my IP address is blocked because I'm using a VPN. Is it possible for me to be unblocked when I'm logged in? Tufflaw (talk) 07:32, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Accept reason:
It is not generally permitted to use a VPN to edit, as they are used abusively by vandals and spammers to evade detection and blocking. Keep in mind that your IP address is not visible to general Wikipedia users. However, as you are a longtime user(though you haven't edited recently), I will grant you a short term IP block exemption(a month) so you can resume editing. If you need something longer term, you will need to follow the instructions at WP:IPECPROXY. 331dot (talk) 08:08, 30 August 2021 (UTC)