User talk:Tony Sidaway/Archive 2005 01 07
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
deletion |
Template:User Tony Sidaway/User
Contents |
[edit] Reverts on Autobiography (album)
Well, with one or two minor exceptions, I dislike the whole edit. Everyking 12:13, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Everyking has insisted that I take this matter to mediation. I'm disinclined to do so - particularly considering the above dialog between you two, but it's probably worth giving it a shot as one last attempt to avoid arbitration. If we do do so, would you be prepared to participate? It might be worth keeping some of those diffs (like that massive revert one) around in case this does go back to arbitration, as well, as they would be handy when presenting evidence. Ambi 11:26, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- It seems that Everyking is now refusing to deal with me unless I take the matter directly to arbitration. What would you think about taking over the mediation, in which case I'll pull out of the article entirely? It may be better, as I think Everyking has it in for me now - I can come back into the equation if it ever gets as far as arbitration. Ambi 13:14, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
-
- Can't say I blame you. Ambi 00:47, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Thanks
Hi Tony, I just wanted to say thanks for your efforts at the clitoris page. It seems like you're often the only one there with any common sense. I'm getting a bit jaded with the process, because I suspect many of the antis are simply trolling and not in search of any actual compromise or conflict resolution. I try to keep voicing my pro-photo position just so it doesn't get lost in the ridiculous milieu, and that position would be lost without you. Timbo 03:19, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The accusation of trolling is the last resort of someone whose argument does not stand up. I feel that Timbo's comment is intended to stir up bad feeling as much as it is to express fellow feeling. Everything I've had to say on the clitoris issue has been in good faith (I genuinely changed my mind on the picture issue because I realised my view was not consistent with my broader feelings about Wikipedia) and although Anthony is not conventional, I think he is a good-faith editor. Anyway, as is my custom, I've taken clitoris off my watchlist and I'm not editing it or its talkpage any further (I only returned because RoberttheBruce suggested that I'd be interested in looking again at it, and frankly he wasn't right -- the whole thing is very unedifying). I get tired of fighting with editors who believe that the correct way to build consensus is to hold polls and use the results as sticks to beat others with different views. The majority should not necessarily prevail. That is not what a wiki is about. Everyone should be happy if possible.
Anyway, Merry Christmas if you celebrate it and best wishes for the season. Dr Zen 09:53, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I don't think anyone wants anything removed. I think the way forward is a mechanism to allow the reader to censor pages for themselves. I understand your dislike for censorship and, believe me, in general I entirely support it. I would not be happy with a solution that eradicated the pictures altogether. But neither am I happy at all with the attitude that it just doesn't matter that some people are offended or don't share our view of what an encyclopaedia should be. I worship at the altar of inclusion, consensus and loving the alien, IYKWIM.
I hope you'll get behind (something like) VioletRiga's solution. At least accept that there is merit to both sides' views and work from there.Dr Zen 10:23, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- "But neither am I happy at all with the attitude that it just doesn't matter that some people are offended or don't share our view of what an encyclopaedia should be. I worship at the altar of inclusion, consensus and loving the alien, IYKWIM." If you mean that we should tolerate the question of what is encyclopedic or not, I agree. There is a wealth of material outlining what wikipedia is, but the most specific decisions can be in a gray area. If you mean that we should cater to every POV in a kind of vulgar pluralism (I take this term from Richard Rorty), I'd say that that's neither feasible nor possible. We must take a stance on what is encyclopedic, not cater to PsOV because it "doesn't hurt." It does hurt. Timbo 05:49, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
If that's true, I'm quite glad Zen isn't watching clitoris anymore. That comment wasn't meant for you, Zen; it was meant for Tony because I think he gets what the wikipedia is all about without his prejudices clouding his vision. That's why I put it on his talk page. I'm not attacking anyone. As far as my arguments "not standing up," I cannot conceive of any way in which they don't. I've been very straight-forward for over three months, and I have reason to believe that the majority of wikipedians agree with me. If you'd ever like to further respond to my clitoris views, please do so in the clitoris talk page. Sorry, Tony. Timbo 05:49, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
[edit] RfC on Everyking
Are you thinking of it? I know Reene is considering it but she's away. If one of you goes for it, I'm willing to endorse it. I hate to do it but the guy needs to start his own website if he doesn't want to be edited!Dr Zen 10:38, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I didn't realise Ambi had started an RfA! That's well out of order. I have to say she's one of my least favourite editors on Wikipedia: a champion of everything that I think is wrong with the place.Dr Zen 22:43, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
[edit] GNAA
Uh, it's five times if you count the tag that someone else added a long time ago. Tony, did you mean it when you said you wouldn't have done this if you'd known it was on 4 times already? - Ta bu shi da yu 03:26, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- OK, that's cool. I thought I'd just confirm. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:42, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
[edit] America
You reverted my edits in America and killed all formatting. Also, you restored "America's Cup". It doesn't belong there. It is a disambiguation page, for things that have the same name, "America", not the list of all terms that contain the word "America".I am sure you will agree there are hundreds of these. Please read the Wikipedia:Disambiguation rules. Therefore the only reason of inclusion of "A's Cup" could be that it is sometimes called simply "America". Even in such case it must be explained in the article. Mikkalai 17:05, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
[edit] OFC
You may decide you don't want to reactivate those bits of your brain, but some of us (myself, User:Modemac, User:ChrisO) have been hard at work bringing Category:Scientology up to scratch. Xenu is now listed on Wikipedia:Featured articles (and Chris Owen found some wackiness for it that amazed even me). Just in case you find yourself with way too much time on your hands ;-) - David Gerard 19:19, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Arbitration against Everyking
I have sought arbitration against Everyking on RFAr after it has become clear he refuses to alter his attitude. As you have been involved, I was wondering if you would be keen on participating or contributing evidence if the case is accepted (or even just making a comment on the page). Thanks. Johnleemk | Talk 15:05, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I don't think an RfC will work at this point. Everyking's just stonewalling discussion, and the compromises he comes up with aren't working. Furthermore, the issue is that he takes an attitude of ownership over the article, and despite my trying since the beginning of this dispute, he hasn't budged. Others have said the same thing, to no effect. An RfC wouldn't change anything; we've churned this issue over and over. Johnleemk | Talk 16:13, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
[edit] User:Tony Sidaway/Templates/TalkArchiveBar
Noticed this was vandalized by a porn ad and you reverted. Is this happening much lately? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:28, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I dunno, I just noticed on your page and zapped it there - the IP in question has no other contributions - David Gerard 23:34, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
[edit] DBOWTMP
My own acronym... Don't Be Obtuse When Trying to Make a Point. WTF are you getting at? -- Netoholic @ 00:58, 2004 Dec 28 (UTC)
[edit] VfD proc: Who makes changes?
Hey Tony, I know you didn't participate in this particular vfd but you're the only admin I'm familiar with and you seem pretty newbie friendly. If you look at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Messner's corpuscle, you'll see that I nominated this for deletion. I wasn't aware of the mispelling policy (prior to nominating) and the majority seems to agree on the redirect. So I went ahead and created the redirect. This page seems to have disappeared from the main VFD page (I guess that happens after the {{vfd}} tag is removed?), so I'm not sure if anyone else will see it and address my question. I'm wondering who usually does the changes (if it's agreed to redirect, as in this case, for instance) and how long one needs to wait? Thanks in advance! --jag123 19:34, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Sorry about the admin thing; I saw you on the admin board and just assumed. Either way, you seem to be knowledgeable and helpful, so that works for me. In Section 1.7 (When the Lag Time runs out), it says that VfD "will stay until an admistrator has time to act on the consensus decision". Just to confirm (and contrary to that quoted part), it is okay for me to fix a page in accordance with the consensus? I don't want to step on any toes or pass off as presumptuous. Also, if you could peek at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Human cells, what would usually happen here? Will it just get overlooked? Thanks again!--jag123 20:33, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for your input Tony, you've been most helpful. I never really considered just changing the page and having people revert it if they disagree. I guess I placed some kind of special status on pages with a vfd tag. In any event, I'll go ahead and follow your suggestion. --jag123 22:11, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
[edit] RfC
If you don't mind me asking, I'd appriciate your support at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mbecker. Thanks. — マイケル ₪ 04:41, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)
[edit] GNAA on VfD
Tony, I realise it's too late, but I wish you had noticed GNAA to be on VfD before, and come to me to talk before putting it back. While I still feel that it's non-notable vanity, there seemed to be the general idea that things should not be nominated on VfD too often, and we'd get a better shot at consensus if we were to have waited several more months. As-is, I hope but doubt that it will pass. --Improv
- For what it's worth, I disagree with your decision to vote keep. The damage done from listing it too early is already done, and if it fails to be deleted this time, we'll need to wait a long time before we have another reasonable shot. However, that being said, voting to keep does not help -- it only makes this nomination have even less of a feeling of legitimacy. I ask you to restore your vote to delete, as you feel the page should be deleted. --Improv 19:26, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Hello, just wanted to drop by and point out that just because I think the nomination on vfd was invalid (in 20/20 hindsight :-P ), doesn't mean I think you're invalid too ;-)
I understand you made the nomination in good faith, and I'd like to apologise for thinking you hadn't for a moment there. I really shouldn't do that.
Kim Bruning 02:34, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Hi Tony, I just want to say that I think your nomination was perfectly valid and that I am sorry there seems to have been a backlash over it. I voted for delete and still remain firm. I do not believe we should yield to trolls. CiaraBeth 22:05, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Seconded. Elf-friend 08:55, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I am confused. Votes by non-registered users are not counted, this is a Wikipedia policy. There is no weighting. The strikethru makes this clear. Why do you object to this? Jooler 14:28, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Tony, instead of making false accusations, why don't you go to the article talk page and discuss the points I've recently raised? This would be a good opportunity to prove you're interested in discussion and not just in getting your way. Everyking 15:59, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Head (hydraulic)
Hi Tony, I noticed we have both been working on head links. I had been meaning to do this for a while while working on the water turbine pages.
Anyway, I didn't think it through because Hydraulic head doesn't accommodate compressible fluids, and head is a common term for steam applications.
So to fix it we could;
- re-create head (fluid mechanics) and have a compressible and non compressible section, or
- leave hydraulic head and create another head page for compressible fluids.
I'm thinking (1) is the way to go, what do you think?
thanks Duk 19:50, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- OK, I'll think about it some more, and probably move head (hydraulic) to head (fluid mechanics). Good work on all the head links. Duk 20:05, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
