User talk:Tvor65

Hello, Tvor65, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Ewen (talk) 18:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IB-related links

I see you've edited a few things about the IB, particularly the UCS controversy. Please be careful to avoid upsetting certain editors who have very strong opinions on these matters. Maybe it would be prudent to discuss the changes you think necessary before making them?

Ewen (talk) 18:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you gave reasons for the chages you made. I think that's important in this area. Lisa/ObserverNY needs to be shown that her work isn't being removed for arbitrary reasons. I gave the same reason when she added the TAIB link without explaining why, and I deleted it. From this side of the pond it looks to me like she is part of a vocal minority and her views, where sustainable, should be given due weight in the relevant articles, but no more. On the other hand, she needed some help figuring out how wikipedia worked and I feel that simply deleting everything she posts is only going to strengthen her notion that her views are being censored.

Ewen (talk) 19:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you think that deleting Lisa edits without explanation is provocative? Ewen (talk) 06:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just my opinion, but I think you are trying way too hard to appease her. Anyway, the current version is fine with me but I'll keep an eye on it.Tvor65 (talk) 20:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair comment. I don't think I've conceded any points which she wasn't able to make a fair argument about. I have criticised her for posting edits without explaining them, and reverted those edits, so it seemed only fair to request that other do the same when making edits she wouldn't like. Ewen (talk) 20:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A useful reference

Bunnell, Tristan. The International Baccalaureate in the USA and the emerging 'culture war'. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 30(1): 61-72, 2009.Tvor65 (talk) 21:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Please reply

Oops, sorry, missed the earlier message. (I'd like something that keeps telling you have new messages until you've read all the ones that have arrived since you last checked, but I digress...)

The relevant bits to read are WP:OUTING (which explains that it's a Bad Thing...), and, more importantly, Wikipedia:Harassment#Dealing with harassment which explains how to deal with it. In this case, the suggestion is to contact the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) (as this is a situation "where privacy and off-wiki aspects are an issue (eg, where private personal information is a part of the issue...)".

Arbitration is a big, scary prospect for me (I've never had to deal with it), so I may be being overly cautious when I suggest that you might want to raise the issue at the Administrators' Noticeboard for Incidents (ANI) first: the worst that'll happen there is you'll be directed to the Arbitration Committee.

Good luck, and apologies for not getting back to you sooner. TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 14:22, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem and thank you so much for the detailed reply! I may let it go this time but I wanted to know what to do should it happen again.Tvor65 (talk) 14:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm hoping it won't happen again, but I cautioned the editor at the time and I'm not sure they took my caution the way it was intended - so who can tell! Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 14:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IB references

I've stashed them in my sandbox. If anymore are deleted, we can use the sandbox to keep them so we don't have to constantly reformat. Some may be useful in the other articles.Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thank you!Tvor65 (talk) 17:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

Just to let you know, you've hit 3RR on IB Diploma Programme. You may want to stop your reverting. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 00:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks, I have stopped.Tvor65 (talk) 01:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IB Diploma Programme

Hi Tvor65,

Could you please visit my talk page, read and comment on my recent section about the IB Diploma Programme.

Many thanks, --Candy (talk) 21:29, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done ;-) Tvor65 (talk) 23:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Tvor64 for editing the diffs so they're not so "distracting." Now I know how to avoid that for future reference. Cheers! La mome (talk) 01:42, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! Glad I could help.Tvor65 (talk) 02:52, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ONY should have notified you

See here. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

She did (after reporting me). I erase all her messages on my talk page.Tvor65 (talk) 13:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations!

You are a co-writer of a good article! Who thought this would pass so quickly?

Here's an infobox to display on your page. I think all the editors who worked on this deserve credit because it was such a strong collaboration. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This user helped promote IB Diploma Programme to good article status.

Thank you! I have not done nearly as much as you and some others did. Thanks for all of your work on the article.Tvor65 (talk) 00:41, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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) 14:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) 14:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]