User talk:Tony Sidaway/Archive 2005 01 27
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
deletion |
Template:User Tony Sidaway/User
Contents |
[edit] Alison Moyet
well now.. seems quite strange that we can not use simple everyday terms that we have written and spoken easily more than 100,000 times (that are in no way carry 'copyright', and are provided for other's use only by us)elsewhere when issuing our publicity and histographical information, but we will change a few things for the sake of simply removing your lies about this artist.
regards,
Jas contact@AlisonMoyetForums.net
- Wikipedia:Cite sources is the best way to deal with arguments on these matters. Also, we prefer it if people assume good faith rather than calling people liars. But do keep contributing - David Gerard 02:19, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
[edit] L. Ron Hubbard, confidence trickster
Actually, I consider Scientology a scam, and I think Hubbard was a con man until the day he died. (And beyond, since his writings are still in circulation.) But applying Category:Confidence tricksters to his article seems somehow POV to me, and I can't quite decide down why. —tregoweth 08:36, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Good comment
I'll copy one of the better comments you have made in this endless flame war about Wikipedia's future:
I don't think I'm saying "my values matter, yours don't". You do not know my values. I am saying "the only values that matter in a Wikipedia article are whether it's NPOV and encyclopedic." If I am likely to be offended or upset by any part of the content I don't have to look at it (as I've indicated, there are areas of Wikipedia of which that statement is true for me).
I'll just say that this is a nice comment. Samboy 00:11, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
[edit] autofellatio
Well, the image didnt last long. And it was your good old friend Userking who reverted it. Just one question: does everyone hate this guy? it seems to me that there are so many users who are getting into big kerfuffles over most of the stuff he edits. Reply here if u want.--Onefool 01:00, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Autofellatio
Nice try! Looks like you ran into a censor though. Ahem. Now, why don't you try to create the same "consensus" there that you wanted for clitoris?Dr Zen 04:58, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I'm not bothered either way. I wanted to test whether the picture was linked because people wanted it linked or just because it had always been linked. I don't do revert wars and I don't do solo campaigning.
On consensus, I have abandoned your extreme inclusivist conception of consensus as unworkable. If an article reaches a stable state without protection I think there may be some justice in pragmatically defining that as a consensus. It does require editors to be a bit more restrained than some of the revert warriors we have seen on clitoris. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:22, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- My "extreme inclusivist conception of consensus"? Consensuses are inclusivist, Tony. They are not simply the will of the majority. Still, I'm tired of trying to explain that to you.
- The article is "stable" because the "revert warriors" are no such thing. I admit it, Tony, I occasionally use a strategic revert, usually so that I can bring a POV warrior to the table (never, ever to prevent them from having their say). I always commit myself to discussion -- sometimes at very great length. I give my correspondents the full chance to describe their position. It's been difficult in your case because of course we hold the same POV about clitoris pictures in general but I am not arguing that we should just push a POV, but that we should fight for all POVs. I won't be dropping that focus in my work any time soon. I'm strongly committed to NPOV and equally committed to inclusive solutions where they are possible. I still believe in the wiki part of the pedia!
- What I think you don't understand is that I feel that our "side" if you want to call it that has been restrained (with one notable exception, but one doesn't always choose one's bedfellows). Creating a consensus that includes all views on that page involves scaling a mountain. Most of the views on the other side are quite antiwiki. Some are extremely hard to appreciate. For instance, the insistence that users should expect graphic pictures in an encyclopaedia even though no other encyclopaedia carries them or that "puritans" ought to read disclaimers, while others need not, to get an idea of what there might be for them to disapprove of. I think you're well capable of seeing why those arguments are flawed and why, if you stepped back from your POV, you would find them hard to support. As I say, I share the POV. I have no doubt that the world would be a better place were it populated entirely with enlightened, liberal English people, but it is an unignorable truth that it is not, and that Wikipedia is not a project to educate them to become that, but to make available to all of them all human knowledge. Tony, you picture young girls' coming to the article to get information on where to find their clitorises. But there are girls who would be scandalised by the picture. Are they to be barred from the knowledge in the article because we will not link the picture or put in a mechanism to suppress the pictures?Dr Zen 12:11, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I'm well aware of your concept of consensus--I've had occasion to point out to you that it implies that Raul and Chocolateboy should be happy, not just you and I. Have no fear, I was not referring to you as a revert warrior, in particular. But revert warriors are involved in editing that page in pro- and anti-picture roles.
I don't think it is a question of whether paper articles on the subject contain pictures (although if it were CiaraBeth's account of the explicit pictures in her kids' textbooks would tell me all I need to know). I do think it's reasonable to expect a person who is likely to object to various items of content on the web should get into the habit of reading disclaimers--that is what they're there for. You refer to girls who would be "'scandalized" by the picture. They can use their browser controls just as I do when I visit an entry on a subject that triggers my phobia. If they don't do that, they will be informed.
This is an encyclopedia. We're not in the business of deciding which pictures might upset people and which might not. We're in the business of deciding which pictures are informative and which are not. The users can decide on the other question and use their browser controls accordingly. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:49, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I'm not going to join you in giving it a try, thank you very much! Ha. OK, Tony, you can add the image back if you want. Personally, I'm not terribly fond of the idea that anything can be shown on a Wikipedia page just because it's relevant to the subject matter, but believe you me, that's not a dispute I want to get involved in. Everyking 08:26, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Oh yeah, and tell User:Onefool that I ain't really such a bad guy. Everyking 08:27, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
[edit] clitoris
- Glad to see you back Tony. Very interested to find out the motivation behind the need to insert a picture which does not depict the clitoris in the clitoris article. Fascinating stuff. - Robert the Bruce 04:20, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I prefered the black and white pic. I thought it more instructional and did better depict the clitoris. I am beginning to wonder what this male fascination is to see the clitoris pulled from behind the hood. I wonder if they have this misoginistic fascination with it because doing so causes intense pain to many young girls. If a man tried that on me when he was visiting down there, he would be likely to end up with a broken nose from my foot kicking him. ;)CiaraBeth 17:12, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Redirecting Orange
I take it you have read Talk:Orange, and disagree with it? JRM 21:11, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC)
Yes, very much so. Oranges already points at the fruit, now Orange points at the color and both have pointers to disambiguation for people who have place names to find or didn't type "orangemen" instead. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:05, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Fair enough, since the colour orange is ahead of the fruit orange, if not by much. I don't understand why the existence of oranges is supposed to prove anything, though. That's an ordinary plural redirect. "Something without parentheses already links to it" is largely irrelevant, since you're not supposed to link to [[foos]] anyway, no matter what foo you're talking about. (And if I had my say those Orangemen and "Orange County" places wouldn't even be there, but that's another story.) JRM 23:17, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC)
[edit] Duplicated articles...
I got your message, and after reading it, I tried to move it to the another page, but it didn't work...would you be able to merge the two? BigDan 04:24, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
Reply: Thanks for the reply...I'll make the request now. BigDan 04:39, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Fish
Changing to Category:Fish by Region. I would've done it sooner (even before your message) but my computer was having one of its fits where it just doesn't like Wikipedia for a few hours.--ZayZayEM 14:40, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
[edit] RfC against Everyking
I have filed an RfC against Everyking. Those concerned who have participated in this debate can certify it, while those who agree with my summary of the dispute may endorse it. If you've been involved in similar disputes (i.e. Autobiography promotion and publicity, La La (song)), feel free to add your own summary in the outside views section. You can endorse more than one summary, and still can certify the dispute. Johnleemk | Talk 19:07, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Abu Ghraib again
I don't know whther you want to get involved with this, but if you do, please take a look at Talk:Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse (censored) and Talk:Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse]] Jooler 11:12, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Page moves?
Hi Tony,
You wrote: "in practice I think you could have moved this yourself because the only thing at the target location is a redirect with no history". I've seen this kind of comment before, but I don't understand. If I try such a move, it fails. As far as I can tell, you have to be an admin to move a page over another one, even one that has no history. ? Dbenbenn 22:48, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Never mind, I figured it out. Dbenbenn 18:05, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Can you sign your vote for moving to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints - Thx for supporting this move - sorry wrong person - Have a good day! Trodel 02:18, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Please don't post profanity on Wikipedia:Requested moves.
[edit] IfD
Hi Tony, I thought you might want to put in your two cents at the IfD on autofellatio.jpg. Cheers, Timbo ( t a l k ) 19:09, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
