User talk:Tony Sidaway/Archive 2005 06 06

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

deletion

Template:User Tony Sidaway/User

Archive: Interim • 10/25 • 10/14 • 09/24 • 09/21 • 09/18 • 09/16 • 09/05 • 08/23 • 08/15 • 08/01 • 07/27 • 07/22 • 07/19 • 07/15 • 07/06 • 07/01 • 06/25 • 06/18 • 06/15 • 06/14 • 06/07 • 06/03 • 05/30 • 05/25 • 05/20 • 05/10 • 04/08 • 03/15 • 02/13 • 02/02 • 01/27 • 01/19 • 01/06 • 2006 • 2005 • 2004  edit

Contents

[edit] Thank you

Hello, Tony. Thanks for your vote at my adminship nomination. I occasionally have a look through the mailing list archives and find myself cheering you on in the censorship debates, so it's good to know I have your support. Cheers! — Trilobite (Talk) 13:15, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] How do I make a desk for the CleanUp force?

Im going to be part o the CleanUp force, but I need some "technical" answers. First, how do I make a desk?, I could´nt find how to do one. And second, how did you did to customize so much your user page?. (unsigned) by 20:15, 27 Apr 2005 Entropyhunter|Talk

[edit] VfD rant

I just came across your comment on the VfD for "Reception theory". The article is a perfectly good stub now, but when it was listed on VfD, it consisted entirely of the fragment "for more on the ideas in Stuart Hall's essay encoding/decoding, see reception theory". I would have tagged the article for speedy deletion on the grounds of "very short articles with little or no context", as there isn't enough context for me to figure out what's being described, much less "clean up" as you suggested.

When you come across an apparently inappropriate VfD, please check what the article looked like when listed -- frequently, what happens is that someone comes across the VfD listing, thinks "I can re-write that into something useful", and does so. --Carnildo 22:04, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Protection

I didn't protect it. I only added the vprotected template (after it was protected). Just for your information. BrokenSegue 02:05, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pearson distribution

Hi Tony. Thanks for the heads up about Pearson distribution's VFD entry on Wikipedia talk:Wikiportal/Mathematics. Yes, of course it should not be deleted (now at least). In the future I would recommend leaving comments for the Wikipedia mathematics community on WikiProject Mathematics. You will find a wider audience there, I think. Paul August ☎ 02:14, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kissinger worships Satan -- the hair proves it

You've brightened my afternoon with a laugh. Thanks for that.Grace Note 02:46, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Thank you for your criticism of me on my RFA, and identifying that I need to do more research before I put articles on VFD. As I stated, my primary purpose of self-nominating myself this week was to get feedback on what I am doing wrong so I can improve on it now. Thus, I don't really care if I get promoted now or later.

In the meantime, I have decided to turn my attention on trying to improve potential articles already on VFD, hoping they will get "a stay of execution". This is because you also reminded me that there are a number of deletionists out there who are mindlessly putting articles on VFD just because they're poor and incomplete. Anyway, thanks again. Zzyzx11 | Talk 03:43, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re: User:82.211.102.159

Thanks. Why do I always end up in edit wars with this type of vandal? I'd love to get a normal religious fanatic vandal for a change! P Ingerson 11:53, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] TfD

Your comment on the userspace policy proposal, "There is no existing bar on TfDing a user template." is not backed up by the precedent of the Keepschools template in userspace. The top of TfD starts "This page is for deleting things in the Template namespace". Thryduulf 13:44, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] e-mail me

I quote: "# If the above link doesn't work, send email directly to minorityreport@bluebottle.com

  1. All Wikipedia-related email will be accepted and read."

Interestingly, after five days there has been no reply to my email The Number 20:28, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)


I gather it has been read but has had absolutely no effect as the wanton vandalism continues without any comment from you whatsoever The Number 23:21, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I went to the Talk Page in question and saw your one and only comment:

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia

That seems to be directed at the Page Owner rather than the vandals because I see the vandalism has continued and yet no action/comment from you. Unless you have blocked/thought about blocking the vandals I cannot see what good the email has done. Certainly there has been no reply The Number 00:55, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Meanwhile the vandalism continues. Maybe Sidaway is simply waiting for me or Sollogfan to 'vandalise' before blocking- after all Wikipedia rules don't apply to everyone. The Number 00:23, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't think anyone really knows what a sockpuppet is. For you to even expect Editors to be fair shows your own stupidity.MAGGOTSollogfan 11:05, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Blocking vandals

When will Pomeroy and Kafir be blocked blocked from editing Wikipedia? This is what you warned would happen to vandals and they continue to vandalise my page. So it's put-up time! Sollogfan 08:39, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Interesting how you continue to ignore people who vandalise my page and yet when I don't vandalise their page by putting lies but simply delete something....you warn me. I have never heard of you or have had anything to do with you UNTIL you chose to warn ME on MY page - and then subtly ignore everyone else. Wonderful! Sollogfan 11:56, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Funny how you continue to ignore the vandalism - if I did it to you there'd be a whole horde of Editors saying I should be blocked. Sollogfan 12:36, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely. He is calling you a sockpuppet even though Sollog is in jail therefore you cannot be a sockpuppet!The Number 00:23, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] TfD note

Tony, thanks for the note (which I've moved your comment from my user page to my talk page), but I am lost as to which particular Template for deletion you are referring to! Thryduulf 11:29, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] apology

I notice that twice now I've harshly (list of people...) or wrongly (Pearson..) sent things to VfD and you've kindly picked up the pieces. Before you think me a complete prat, I just wanted to say 'lesson learned' and I'll refrain from nominating anything else until I've learned a bit more. --Doc Glasgow 00:20, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Daytime emmy

Hi it was probably okay to revert the Daytime Emmy thing if you weren't sure, but wrong to call it vandalism. Obviously it wasn't vandalism because he has indeed been nominated for many daytime emmies and won quite a lot of them. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:03, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I probably was too quick to delete that category, but I kept thinking that daytime Emmies were for soap operas. I know Spielberg wasn't involved with any of those and I couldn't find any mention of him winning an Emmy anywhere in the article. If he did win some, it should be mentioned in the article, even just one sentence would do. Looking on the IMDb, I see that he has, indeed, won some Emmies. So I apologize for my rash edit, but please mention it somewhere in the article so others don't make the same mistake I did. :-) Peace. :-D — Frecklefoot | Talk 15:15, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Hey Tony, thanks for removing the personal attack from my talk page. Best, SlimVirgin (talk) 18:44, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks, Tony!

For the supportive comments and vote in my RfA, and for announcing the good news to me! Yours, El_C 00:43, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pashtun

I see that you unprotected the page over my objections. Can I then prevail upon you to keep an eye on it? We have two opposite extreme views that keep trying to hijack the article: one that upholds only a patrilineal definition of the Pashtun, and tries to argue that the cultural definition exists only "in cyberspace" and the other that wishes to deny that anyone uses the patrilineal definition. Over time, I seem to have been the only person who has continually tried to make sure that the article stays NPOV and represents both views. The next two months, I am very unlikely to have much time to do this. There are a lot of people active in that page who don't give a damn for NPOV, encyclopedic writing, citation, etc. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:02, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Range block

Tony, when blocking Rovoam (Tony Sidaway blocked "User:213.18.248.0/25") did you really intend to block 33 million IP addresses (cf m:range blocks)? If not, you should probably tighten the block significantly. If so, I think it's rather a drastic step to undertake to block one single user (whose damage can surely be cleaned up fairly easily). If you insist on this gargantuan block, I really think the block message should be a lot more detailed - it's sure to snare lots of innocents. -- John Fader (talk | contribs) 14:28, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] My RFA

Thank you for your comments on my RFA. Although the voting period just ended with a 14-8-2 vote, I will admit once and for all that I used it more as an evaluation of myself. Being promoted would have been a plus. I was more interested in who voted, when they voted, who would change their votes and when, and the comments I would receive. Hopefully I will correct the main weakness that was raised by those who voted oppose -- that I was too eager to put articles on VFD. Also, I will try to interact more with those Wikipedians who did not vote at all.

As for next month, I don't know if I will nominate myself again. I might not think about it until somebody else puts me up there on RFA at a later date. Eventually, I see myself as an admin, especially as the number of articles and users continues to grow. Thanks again and good luck at improving this vast archive of free knowledge. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 09:24, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:169.151.1.213

Unless you unblocked the first block of 14 days, I think when the 14 day block expired, it took any other, longer, blocks with it. Should be okay now. RickK 22:31, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Barefoot and pregnant

Hi, I'm just wondering how this VfD actually works - I thought everyone could vote on it? Or did you just make a mistake adding up?

What I'm so confused about is that, if you add up the votes - and since everybody puts votes on these VfD-pages I assumed that's what counts - it would have had to be deleted, because the calculation is the following: Delete: 8 votes, two of which with merge option: Kevin Rektor, Megan 1967, nixie, The Anome, Silversmith (with merge option), Fenice, Ambi, Master Thief Gerrett (with merge option) Keep: 7 including your own (I assume): 66.01.21.112, the Epopt CarsonDailyCity, ZZyzx11, Alex R, one without signature (I thought they did not count?), and probably Tony Sidaway One vote was only for Merge: Thryduulf

How did you add that up to get the result you got? --Fenice 17:20, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Don't be rude

I think your response to our minor disagreement over Christopher Isham was unnecessarily harsh. I ran accross an article that didn't have material to justify its existence, and added an explain-significance template. The template was obviously justified, and putting it there doesn't place me under any obligation to research and expand an article. Indeed, I think it makes more sense to leave that to somebody who has an actual interest in the subject. You shouldn't regard an explain significance as some kind of attack on you or the article, nor should you attack other Wikipedians over minor disagreements.

I don't want to make a big deal about this. I just want to express the opinion that your attitude is detrimental to a project we both care about. ---Isaac R 23:54, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Dude, you're entitled to disagree with the way I participate in the Wikipedia project. You are not entitled to express your disagreement with personal insults -- which is something you done in every single interaction I've had with you. That's not a good way to settle a difference of opinion -- nor is it accepted practice on Wikipedia. ---Isaac R 00:16, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't expect a pat on the back. I simply expect to be treated with a minimum level of courtesy. Not just because of my own feelings, but because when the general level of civility drops, we all suffer.

I don't concede that I did anything wrong. But suppose I did. Then what's the best way to communicate that fact to me? With insults? That's a good way to make somebody ignore your advice.

But why do I even have to explain this to you? You are (as I've just discovered) a sysop. You should already know everything I'm telling you. Not just that you've broken the civility rules, but why those rules are important. Plus, your extra authority gives your rudeness extra weight, and damages things more than if any random jerk went around insulting people. That's shit we just don't need.

Don't respond to me now. Stop and think about what I've said. Ask another admin whether you've behaved correctly. If you can't stop and do those things, you don't deserve to be an admin.---Isaac R 01:09, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Go back and read our previous interactions, and tell me you've been civil. And stop and think about the matter, instead of shooting back at me the way you've been doing. ---Isaac R 01:40, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to give this one more try, than I'm going to give up. You keep making this about my feelings. It is not. It is about the correct way to resolve disagreements on Wikipedia.

Let's agree to disagree about the civility issue, and talk about the more basic problem: communication. You claim I'm misusing templates. That's perfectly possible -- I'm new around here, and I'm sure I'm making lots of mistakes. But you don't want to tell me what I'm doing wrong. You just revert my change. Then when I try to have a conversation about the correct way to use the template, you just call me stupid and lazy.

I'd really like to learn to be a better Wikipedian. But if the whole aim of our conversations is for you to establish my failings, how am I supposed to do that? ---Isaac R 04:36, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Masts

Hi, I saw your new proposal for the mast articles.

Could you elaborate a bit on what you meant by "listbox format"? Is that like an infobox template, or am I totally out to lunch? It would be great if you could dummy one up so we could see what you've got in mind. Cheers, --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 02:47, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mahajana High School

Do you have evidence that the school is 150 years old and that Ramanujan studied there? Otherwise the article basically is "Mahajana High School is a school", and I don't see any point in undeleting that. I'd like to see a verifiable article on the school but I'm not convinced that the version that was deleted is such. JYolkowski // talk 02:15, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

As I mentioned in VfU, I'd support undeletion if someone recreated a new article with the information you mentioned and it was speedied. I still don't see the point in undeleting this version though. JYolkowski // talk 02:27, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Hey Tony, how do I access those admin logs that are kept for users? Which show all one's admin actions? I remember you posted yours somewhere before, and I altered the link to find mine as well, but I didn't save the link so now I've forgotten. The point is, I'd like to have that linked on my user page, like you (but yours doesn't seem to be the automatic version), so people can easily review my admin actions. Everyking 02:18, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, Tony. Everyking 02:30, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Why are you blocking me????

Just because AOL assigns me, randomly, a number you are concerned about (207.200.116.203), there is no reason to block me. Believe me, I am a productive user and have only done one revert/vandalism in the last few hours of editing. Please release the block. WBardwin 03:22, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Well -- that edit wasn't mine (I wouldn't touch Armenia with the proverbial ten foot pole!), so it probably was your vandal. With AOL's random number access, I've been blocked like this once before and will be again, I'm sure. Luckily I was able to copy my article and take it "home" for safekeeping. Thanks for your vigilance -- and good luck with the vandal patrol. WBardwin 11:28, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Something Awful

Heyas, saw you were the last admin to deal with the protected status of Something Awful seeing if vandals are gone. It seems that perhaps they are not. Thought you might want to direct a moments attention there? -SocratesJedi | Talk 21:46, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Blade Runner

I've put some effort into making this article pass a second FAC nomination... could you take a look at it and give me suggestions or help in improving it prior to my re-nomination of it. Thx! - RoyBoy 800 04:39, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Good stuff, I don't agree with some of it... but for the most part your spot on and thorough; so par for the course. :"D Yeah, the Falcon thing I added comes off awkwardly; I guess I should move it to trivia... but I think it important to mention the BR homage (which isn't just the overall visual style but actually BR like spinners seen in several instances). Granted the skyline is pretty; but its still a skyline with roots in BR; even moreso with AI.
As to cyberpunk, one of the sources for Ridley during production was the magazine Heavy Metal, so it seems appropriate to keep that as is.
The difficulty comes in the interpretation section which for the most part is mine. And I had just added the Christian symbolism section! :"D Well anyway I have references for all that stuff below; but I concede some original research might be lurking around. So do you think I should scrub it down to the basics, especially the the Christian symbolism stuff... maybe I could merge the good stuff from that with the main section? - RoyBoy 800 04:24, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Exterminate!

en:wikipedia --> commons:wikipedia

Is there a fast way to transfer images like so? I got most of my NATO ranks at en, want to move them to commons. I know I can simply reupload but thats very time consuming... :( For such a transfer do you know anybody who could help? Thanks--Cool Cat My Talk 17:00, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RfC Trey Stone

I have just opened an RfC on Trey Stone: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Trey Stone. Care to add anything? Thanks. -- Viajero 12:57, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks very much for fixing the diffs and so forth. Just wondering about one thing. It is recorded here [1] that he was banned for fourteen days on 19 March. Later, it appears you lifted the ban after discussion with him. Was this discussion on a WP talk which can be cited or was it offline? I only ask because there is a reference to this arrangement on the RfC: "Blocked for two weeks by ClockworkSoul 15:14, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)] but later unblocked earlier as described below." In fact, it isn't actually described anywhere, so we should either add the relevent information or delete the reference. I only ask because I think the RfC will probably be an important resource in the ArbCom case and I would like to have it as complete as possible. Thanks, -- Viajero 20:48, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
Ok, I have added a line or two of clarification. [2] Best, -- Viajero 09:17, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Edward II of England infobox

In this VFD, you voted to move to template namespace or delete via TFD, but actually, the situation is stranger since this is actually an article which is called an infobox and is already generated from a template. That means it isn't a template and shouldn't be in template namespace (reasonably wierd, I know). Please have a look again and see if you agree with what I said. Mozzerati 18:33, 2005 May 9 (UTC)

[edit] WP:AN/I

Thank you for ignoring the {Inuse} notice and the page protection - now I have to redo 10 minutes worth of edits. Noel (talk) 18:10, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Not to mention having to leave the page locked/inuse for that much longer. Noel (talk) 18:14, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] About Rovoam

Tony, since Rovoam main problem seem to be Tabib, and that for the last few days, after reviewing Tabib involvment in other articles like Aran and Khojali, I think dealing with Rovoam would be easier, if perhaps for a principle of justice we pay a closer look at how Tabib interprate Wikipedia.

Tabib seems to not understand that Wikipedia is not about "the truth," only articles on fundamental mathematic, where we could really talk of proving, "truth" could be used to write an article.

Tabib fail to understand that if a position exist, and that is shared by enought people, it should be presented, and not only what he considers as "truth." And more so, if a position is defended by a nation alone, it can not be made as if it was an absolute truth, without indicating who believes what.

Face it, in the main articles Tabib is involved, not only Rovoam considers him biased and as a POV pusher. Besides, I want to make my points without being dumped as Rovoam supporter everytime I criticise the way Tabib deal with articles. Fadix 04:44, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Penguinize

I counted six deletes, two merge and redirects (not counting JimXugle, whose first edits were to the VfD page in question) a keep from an IP with a fair amount of edits, and a keep from user SteveBaker, whose third edit was to the VfD in question. It's certainly borderline, but the first merge vote didn't specify where it should be merged to, so that swung it for me. —Xezbeth 19:09, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] More on Rovoam

I'm not involved in the disputes surrounding Rovoam, but since information seems to be aggregating to you, I should highlight a bit of his behavior that I noticed.

Whatever his beef is, Rovoam's behavior in this edit is indefensible. Kura-Araxes culture is not part of any dispute. The edits reverted were not controversial. For that matter, the edits were not even by Tabib; Tabib made one minor change to the page. Rovoam later came along and reverted a whole batch of larger edits by me and others, to get back to the pre-Tabib state.

I hate to throw the word "vandalism" around, but that edit can't really be called anything else. If Rovoam's others edits are like that, he's lost it. Isomorphic 19:48, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup Taskforce

Hi, Tony. Chiropractic was placed on my CT desk. I've worked on it a little, but I'm a physician and this is mostly outside my area of expertise. It still could use a lot of work, but I don't know how to do it. I noticed that you like to take on large-scale reorganizations. Could you take a look at Chiropractic and see if it's something you could improve (and are interested in doing so)? If not, I won't waste time putting it on your desk. Thanks! — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:55, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome =) I'll place it on your desk. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:50, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] What Wikipedia is not

Greetings. You nuked my note at What Wikipedia is not a bit back, the one saying that Wikipedia has a lot of subjects ordinary encyclopedias wouldn't touch with a 10-foot pole. Perhaps it was badly phrased, but I maintain that the point is valid - not a lot of traditional 'pedias feature extensive coverage on different aspects of sado-masochism, for instance, and quite a few people wouldn't expect this one to. What's your opinion on how it should be worded, or should we just chuck the subject out altogether? -- Kizor 17:48, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

I think the wording could have been better but I do agree with the sentiment. The use of terms like "wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole" seems to impute an opinion to Encarta's editors and Britannica's that I don't think can be justified by their statements. What I would favor is something like "The range of subjects covered by Wikipedia is dictated by its editors, some of whom have interests not normally covered in other encyclopedias; if people do something, and others write about it, you should probably not be surprised to find a Wikipedia article about it." I think that's far too wordy and needs to be trimmed severely, but it's a first cut of how I think the piece should go. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:04, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
Hmm. How about: "A subject's notability is effectively the only criteria for its inclusion, not conventionality or appropriateness - this is reflected in some articles."? -- Kizor 12:01, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] George W. Bush

Hi- I reverted the changes you recently made to this article; not intending to be inflammatory, but I hope you'll at least reply to the concerns voiced on the talk page before putting the material back in. I'm not looking for conflict and I hope you'll put some of your reasoning down. I'm not even 100% sure that reverting is right, but it seemed like you should at least respond to the criticisms before putting the paras back in. Sincerely, Kaisershatner 02:01, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Response to extreme personal attacks

I don't think they are extreme. I do not understand why you bother to edit the George Bush article at all. I disagree with you that sourcing such as Salon and related known biased medias can be considered neutral. I also don't understand how I can expect you to be neutral in the article with the predonderance of evidence that indicates that your politics are vehemently opposed to the subject matter. I have made it clear that I am not a big fan of Bush and consider him to be one of the worst Presidents of my lifetime. But I do not think your inclusion of some of the items you protect in the article are anything other than weak and, regardless of what you think about the free press in the U.S., these items are not as widely convered here as they may be in Britain. The reason they are not covered as thickly is due to the fact that they are not significant or very through in what we may refer to as plausiblity and or reality. I have no problem with some of the discussion about Bush and his alcohol and drug use...such as the discussion about his conversations with Billy Graham and the other conversation in which he all but admitted drug use. I don't see what the van wormer or Frank opinions have to offer and believe that the inclusion of such items are POV pushing. It is clear that they are using their positions to voice their opinion...it is not any more noteworthy than some folks in Hollywood who equate their fame with the right to use their access to the media as justification to voice their opinions. I find that I have a lot of trouble seeing you as being neutral when you wish to protect all this silly mumbo jumbo.--MONGO 02:10, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

I think some of that was directed as responses to JamesMLane, but don't have time to look it up. Accept my apologies.--MONGO 01:50, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Titanic

Oh, I wasn't aware of that. Taking that into account, I still think my edit is probably clearer wording than what was there, but I support whatever you want to do with it (my memory of the movie isn't that clear). Thanks for the correction, Nectarflowed (talk) 10:04, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bush - vandalism

No problems. I actually was in error as well. I assumed someone had destroyed the picture, and after that the power failure notification showed up... 68.17.148.12 19:34, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Calvert Hall College

I just noticed that you reverted the copyvio notice. I don't know enough about the law to know whether it would qualify as fair use, but I've never heard of using fair use text on Wikipedia. That strikes me as unlikely; Wikipedia text needs to be GFDL so that it can be edited and reused elsewhere.

At very least, we need to acknowledge the source. Otherwise it's plagiarism (which is a separate issue from copyright violation.) Isomorphic 22:48, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I don't think they'll kick up a fuss. It's doubtful they'll ever notice. I just don't think it's the sort of thing we want to encourage. People should not get into the habit of copying text they find on the internet into Wikipedia. Oh, and in the academic world at least, even a paragraph of text taken unattributed from elsewhere is definitely considered plagiarism. Isomorphic 00:51, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Don Plett

The copyvio is in the article history. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Don_Plett&oldid=13636908. RickK 07:41, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

Following proper procedure is not OTT. Just ask everybody who screams at me about "improper speedy deletions". RickK 07:49, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pioneer 12 block

Was Pioneer 12 given an official warning before the block was placed? If not, I believe the block should be lifted and a warning given instead. Kappa 15:48, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

FWIW, I fully endorse your blocking of this troll. RickK 21:44, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

I don't think he's a troll, but we cannot let people who dispute the terms and conditions continue editing. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:09, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Statistics

Thank you. But he'll come back as an anon, since he was posting the same drek as an anon before he signed up. RickK 21:43, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

No, this is my new signature, Tony! :) Image:Ban1.gif El_C 22:25, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
Stop censoring my image macros!!!!!11 El_C 22:40, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Tony, removing a huge chunk of discussion from AN/I unilaterally is totally wrong. And you've done it twice now! Please don't do it again. Everyking 22:35, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe it's a troll. The person has talked privately with me before; why would a troll bother with reasonable conversation? They're just about getting people angry, right? Everyking 22:57, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

You found that amounted to a reasonable conversation? WAU! :) El_C 22:59, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Tony, I ask you to please unblock this user. There is no consensus to grant admin authority to block for trolling, and even if there was, there is no consensus that the user in question is a troll! Everyking 05:35, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] meta-templates

Why did you unprotect these Sister project templates? My mentorship has nothing to do with the underlying technical reasons. There are users who choose not to adhere to the directions given by User:Jamesday (database developer), and you've opened up these to them again. -- Netoholic @ 00:37, 2005 May 16 (UTC)

  • Jamesday isn't god. The arbcom specifically said that the issue was being referred to the entire development community for analysis, and until then, the lack of community consensus would control. Not the failed policy proposal of one censured user. Firebug 00:41, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] vote at GWB article

I invite your vote to the GWB article...[[3]]--MONGO 05:52, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Snowman

Hi Tony, It was interesting to learn that the David Bowie intro was used in the U.K. too. I hope you got to see it. The original intro is beautiful artisitically, but, for those of us who admire David his intro was fun and special. I wish that they had put both on the dvd. I did add back a short line about us getting to see it here in the U.S., but if you feel that this intrudes on your info it doesn't need to stay.MarnetteD | Talk 20:07, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RfC Kapil

Hi Tony, largely in response to the atrocious behaviour of Kapil over the Fidel Castro article, I have opened an RfC on him: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/KapilTagore. I know you have edited that article and I wanted to bring this to your attention. It would be most helpful if you could take a look at it. Thanks, -- Viajero 00:27, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Turkey

Dont worry I am not here to complain about locking or anything. In the Turkey info box there used to be an info on Turkeys coat of arms, I know Turkey has no coat of arms and that was specified. That vanished somehow?? --Cool Cat My Talk 09:34, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

diff Davenbelle 09:46, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
Ah Davenbelle removed the info, you can reintroduce it to its proper location. --Cool Cat My Talk 19:49, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
See also: Turkey. — Davenbelle 06:47, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Request move

Hey can you please move GC2 to Nintendo Revolution? I saw an edit you did and realized you were an admin who could take care of this. Thank you. K1Bond007 18:10, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for taking care of this. I don't really know what happened, but someone appeared to have moved it a number of times before it got to GC2. ? Oh well, fixed now. Thanks. K1Bond007 18:35, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Request for (temporary) unprotection

Hi Tony,

I would like to have Wikipedia:Deletion log archive/July 2004 (3) temporarily unprotected to replace its contents with User:Grm wnr/Deletion log archive July 2004 (3) fixed. The difference between the two is that my version has all templates in <nowiki> tags, so the page doesn't show up in various cleanup categories anymore. I'd notify you on IRC when I'm done so you can protect the page again. Thanks in advance, -- grm_wnr Esc 23:43, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Image:WikiThanks.png -- grm_wnr Esc 00:19, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Threats

I don't responsd to threats usually...don't abuse your position or your more through understanding of Wikipedia principles and guidelines if you expect me to take you seriously. Personally I don't care how many reverts you do, but a quick glance indicates to me that you are also borderline in violation yourself. Besides, no doubt that one of my "reverts" was to revert a vandal in that the arguements he reverted back in have been in talk a lot lately and he should have engaged in discussion or at least been a participant and he hasn't been. Whether this is a Wiki principle or not, but it certainly has been voiced by many here in articles that are displaying the NPOV tag.--MONGO 04:28, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

No they weren't...the items I had restored against my revert had been in discussion ad nauseum...besides he didn't engage in discussion and there have been many folks that have clearly expressed that over particularily contested issues and in an article with the NPOV tag, folks should engage in discussion. Go ahead and block me...I could care less...it would prove my point about your lack of fitness to be an administrator. The only thing the 3RR rule does that makes sense is to keep the servers from getting overloaded.--MONGO 04:51, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

I really don't care what you do. I fail to see any explaination for your presence in the Bush article except to push a point of view. Enough said, Amen.--MONGO 05:10, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] School stubs

Hi there! You said that you don't have any problem with school stubs... well, thing is, we tried that and it doesn't have consensus, and leads to frequent VFD debates when a school stub is nominated for deletion. Hence, I feel we need some kind of compromise. This, by definition, won't be ideal for all parties, but it should be possible to make it acceptable. Radiant_* 15:04, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

  • No, that's not what I meant. My point is that I'm trying to prevent the regular, well, shouting matches on VfD. Your opinion is clear - but it is also clear that some people object strongly to school stubs and wish them deleted. There usually is no consensus to do so (although this depends a bit on who is on VfD that week) - but neither is there consensus to keep them. In fact, often up to two-thirds of the votes on a school are to delete.
  • The way I see it - we can either keep the status quo, which means that lengthy school votes will continue being a feature of VfD - or we can work out a compromise. Give a little, take a little. And that's what Wikipedia:Schools attempts. Radiant_* 15:26, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RfC on Neutrality

Regarding the RfC on Neutrality, I hope I have participated properly. Please review what I added to the RfC and let me know.

Further, I would like to know if it is appropriate to include the exchange that took place on the following VfD, or would this be a separate RfC? Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Christian_Liberty_Academy This "I don't feel like showing the least bit respect for someone" occured almost thirty minutes after my comment on his user page.

Unfortunately, if it is a legitimate but separate RfC, I don't have the time or experience to follow it up.

I am new to the politics and procedures around here, but I have been participating anonymously long enough to see how consensus is changing over time, and regret that we may have to reward a spammer with a bit of instruction creep, or curse the thought, a new policy regarding schools. Thanks in advance for your assistance. --Unfocused 15:19, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Per your instructions, I've been sitting back watching the RfC re: Neutrality proceed without much personal interest. I think it was a foregone conclusion that nothing significant would happen. --Unfocused 03:23, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
Re: RfC, Your positive attitude and optimism are both commendable and contagious.
Regarding email delivery trouble, I would have preferred you leave a brief note to contact you with a different email address. I still have some remaining concerns about what I wrote, but want them to remain concerns discussed among ourselves rather than part of the public record here at the Wiki. --Unfocused 14:19, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Quake IV move

Could you please move the Quake IV article to Quake 4? The official name is "Quake 4" with the number, not the roman numeral. Thanks. Thunderbrand 15:49, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Sock puppet/Proposal

Socks are generally blocked, but their owner is not generally held responsible. Check the 20+ socks in the table on said page; all of them are blocked, but for none of them was an effort made to find out which existing user was responsible. If User:X creates "User:Y is a jerk", then proceeds to vandalize Y's pages from that sock, I believe X should be warned or blocked for vandalism. That is not presently the case. Radiant_* 13:10, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Full of dreck" - fix random page?

Over at Wikipedia talk:Deletion principles poll you said: "I'm beginning to feel that this may be a human perception problem. Has anybody else ever had the feeling "oh no, Wikipedia is full of drek!" I get this any time I looked at an article about some Pokemon character or a weapon used by a minor bad guy on Page 282 of a book. Now some of this may genuinely not be worth even merging because nobody in his right mind would ever type the name of the article in, and the books are not referenced outside the book."
One reason people feel it's vitally important to get rid of unimportant "dreck" rather than focusing more significant materials is that it comes up on "random page", which is the face wikipedia presents to new users. I think it might be possible to resolve much of the controversy by marking articles which have some signficance, but only within a wider context, as "sub-pages", to be passed over by Random Page. Kappa 11:42, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Yes, I saw your idea, and don't think it's a bad one. We could perhaps make random page only show articles that were longer than 2kb (or 4kb, or whatever) in length and had at least one external link.

I don't use random page much any more, but I used to use it for cleanup when I first started. I hit it twenty times just now, and was pretty impressed with the results. Six months ago I would have got quite a few stubs of tiny American villages (or cities, as they're optimistically known) or pokemon characters. This time I got none. I did get a few articles marked as "stub" but all were pretty good. One of the twenty articles was about a school. It was fine. No problems at all.

I don't think the random page button is a problem for stubs. Wikipedia is growing impressively. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:08, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

  • My idea is slightly different from Unfocused's, I don't believe stubs should be hidden just becaust that's what they are, rather I believe that topics which are only important in a narrower context should considered sub-pages not full "articles".
  • The thing about random page is that when you talk to deletionists, qualitarians etc, they very often cite "what's a new user going to think" as a reason for deletion. There many editors who expend a great deal of time and effort reducing the visibility of "cruft" by merging or trying to get it deleted. If visibility was less of a problem, they could spend their time on pages which are more important to more users. Kappa 12:25, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I think it's a good idea to change 'random page', but please note that some people use that link specifically to find a random short page to expand or copyedit. I should also add my own viewpoint, which is that merging is often needed to organize information in a useful way, particularly if stubs are unlikely to ever get expanded, such as those on video game powerups or lesser characters from fiction (m:immediatism). Radiant_* 07:27, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
    • This "surfing for a small page" syndrome that I share with others is also why I suggested that if we do restrict the main page generator to articles only, somewhere off the main page, there should be a truly random page selector, AND a random stub selector. This would solve the "visibility problem" yet still allow those of us who hit the randomizer looking for something to improve to do that, too. --Unfocused 03:17, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chin up, if needed

I noticed a couple of comments from you (one on the mailing list, one on a talk page somewhere) that suggested you were getting a bit downhearted/fed-up with the ongoing inclusion debate. I just wanted to say that I virtually always I agree with you on this issue, and that your arguments really are better than those of your "opponents", so keep it up!

One interesting data point that indicates some deletionist thinking is "shallow". Angela Beesley was kept at VfD. By any normal standards she is not at all notable. It is symptomatic of the wider systematic bias in favour of technology and fiction. If deletionists really cared about quality we wouldn't have these problems, but in fact it is true that many voters don't think beyond their narrow world (on Wikipedia, biased towards the world view of a student), which is why we find bias against businesses and communities and schools - the drabness of the objects counts against them. I applaud your efforts to discourage this bias. Pcb21| Pete 13:13, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] School district lists

I noticed you've been creating some recently. You do realize that the lists as is are FAR from complete, right? IE California has over 1100 public school districts, not just 43. Don't get me wrong, I have been on board with the idea of keeping individual school info on broader pages, such as school districts, for some time (see Rhode Island schools, Washington, DC schools, User:Niteowlneils/new_articles#San_Jose, etc.--I purposely did not include the word "list" in their titles to try to convey that the articles should be more than just lists until the individual schools get big enuf to need splitting out), just wanna make sure you realize the scope of the situation. FWIW, PD US pub sch data is easy from here[4], here[5] for US private schools. Niteowlneils 01:24, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Argyrosargyrou editing article Cyprus dispute in a very uncompromising style

User:Argyrosargyrou is turning an excellent impartial article on the Cyprus dispute into an aggresive anti-Turkish article. He will remove anything which insinuates Greek Cypriots did anything wrong unto Turkish Cypriots, we are getting fed up of being accused of being "Turkish Propogandists" (Talk:Cyprus dispute)as he keeps calling us. Some input would be helpful, thanks. --E.A 13:14, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Your alternative barnstar as requested

Image:Faberge egg3.jpg
The ETPH Tribute is awarded to Tony Sidaway by Bishonen.

This trophy is awarded in recognition of all your great work. Normally I would drop it on your userpage, but with all the design on it, I daren't. Please insert it appropriately yourself! (You don't actually have to.)--Bishonen | talk 09:38, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] the oc controversy

hi,

a controversy consists of people controversly discussing it. i gave you examples for that and you can a) check on google b) ask religiously active jews if intermarriage is a main subject of duiscussion and if there has been a controversy related to this.

i do want the thing to be in there, because these tv series are very much part of how judaism is perceived in public and many jews get to be commented on it. and i think in a neutral article about a tv show points of controversy and public discussion should definitely be mentioned. as a compromise, i suggest we can create a section "public reactions" or so and mention that at least some jews have a problem with this. and since it is a controversy, of course on the other hand there are some who endorse it, especially ones who are intermarried themselves. there even seems to be a real chrismukkah movement that predates the series.

[edit] School poll

Hi there! While I think your wording of the poll is better than Neutrality's (as you say, 'this does have a chance of passing') I do think that what's being proposed (e.g. 'any editor may merge stubs') is redundant with existing policy, so I still don't see the need for putting this to a vote. Yours, Radiant_* 09:46, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

  • I agree with that, and I would like to create some sort of Mergist Awareness Project to explain to the community at large how, why and when to do a merge.
  • Regarding schools, it is too early for a poll, and I think we can resolve the issue without polling entirely. At Wikipedia:Schools, I think most people are agreed that merging is a viable solution for school stubs. If we have consensus, we don't need a poll. If we don't have consensus, there's no point in a poll.
  • Oh and btw you are right about 'notability' being a somewhat unsuitable word. It's widely in use but its meaning is not agreed upon. And some people dislike it entirely. Radiant_* 10:58, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
    • By the way - given the controversy on the very existence of this poll, would you agree that it's a good idea to remove it from Wikipedia:Recentchanges? It seems inappropriate - I've never seen such a poll or discussion on there before. Yours, Radiant_* 13:34, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
      • Done. And if he opens the poll tomorrow anyway, that's probably sufficient grounds for an RFC. Radiant_* 14:30, May 23, 2005 (UTC) (p.s. please give your opinion on the latest addition to the top of Wikipedia:Schools - I think stopping the incessant VfDebates would be useful)

[edit] Ohio schools

Salve, Tony Sidaway!
I did some work on the article Princeton City School District, Hamilton County, Ohio and saw you'd created a category, Category:Public education in Ohio. I checked the list of categories under Category:Ohio and see we already have a similar one, Category:Education in Ohio. PedanticallySpeaking 19:56, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Personal apology

I'd just like to personally apologise for the edit to the Dalek page. I feel terrible that my attempt at humour was miscontrued and that I went too far. As you've noticed, I've since withdrawn my request for adminship. I'm now sending a personal apology to all those who've opposed the adminship because of my actions. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:22, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't take it as a personal attack. I just felt you were owed an apology, along with those who were disappointed in me. I felt it was only fair! - Ta bu shi da yu 07:43, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The egg

Tony, I'm very sorry I've offended you. I should explain: I disagree with your take on Neutrality's VFD listings, and I don't think the attempts at dispute resolution were adequate. See, since Neutrality's non-reply to the posts on his talk page was the dispute, if I'm reading the RFC right, it seems to me that that dispute should have been followed by another layer of attempted dispute resolution, before going to RFC. I can't believe that Neutrality wouldn't have responded to a suggestion of mediation, for example. I hope you'll still allow me to think you a great guy who does great work. You sound mad enough to have deleted the egg out of hand, so I really appreciate the fact that you haven't. Still, of course, don't feel obliged to keep it if you don't like it any more. :-( Bishonen | talk 12:02, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Internodeuser ArbCom

FYI, a Request_for_arbitration has been opened on user Internodeuser. I bring your attention to this edit where you have had prior dealings with this user. -- Longhair | Talk 12:48, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Blade Runner (round two)

Hey... First off I wanted to thank you for your feedback on the article; it was essential in getting it prepared for the second round. But its the FA of Blade Runner is stagnating this time because of some phrases that are poorly written and a "mite pretentious". Although I agree with the criticism, I cannot really "see" these problems, hence I cannot fix them. Hopefully you or some of the other people I'm contacting can assist. Much thanks. - RoyBoy 800 15:47, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sabbatai Zevi

You marked the content of Sabbatai Zevi as a copyvio of text which I believe is public domain...(See paragraph 1 at Jewish_Encyclopedia) Tomer TALK 16:54, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

no prollem. Tomer TALK 17:10, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Alexandria, Virginia

Despite its mailing address, Carl Sandburg Middle School isn't in Alexandria. That's why it's part of the Fairfax County School District, which is a separate entity from the city schools! - DavidWBrooks 20:08, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Caulfield Grammar FAC

Hi! You previously voted to object this FAC nomination, but the article has been significantly upgraded and improved since then. I would urge you to have a second look before leaving your final vote. Thanks. Harro5 08:19, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pointless Waste of Time

Hi Tony. I just wanted to make sure that when you unprotected this page you were aware that it has been the target of a sustained and organised campaign to modify it as much as possible? DJ Clayworth 13:35, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

There was no sockpuppetry, but there was a a disgruntled webmaster who didn't want a wikipedia article about his site. I encourage you to read http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=14192 . Needless to say, re-opening this article will just take up a tremendous amount of everyone's time to no good effect. Wikipedia admins have enough to worry about already; I've re-reverted the article. Tlogmer 14:31, 25 May 2005 (UTC)


Alright, that works for me. You should know that one of the head authors of PWOT is strongly against there being a wikipedia article about the site (I sympathize -- analysis can often kill comedy): that was the impetus for the original edit war. But I doubt PWOT fans would come and mess with any other articles out of protest at this point -- everyone's pretty tired of the whole thing. So while I think the most stable situation would be for the article to remain deleted, I'm content with the protection. Thanks Tlogmer 16:26, 25 May 2005 (UTC)


You really belive that protecting those pages will stop vandalism? It didn't last time.Geni 16:38, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] VfD closing

Normally I would object to closing VfDs early - but these schools are just going to attract another two or three dozen of votes and shouting matches. There really isn't any point in letting them continue, you know what the end result will be. This is precisely what people are trying to prevent at both Wikipedia:Schools and Wikipedia:Deletion_policy/Reducing_VfD_load. VfD has more than tripled in size in the past year, and it still is an important function, so it doesn't need additional strain. Radiant_* 14:32, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

  • There is no problem with those VfD listings, and they are made in good faith. However, their end result is clear, and for some reason people want to keep regular shouting matches over the issue. I think that is considered harmful. I am not proposing another layer of policy, I am simply proposing to end repetitive and pointless debate. That seems like common sense. Apart from strictly sticking to policy, what is to be gained by keeping the debate open? Nobody is convincing anyone. Several people are insulting others. Wikistress rises. And eventually 'pedians are going to be chased off once more by the vehement debate. WP:NOT a bureaucracy, so why should strict policy override common sense? Radiant_* 15:07, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
    • Okay, I won't do that again any time this century. Radiant_* 11:54, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Did you vote for this?

Hi, I noticed during the VfD for Genesis_1:2, your name was listed as a voter, but the edit history listed User:Beta_m as the person that made the change for that edit. The same user then cast a vote, and I voted after that. The edit history was changed briefly to show that the two votes prior to mine had not been cast, and that I'd made several changes. Then, the edit history re-appeared, showing your username in place for the edit that was seemingly cast by you. Is someone gaming the system, or did you actually cast that vote?

Of course, there may be other reasons for this... Mindmatrix 21:17, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Alright, just thought I'd check. I'm still getting an incorrect edit history (it even eliminated one of my edits from the list). I'll disregard the problem for now. Mindmatrix 21:34, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Schwegman, Lundberg, Woessner & Kluth, P.A.

Thanks for your message on my talk page. See my reply on Votes for deletion/Schwegman, Lundberg, Woessner & Kluth, P.A.. --Edcolins 15:07, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Moving the Wiktionary template

Why on earth did you move the Wiktionary template down on the Nosebleed article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thorpe (talk • contribs) 22:31 UTC, 28 May 2005.

[edit] School discussion

Hi there! I've summarized the lengthy Wikipedia:Schools discussion and listed the statements that got approval from most people. I believe it's been a constructive page, and WikiProject Schools has benefitted from the revitalization. Anyway please take a look at it and write on the talk page if you found this acceptable. Also I'd appreciate some help in keeping any future VfD discussions on this matter from getting out of hand (I'm not entirely sure how, but we could set a good example by casting concise votes referring to /Arguments). Yours, Radiant_* 10:59, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for voting

Before the voting on European English ended a replacement was written, which is being subjected to a new round of voting. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/European English. 66.167.137.130 09:32, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RE: RFA

Feel free to nominate me on RFA. But I'll have to mention my Wikivacation from 9 May 2005 to 21 May 2005 and what caused me to leave and then come back again. Details of that are on the top of my user page, including the self-imposed restrictions I put on myself. So after reading that (if you haven't read it already) and you still feel like nominating me, go right ahead. I'll accept and I'll be curious as to what people think of me now and think about how that Wikivacation affected me. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 22:54, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Done. Thanks for nominating me. Wish me luck. Happy editing. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:08, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Thank you for your positive comments Tony, thoughtful persons such as yourself not only make difficult situations less tense, and doing the right thing easier, but are also a primary reason I am still here. Cheers,

Sam Spade 23:30, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] J. C. Penney

Wow, that took a lot of tracking down. So I protected the page on the 23rd, due to the block compression thing. I don't know specifically when it was deleted, but I assume all the block compression issues got dealt with at once. Yes, it was a marginal bad call, but there was a copyvio, and now the new version doesn't have one. So I don't much harm done, as we now have a new stub. Burgundavia (✈ take a flight?) 06:06, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RFA

Thanks for your remarks! I'm happy to see that we can disagree about a lot and still be productive together. Hm, and I'm presently at exactly 80% :) Yours, Radiant_* 10:24, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sock

I noticed that you refered to GRider as a sockpuppet on an edit summary for the WikiProject Schools page. Out of curiosity, who is he a sockpuppet of? I've run into him several times, and would be curious to know. Cheers. --BaronLarf 20:45, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

David Gerard ran a check and has posted at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Developer help needed that GRider was being used as a role account (along with several other accounts) by the sockpuppeteer and that he has suspicians (sp?) of who this is. To my knowledge though he hasn't posted anywhere public who he suspects. See [6] and [7] (see the last added paragraph). Thryduulf 21:18, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. --BaronLarf 00:07, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] I'm looking for a nice way to say not dead yet.

Perhaps you can help. I'm working on creating Template:Infobox Mayor, Template:Infobox Mayor/alive and Template:Infobox Mayor/dead similar to the same infoboxes for Senators, however, Mayors aren't in the public view nearly so much as Senators are. They might die without their articles being updated in quite some time. So, I'm looking for a way to phrase "not dead yet" in the infobox that doesn't sound crass or ghoulish, but lets the user know how dated the information is. It would also serve as a marker point to check the obituaries if you were to see that a Mayor's article hasn't seen him confirmed alive in ten years. Also, I'm still trying to think of a tactful way to insert that into the infobox itself.

I hope you can think of a phrase to help. Please edit the infoboxes, too! The only Mayor attached to these templates so far is Jack Ford of Toledo, Ohio (from the VfD pages).

Thanks! --Unfocused 05:45, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry 'bout that...

I'd updated the Princeton High School, Sharonville, ohio article pretty extensively last night and had, in the process, cleared the VfD link. Earlier that day, I checked the VfD and saw that there hadn't been a vote since 5/24 (a full week). As a newbie around here, I assumed then that the discussion was closed. Since that time there have been two votes on Princeton's VfD page, suggesting that the VfD discussion hadn't yet run its course. Sorry 'bout that, and thanks for putting the link back up. A question, however, how/when will I know whether the VfD discussion is closed for this particular article, and who has the power to officially close the discussion?

phschemguy 11:48, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] school-district-stub?

I've suggested the creation of a specific {{school-district-stub}} tag over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Criteria#School-district-stub. You've been creating some school district articles recently, maybe you could comment. Kappa 18:16, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia talk:Schools

I will no longer participate in this discussion, since you obviously are attempting to turn the page into a "let's make sure we keep every school that has ever existed" page. RickK 21:12, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

I am just very frustrated at the way the supposed discussion of Schools went, and how it's being rammed down people's throats without consensus. I went several weeks without voting on schools because this "discussion" was supposedly taking place, and now I find that it seems to have just been a front to put something in place while overriding the views of those of us who don't think that every school that has ever existed should have an article about it. It was originally, "All high schools are notable, but we don't think junior highs and elementary schools are." And now, it's "all junior high schools, elementary schools, primary schools and montessori schools should have articles." The discussion on the VfD home page that the schools discussion is closed is another attempt to push it down our throats, and I have dealt with that. But since you clearly said on the SCH Talk page that you think its purpose is to make sure that every school article looks good, I no longer see any point in discussing it. RickK 22:09, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Request for information on Mediation

I've seen that the last edit made to the mediation request between yourself and TDC was a while back on April 27. Has there been any progress since then. Has a mediator been assigned to the case? Is it still an issue or can I safely archive the request? Mgm|(talk) 18:06, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Alexander the Great

Glad to get some help on that one. Maybe humor can work where reverts haven't. Arg, we only just got over a nasty round of nationalism edits, and now homosexuality. Over 700 edits and most of them on hot-button issues. Meanwhile the article itself is frankly terrible. Okay, I'll stop griping. Lectiodifficilior 00:07, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Reducing VfD load

Re: "Remove notability speedies--we'll never get agreement on this. Translation, should go on VfD."

Maybe the word 'notability' was ill-chosen. But in the earlier discussion, many people agreed with some wording of this criterion, and looking at the previous 'extend CSD proposal' I'd say it has a reasonable chance - quite possibly after rewording. Mind if we put it back for now and discuss it? Radiant_* 13:48, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

  • I'd expect that most of these proposals get dropped after a bit more discussion; in other words you're probably right. But enough people think that VFD is overcrowded so I believe discussing it is still worthwhile. I've added your edit summaries as remarks in the article (please remove them if you think that inappropriate). Yours, Radiant_* 14:00, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/o/n/User_talk%7ETony_Sidaway_Archive_2005_06_06_d47f.html"