User talk:Tony Sidaway/Archive 2004 12 08

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

							[edit]
user	talk	watchlist	watched	sandbox	user links	deletion	more links

Template:User Tony Sidaway/User

Contents 1 Hey 2 Vote on Wikipedia:Three revert rule enforcement 3 Nonverbal Communication 4 Civility

[edit] Hey

I like your talk page header ;) Andre (talk) 07:53, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

I stole a little more than that! Check out my main page. By the way if you look at that in edit you will notice that I factored in the button code as a template, "Button", which reduces the clutter on the main page and makes it easier to add new buttons and edit existing ones.

There's one tricky thing about that--if you need more than five buttons you need to produce a clone of the template (Button2 in my case) because of limitations in the MediaWiki software. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway ^Talk ]] 15:57, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Vote on Wikipedia:Three revert rule enforcement

Hi Tony. Anthony DiPierro is claiming you voted twice on the Wikipedia:Three revert rule enforcement page (see the edit history for the page, and Anthony's summaries). Could you possibly go there and clarify? Thanks. Jayjg 01:42, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Nonverbal Communication

Hi there Tony. I dig the Talk header :). Well, I went to the great dictionary.com and found this definition:

ver·bal Audio pronunciation of "verbal" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (vûrbl) adj.

  1. Of, relating to, or associated with words: a detailed verbal description. 

Upon this foundation, I would very much say that sign language is 'verbal', as it uses words. I know those, not me personally, but I know those who are really fighting hard to break the stereotype that sign language is not 'words' but just pantomime. Many sign languages, ASL, FSL etc, are complete and very indepth languages. On this basis I would say that sign language is 'verbal' and does not belong into the 'nonverbal' category.

I'm going to college at UC Santa Cruz in California, and there is a nonverbal course here. If you'd like I could see if I couldn't get an email response about this from the professor. Heck, I might even try to get him to contribute :) JoeSmack (talk) 14:43, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

I got this definition out of "The Nonverbal Communication Reader: Classic and Contemporary Readings". Nonverbal communication refers to communication effected by means other than words. The scent of a person - is it foul, alluring or brisk? A waitress writing a smilie face on a check when giving it to the costumer - tips are statistically higher when women do this (but not men...). I would even say hand signals like holding out a hand to stop, wagging a finger or flipping someone the bird........but sign language is with words. While areas like personal proximity, eye dilation, even silience has their grounds in nonverbal communication, none of them are direct verbatium speech - which sign language is. Heck, typing this message to you right now...would you consider this nonverbal communication? Would writing someone a letter be considered nonverbal communication? Communication effected by means other than words...

Also, thanks for the info on the header. :) JoeSmack (talk) 18:12, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Civility

Having benefitted from your insistence upon civility I thought you could point out the error of his ways to this Phil fellow. [1] Thanks Tony ... and keep up the good work. - Robert the Bruce 18:08, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, and you're welcome. I'm now plodding through the long exchange at the link at the start of your article and I'll compose a note to Phil on his talk page (as I did for you) when I have material enough to make an appropriate comment. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway ^Talk ]] 20:24, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have re-cast my response: hope my method meets your approval. I am certain that you are aware of this user's history of rudeness to various well-respected members of the community, and I hope you realise that my lapse of judgement was not merely a response to that single comment. The fact that he has appropriated the moniker of one of my more-famous ancestors to peddle his bile is not so much an excuse as one more straw on the camel's back. --Phil | Talk 08:31, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, Phil. I know I must sound like a dreadful Pollyanna, but I do think we owe it to Robert to practise what we preach. I really appreciate your effort to go that extra mile. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway ^Talk ]] 09:46, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No, no, good call. It just gripes my goat to see creeps like that getting away with murder…I had just that minute read yet another personal attack on poor old Theresa and my blood boiled over. Thank you for reminding me, I would likely have forgotten otherwise, and my rather raw reaction would have stayed as was, setting a not-particularly-good example as you so rightly pointed out. --Phil | Talk 14:12, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

From Phil Boswell's page:

Thanks, Phil. I don't know whether Robert will appreciate this, but I do. I try to run flack for Theresa now and again, but as she's often engaged in the same articles Robert is she is an easy target for him. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 14:18, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• This last comment is a great disappointment. Sad to see your "civility" efforts are merely "running flak for Theresa" and not as you presented (and I accepted) for the good of Wikipedia. - Robert the Bruce 00:28, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Robert, I'm sorry that you feel that way. The problem is that you sometimes make posts that have the appearance of personal attacks on Theresa (and others). Such behavior is forbidden and also would have a deleterious effect on the environment if I did not occasionally speak up and voice an opposite view with factual rebuttals. Running flak in this way for a poster under personal attack is in the interests of wikipedia. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 04:30, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I had thought for one moment that you were motivated out of concern for Wikipedia. So sad to establish that it was really a deceit where your only concern seems to have been to silence legitimate criticism of a "friend" of yours. Feet of clay. - Robert the Bruce 08:10, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I hope you'll reconsider your hasty judgement, Robert. Your apparent belief that others will see things the way you want them to is misplaced. You have falsely claimed, for instance, that my actions were deceitful, yet you present no evidence to support this claim. Now, back to discussing your problems. Have you noticed how you always try to turn any criticism of your own behavior (with which your talk pages are replete) into criticism of your critic? Having to some extent diminished your propensity to use provocatie language, we now need to work on that. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 12:32, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)