User talk:Tony Sidaway/Archive 2004 12 20
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
deletion |
Template:User Tony Sidaway/User
Contents |
[edit] RFC
Hey Tony,
If tha was the case, then I'd agree. But try as I might, I can't see where it says this, in fact AFAICS it's quite the opposite as WP:RFC has a link at the bottom pointing to archives of RFCs. Perhaps we could take this to WIkipedia:Admin village pump? Using my talk page isn't working too well... - Ta bu shi da yu 11:56, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- It's Wikipedia:Requests_for_Comment#General_user_conduct: "Before listing any user conduct dispute here, at least two people must try to resolve the same issue by talking with the person on his or her talk page or the talk pages involved in the dispute. The two users must document and certify their efforts when listing the dispute. If the listing is not certified within 48 hours of listing, it will be deleted."
- The page you're pointing to lists only certified disputes, as far as I'm aware. If you check Special:Whatlinkshere&target=Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Requests_for_comment_Slrubenstein you'll see that the only links to the page are VfD-related.
- Yes, I think I'll raise the issue at the village pump. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 12:11, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
[edit] POV issues on two pages
[edit] POV problem--need help in deciding or doing something
I'm not writing this over something that has occured with no effort on the parties part to resolve it. On the other hand if the debate had stayed on the page, if part hadn't been deleted and we were told it was moved to the other page (it wasn't) and if the other page didnt' look like it was totally biased to me (it is a minority opinion that is worthy of some space...but i feel the amount and way of putting it forward is POV not NPOV. For example it uses a number of meta studies but doesn't use one of the most common one's that shows the theory could be wrong.
I've never gotten into a huge problem on POV...the link seemed to suggest going here. If you look at the changes to the page on abortion and the abortion breast-cancer debate(i know i got something wrong in the second link...the name keeps changing but its easy to find on the abortion page. i think the problems i'm discussing will become more clear. I've tried and compromised (i felt such as when they took out the meta study done by the lancet) but the new page looks like propaganda that has been carefully writtetn so as to make it look like its right even though most disgree with it and does not take the debate seriously...only the bits that prove how they are right despite problems. Feel free to write me back at my talk page and to take a look at the edits and how the page has changed...i think only a week or two would be neccessary to see the problems perhaps less. You will see a good amount of discussion on the topics, not much on the second page because it seems hopelessly POV and i don't want to have to run around to get studies that show otherwise for a minority position that has created an article larger than really appropriate and just quotes other sources on why common problems with their methadology don't work ...sorry about the length.
And frankly i don't feel all that comfortable being just about the only pro choice person that isn't into trashing the position ( a number are pro choice but differently i suppose...there are always greys). Also the ABC page is now using prolife antilife wording something i thought had been work out a long time ago as biased---most pages i work on use pro life and pro choice to avoid POV. I feel like i'm being run over by studies that aren't even being read before being posted and its frustrating
If you could write me back at my talk page that would help--or maybe some discussion or warning on the page (i don't feel i can unbiasedly do it seeing as i'm working on the page, perhaps you can find someone who does this? I did the reading but this has never been an issue before and i still wasn't quite clear how to deal with it. Thanks--Marcie 15:08, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Marcie back on NPOV
I've already tried to do altering on the main page (abortion). There has been a large discussion there that has occured...maybe you can look it over and let me know if i've done what would usually be sufficient for me to tag the page.
On the ABC page it is being done so POV i don't even know how to deal with it (except for pointing out they didnt' include a study there that they promissed me they would and some other stuff). They have there little studies and why every other study is wrong. I understand that there can be dissension fine but i think it should be in proportion to the topic. The amount of people who think they get cancer from abortion is small and i don't think the resulting page (which was part of teh negotiations on the abortion page) is appropraite.
If you could go over the talk on these pages to let me know if it seems that i've done enough to then say there is a problem or tell me how to deal with something that is gettting blown way out of proprotion with people likely not even understanding how some of the studies word i'd appreciate it. Even some clear rewording on a study quote which showed that in a study women had a ptsdish like experience to abortion mainly after prior trauma made that fact hard to see....and the paper was like trying to read greek...i don't think they even read it!
I have been trying to talk it out i only went looking (your name popped up somewhere) because i feel i'm out of my depth to decide on my own---or rather i think i know what is happening but i wouldn't mind suggestions on how best to deal with it GIVEN the steps i have tried to already take to deal with it--Marcie 19:12, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Hey
Is there any way to "fix", or make your top nav 800x600 friendly? It just ruins the Wikimojo of everything fitting on my screen. --RoyBoy 03:42, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I ripped the top nav from somebody else and it's all styles and stuff. I've tried to fix it a few times with no success. I'm still trying. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 03:48, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Here is a test, I changed the buttons margin width
|
deletion |
Maybe adding the colors wasn't such a good idea after all. :)
Let's try this one more time; but with my buttons again. Maybe having differing buttons is what keeps it from going loose. There we go... it's interesting to see how the colors leak out of some of the buttons, and there are white borders in others. Hmmmmm... oh well. --RoyBoy 02:29, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Hopefully the previous test doesn't mess this up
(test deleted)
Okay I don't know what is loose, there must be some sloppy (loose) code somewhere in the design, but this will work without the test above, you can see it here. Notice how the one that is working here, isn't working there... because of the previous template. I dunno what is going on, but it took me the better part of Twister to figure it out. :"D --RoyBoy 05:51, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Heya. Just wanted to mention you should copy and paste my button code to your buttons. You'll notice there is grey to the right of your menu, if you copy the code of my buttons to your buttons that will be gone... of course that would make the buttons much closer. I prefer it that way personally, if you want the spacing you currently have, then don't do that. :'D Also I just made the bottom row grey to demonstrate you could have it white or grey as you see fit. --RoyBoy 00:41, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
-
- Thanks for the help. I'm very happy with what you've done to the button nav, and I hope it solves your original problem of a 800x600-unfriendly bar. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 11:11, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
-
-
- You're most welcome. Yeah it solves the problem, now only a few hundred sites/pages/articles to go :'p. And if you wanted to... you can use the version above (the single row) if you prefer it. It also conforms to an 800x600 window. And don't be timid about change the background color(s)... there are lots of possibilities! (changing the above test for kicks) Also its a bit of a thank you for the editing on the ABC article; for the most part your edits were for the best. Particularly the title; good call. --RoyBoy 02:00, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
-
[edit] Changes
I made some small changes on the abortion page (the way one was worded tended to make it easy to miss the fact that the real impact in the study was how those already traumatized reacted.
On the talk page i've discussed the quote, and also how in starting a page that is in a minority you often give an explanation and a link to the majority opinion so that people are aware of what it is. The quote he has needs to go: Either from a feminist (or women) on abortion that is fair enough or no quote. A quote from a women on the topic that has nothing to do with it but who happens to be a feminist and a pro choice person seems innaccurate quoting to me...i put it on the talk page but i wanted it to be clear as possible--Marcie 22:11, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Sorry, no
I have removed my comments from Phil's talk page. I am sorry you felt hurt. I made the comments in good faith to try to help tone down the tension. Because they have inflamed you further I have withdrawn them. I have explained further my comment on the RfC. I will not discuss this any further because clearly it is not having the desired effect. Dr Zen 02:52, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
It's not so much that I'm inflamed. I'm saying flat out that your accusations are false. I really have no choice in this. Your false statements were direct personal attacks, and the fact that they weren't backed up by a smidgeon of evidence or argument simply left a very foul odor in the air and no way for me to defuse it except by a denial. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 02:55, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Netoholic's talk page
Uh, dude. He used to have an archived talk page, but he requested they be speedily deleted. I'd moved them to a personal subpage, but he wasn't happy about that either. Then I copied and pasted them into a subpage, but he kept moving them. I'm about to delete them once I chat with him on IRC. In the meantime, check User:Ta bu shi da yu/odds and ends - Ta bu shi da yu 11:54, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Clitoris revert war
Supporting the actions of an admin who abuses his powers to protect his favoured version of a page is something I cannot respect, Tony. Schneelocke was/is an involved party in the dispute over the picture. The policy on blocking pages does not permit him to lock the page, let alone to his preferred version. Suggesting that I'm vandalising it is disgusting when I am clearly involved in the discussion, I note in my edit summary that I am acting to defend the consensus view, and I asked others to do the same (which I note that you refuse to do). I'm very disappointed in you, Tony. I had believed that you were willing to make a good-faith effort to resolve the differences that exist over this page. Dr Zen 01:11, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- As such incidents occur I am more and more certain that question: "Sed quis custodiet ipsos
custodes?" (who guards the guards?) must be seriously addressed. This gunslinger mentality has to be brought under control. - Robert the Bruce 11:44, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
How do you know which version of the page Schneelocke favors? He has expressed no opinion on the suitability of the image as far as I am aware--and before you ask, I did look. I have searched for his comments on the suitability of the picture in the Talk:Clitoris page and find none.
I also think that he was wrong to protect the picture and I'm making good faith efforts to ask Schneelocke, Raul654, 213.243.182.63 and Chocolateboy to hold off on the reverts and protects and whatnot to see if we can reach agreement. I only refrained from reverting the page to the version we agreed on because I thought that to do so would further inflame the situation. What developed was a revert war, and I did not wish to be party to that.
I also agree with you that Schneelocke was wrong, even if protection was the right thing to do, to label the revert war as a matter of vandalism.
Where I disagree with you is in your accusation that Schneelocke's behavior amounted to abuse of his powers. He used his discretion to take actions with which I personally disagree, but he was empowered to do so.
I sympathize with you, I think it was an unfortunate affair. But I urge you to reconsider the path you now seem to be taking--the easy path of blaming everybody else for the failure to reach consensus. In particular, your repeated reference to people who have made clear efforts and positive proposals as "hardliners". --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 01:55, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
[edit] RfC
You doubled the page content somehow, I reverted. Please go back and make your changes again, as needed. -- Netoholic @ 03:54, 2004 Dec 16 (UTC)
