User talk:Tony Sidaway/Archive 2005 08 04

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

user

talk

watchlist

watched

sandbox

user links

deletion

more links

Template:User Tony Sidaway/User

Contents 1 My RFA: Thanks 2 Racist edit 3 Response 4 Personal Attack on Coolcat's talk page 5 Thanks for your support 6 GWB article 7 Danzig 8 Template:Gdansk-Vote-Notice 9 Revert on VP (misc) 10 Knock it off 11 Time Cube 12 Two Rams Butting Heads 13 Cyprus dispute 14 Survey guidelines fixing 15 apartheid 16 Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/No_Answers in Genesis 17 Reducing VFD load 18 Apartheid 19 physical space - errors 20 Physical space 21 Kantar 22 Worries about speedies 23 Foreskin fetish 24 Apartheid 25 RfC 26 Coolcat/Davenbelle/Stereotek 27 Coolcat's RfC 28 Mediate? 29 Wiki leave 30 Well done, Tony 31 Trey Stone 31.1 Final note 32 Halfway edits 33 In my defense 34 Inviting folks to become users 35 Abortion 36 W. Mark Felt 37 Vanunu 38 Brandon School - Thanks. 39 RFC against MARMOT 39.1 Insight into the situation 40 You are responsible for this 41 Everyking Mentorship 42 Apartheid 43 My RFA 44 Policy of Wiki to newcomers 44.1 Ended 45 Again, you are responsible 46 Request for guidance 47 Mesereau(x) 48 ??? 49 Silverback 50 Ooh err, missus 51 Your insults to me 52 Roger Moss (photographer) 53 Congratulations, your bad faith has won. 54 Interested in an L.A.-area Wiki meetup? 55 Requested move 56 Michael Moore edit 57 Checkers 58 In re Terri Schiavo (partially restored) 59 Removal of Quotes for Michael Moore 60 Charles Chan 61 Armenian Genocide 62 Science High School 63 RfC case you may want to comment on... 64 email 65 Southeastern Anatolia Project 66 User:Coolcat's RfC 67 ArbCom 68 Talk:Homosexuality 69 Hey 70 You begrudge me defending myself? 71 CSD Proposal 3-B 72 Request for arbitration 73 Edip Yuksel 74 Tidewater plantation 75 The GAP Project 76 Proposal P1 77 Pottsville High School VfD 78 Your protégé 79 ExpDel 80 autofellatio 81 GNAA VfD 82 Usenet people 83 Tag 'n bag 84 Convene 85 Article "List of Italian-American mobsters" in category "Category:Italian-American mobsters" 86 Population transfer 87 RFID "inappropriate content" 88 Taboo (album) 89 Rules? 90 List of biomedical terms 91 Coulter 92 Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/List_of_biomedical_terms 93 Trey Stone 3RR block 94 Terri Schiavo 95 My apologies for my behaviour on #wikipedia recently 96 problem over my userpage 97 IRC/article idea 98 Yet Another London Wikimeet 99 Ann Coulter 100 Trey Stone 101 thank you for your opinion on my RfA 102 Master Thief Garrett 103 Langer 104 Arbitration Committee case opening 105 Butt hook 106 Rafael Carreras 107 Template:Stanley Kubrick 108 Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Religious persecution by Jews 109 Thomas Garret 110 VfD pollution 111 Calvary Christian High School VfD 112 Yangon 113 Apparently another sockpuppet 114 Holy crap! 115 Your comment 116 Help please 117 Copyright Violation Accusation 118 Hoax 119 Signature preferences 120 RfC 121 Price-Anderson 122 VfD Antonia Bance - not complaining! 123 Tekken characters 124 Khmer Rouge 125 Consensus 126 Stubs on Deering Oaks

[edit] My RFA: Thanks

Thank you again for nominating me and your support on my RFA. Now that I have been promoted, I promise to be as hardworking and fair with the admin tools as I have been with the other areas here on Wikipedia. See you around and happy editing. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:56, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Racist edit

Although I appreciate that you reverted the edit, I am more concerned with whether it was a sock puppet of a member on these boards who is currently under threat of arbitration. Is there a way to find out?

Guy Montag 01:16, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Response

You started it ...again. Don't say you've "ditched" my good faith edits and expect me to roll over. Don't order me to do anything. What do you really care about the article for anyway? If all you wish to do is use it as a place to incorporate your POV then why not go find some blog to post your biases?--MONGO 04:01, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ah, yes, Tony, I thank you for pointing out my flaws...for there are so many...I am just a MONGO afterall. I am just nothing when I stand in your light...--MONGO 07:47, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Personal Attack on Coolcat's talk page

Hi, Tony. Coolcat has a comment re Stereotek and myself on his talk page saying that we should go screw ourselves; I've struck it out twice and would appreciate it if you would suggest to him that he should cease posting such comments; thanks. — Davenbelle 05:03, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for your support

Thank you for voting on my RFA. Have some pie! I was pleasantly surprised by the sheer number of supporters (including several people that usually disagree with my opinion). I shall do my best with the proverbial mop. Yours, Radiant_>|< 08:01, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] GWB article

I was displeased when you stated in your edit over me that you "ditched" my edit. I responded that you were a vandal for which I apologize. I hold you to a higher level of imput than to refer to a revert over me as ditching but forgive you for this. I also forgive you for your politics as I know you are British and politics there are inherently more liberal than in the U.S. I also respect your not using 3RR as a tool to suppress but think that in cases of blatent vandalism, you should reconsider.--MONGO 19:07, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I saw that you blocked him. Glad to see that you block vandals...I also have a question....you have warned me for not "gaming" the 3RR and at times I have been close and, well, without going into it anymore, was just blocked. Regardless, I see JamesMLane also had 3 reverts in 24 hours and was coming close to going over his "limit"...yet I didn't see any warnings from you to him of this issue...political motivations perhaps? Have a nice day, Tony, gotta git to work ya know....--MONGO 20:57, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Danzig

Hi Tony. I saw your changes to the Talk:Gdansk/Vote page regarding the 3RR and consensus. I note that, in the conditions to the page, there is this phrase: "An absolute majority (50% or more) wins the vote, where neutral and abstain votes are excluded." Can I ask why you arbitrarily changed this? If you feel it needs rediscussion, then you should bring it up on discussion, not make the decision yourself. smoddy 18:50, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Still, you made that edit without discussing the change. I would maintain that it would be more sensitive and more respectful of the many users who have quoted that decision if you were to have brought it up on the talk page beforehand. smoddy 21:42, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• You may want to check Wikipedia_talk:Survey_guidelines#Fix_the_loopholes and help us fix this policy. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 11:17, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• • (edit conflict) **I think the whole point of the vote was that there was no other way. Consensus would never have been reached, so an unconventional system was needed to counteract that. I agree that it wasn't perfect, but desperate times call for drastic measures. "Be bold" is all well and good, but there are occasions, particularly in especially controversial areas, when it is better to "be cautious". This isn't unwiki, it's just polite. smoddy 11:24, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Gdansk-Vote-Notice

Hi. Sorry, but I rolled back your edits on Template:Gdansk-Vote-Notice, after Jayjg rolled back Talk:Gdansk/Vote. The vote was already the outcome of a dispute resolution process, and there was an explicit support of an enforcement of the outcome of the vote. I also think this is necessary, because a vote has no effect whatsoever if it is not enforced, and some people just ignore community consensus. Let me know if you want to discuss that inmore detail. Sorry again. -- Chris 73 Talk 16:46, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I'm with Tony on this one. I voted against the original "enforcement" provision, having just such anxieties. While I hardly want to encourage User:Halibutt's disruptive activity, it could certainly be argued that he does have a point. Under what interpretation did this vote achieve "rough consensus"? Was Chris_73 and appropriate person to "call" the vote, given his status as an, in not the active proponent of such measures? And should policy debates for an open-ended number of articles be taking place on the talk pages of single articles, anyway? Alai 17:27, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What Alai said. Changes to wikipedia-wide policy should be discussed wikipedia-wide. Also, there wasn't consensus for the exception from the 3RR, just a majority. --W(t) 17:33, 2005 Jun 12 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. The problem with any community consensus is that some people just don't care about consensus, citations or references, and simply revert back to their preferred version only three times per day. In my opinion, Wikipedia lacks any good methods to curb such a behavior. Having the whole vote on Gdansk (or any other content question) would have been a waste of time if there is no way to enforce it. I am not sure if the 3RR exemption is the best way, or if there are other ways. I am happy for any suggestions in that direction. Maybe Piotrus's proposal discussion will lead to a better solution. As for now, I would continue to support the 3RR exemption, even though the rule can be misused like most other rules, too. Regarding the vote outcome, with the current count it is 61%. This is not stellar, I agree, but still way more than half (Whole EU constitutions fail on such votes ;) Plus, many voters explicitly opposed the label "Vandalism", but may have supported it otherwise. But again, I am open for suggestions. Another thing I would like to get off my chest: I have no particular interest in Poland, or the naming of these places. Before starting the vote, I did pretty much no edits in this area at all. I merely tried to solve one large dispute by a vote. There was a strong majority for double naming, and since then I am trying to enforce this outcome. While I do not care much about the naming in individual articles, I revert some users who despite vote consensus mass-removed any double naming on hundreds of articles. Thanks for listening -- Chris 73 Talk 18:51, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Revert on VP (misc)

My reverting your insertion of pages worth of multi-year old conversations about the London Underground from points unknown is far easier to understand than why you put them there in the first place. -- Cyrius|✎ 22:48, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It seems I obliterated the actual intended comment along with everything else, which would explain your annoyance. Sorry. -- Cyrius|✎ 23:31, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Knock it off

Your repeated following me around, making attacks on me and reverting my comments are not acceptable. I will not put up with it. Knock it off. RickK 23:25, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Time Cube

Hi Tony,

Let's discuss what's going on in Time Cube. The person we are trying to get banned has been editing the Time Cube pages for two years, and has baited a number of users into long discussions of his crackpot theories. After the page was protected from this person, an RfC was posted, about three weeks ago. I responded to the RfC, and after discussion among those paying attention to the article, we agreed that the person would never be convinced to stop.

We could take the matter straight to arbitration, but I wanted to make sure they would realize how strongly our case is supported, hence the poll. The poll is also listed on RfC—Sean κ. + 03:32, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Two Rams Butting Heads

Hope you don't mind me dropping in to say 'Hi'... I've seen you lurking around the Vfd discussion and on Vfd, natch. So when this came up, I thought I'd say a personal Hi and pick your brain as I dropped in on Mr Tans Talk page to deliver a heads up, to wit, I reinserted the Map he'd deleted from Tsushima Strait. In looking at the last version of Mr Tans, and the reverted version you unprotected, I'm puzzled. There are a number of truly trivial stylistic changes, (e.g. The Famous Castle Vs. no 'the'). But why is the significant add - a whole sentence about a political entity totally ommitted? Is Tans historical point in dispute, or is this an overreaction to 'yet another Tan Change' by someone? btw here's what I wrote him...

I left the first two comments in the talk page on Tsushima strait... this is what we call a "heads up" in American slang; in general, a courtesy. (I put the map back).

• Map is better than nothing. Did you miss the inset showing the relative size, position and locations of Korea and Japan?. It's also free since it's in the system already. It will do until I learn how to request a map and one is generated.

• We need to add relative and absolute sizes of the Tsu-Shima strait and Korea Srait. One historian mentioned the Korea Str. as circa 64 nautical miles - near a degree of Longitude, and as I recall, the Islands are offset more towards Korea. I was skimming rather than purusing, so should be able to run that down sometime very soon. Would rather have geographer or navigator input instead of historian, but he's likely to be close. Someone also dropped the hyphen as is used by Brittish historian Richard Hough ("The Fleet that Had to Die"). My principle focus is on the Russo-Japanese war +/- a couple of decades. Drop me a note if the map bugs you enough to request a replacement! ttfn Fabartus 03:50, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I see you're already in a near shooting war with a few folks. Hope you leave the map until it can be improved. If I can help you with phrasing something, drop me a note. If complicated, send me your email (first) via my user page 'email this user' and I'll send you mine back (so you can send the larger document). I have no chinese, but am willing to help you phrase things properly and perhaps overcome some of the problems you are having in the above. Best wishes. Frank Fabartus 04:45, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hope I won't regret the diplomacy! Can you also tell me how to request Map support? Thanks Fabartus 04:45, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cyprus dispute

Hi! I noticed that you unprotected the Cyprus dispute page on June 11. As of today (June 13), one of the users previously involved in edit-warring (and currently subject to a RfAr), made some fairly massive edits. I don't know if they're historically accurate or not, so I dropped a note on User:Snchduer's talk page, since he seemed one of the more moderate edittors involved in the project, asking him to check it out. You might want to take a quick peek at it as well. Best Wishes! Scimitar 19:20, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Nevermind, I've confirmed it's vandalism. --Scimitar 21:55, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Okay, that isn't vandalism per se, but his edits to my user page and to that of ChrisO are. It looks like he's under a 24-hour block now. --Scimitar 22:42, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Your unprotection of the Cyprus dispute article was somewhat inappropriate since the conflict that resulted in its protection has not been resolved. Please let me know on what grounds you have unprotected the article (except that it was protected for a long time ... 12 days that is). --Ank99 09:51, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Survey guidelines fixing

So that the Gdansk/Vote horror never repeats itself :) Please see the proposal at my userspace, it is an updated version of Template_talk:Gdansk-Vote-Notice#Constructive_proposal. After I hear (or not) and incorporate comments from you and several other users I know are interested in fixing this, I will officialy move this to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) and I would like you to be one of the co-signatures of the proposal. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 20:07, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Tnx for the comments, I tried to incorporate them into the final version. See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Fixing_giant_loopholes_in_Wikipedia:Survey_guidelines.I don't want to formalize all votes and surveys, only those that like Gdansk/Vote infringe/break other official policies like the 3RR in case of Gdansk/Vote. Fuzzy and inbinding votes are good - but not in important matters. as Gdansk/Vote headache have demonstrated. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 19:33, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] apartheid

There are some reverters there, that do not contribute to the Discussion and are deleting with no justification. Please review. 69.217.125.53 21:23, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/No_Answers in Genesis

I've changed my vote. However, the article still needs a pretty massive cleanup and POV removal, along with references to prove notability. --Scimitar 23:38, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reducing VFD load

Hi there! I was wondering if the speedy criteria suggested in that page would actually help, so I did some analysis of old VFD pages, and wrote it down on Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Reducing VfD load/Analysis. I found several dozens of pages in clear categories (mainly 'vanity') that always got >80% delete votes, and in most cases no keep votes whatsoever. I also found no real false positives. However, would you please look over my statistics and see if you find any mistakes, or things subject to different interpretation? Thanks, Radiant_>|< 11:51, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

• I'd have to disagree; CSDs are stricter than that. For instance, CSD#1 isn't "short articles", it's "very short articles with little or no context". Similarly, this CSD is not "vanity", it's "articles about a person that do not assert significance or imporatance". All counter-examples you list clearly assert importance, as does Cheryl Campbell. Zetor is not a person, it's a tractor. You do have a good point about fictional people, the criterion should be reworded to account only for real people.
• Admins rarely abuse current speedy criteria, and if they do they get taken to task on VFU and admonished and rarely do it again. As long as this criterion is clearly not named 'vanity' but something significantly stricter than that, I see no reason to suspect why it would be more abused than the present ones. And it would keep over a dozen unanimous deletes off VFD, daily. Yours, Radiant_>|< 08:44, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, the obvious way to avoid CSD abuse would be to replace one vague rule (#1) by a small number of well-defined ones. At the moment, attack pages and forks (among others) are deleted with some regularity, despite having to matching criterion in CSD. But those deletions are seldom contested. That means that, apparently, the rules conflict with common sense. This means that either the rules will have to be amended and partially give way to common sense, or the rules will get increasingly ignored to the point where they are meaningless. Thus, we should expand the CSDs a bit, and stamp down hard on any transgressions. Radiant_>|< 09:04, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, I appreciate hearing your concerns for rewording the proposal. Given the amount of support it has received so far I do intend to make this an official proposal in the near future, but wording and specifics are very important. I would like to simultaneously propose a moratorium on 'bending the rules' on CSD - WP has very few strict rules and policies, but this happens to be one of them. They are mutable given enough support, but should not be crossed on a whim. By the way, you claimed that we see a lot of improper VFD nominations for vanity, from Admins... I would like to see some evidence thereof, because it's an important issue that needs addressing. Radiant_>|< 12:06, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Apartheid

I used protection because this person uses anons, so a block might not help that much. But feel free to lift the protection if you block them. (And thanks for consulting me - having done so, I'm happy to support whatever actions you take.) Noel (talk) 15:16, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I've been cutting it fine :) But I'll go find some other vandals to look after. Dewet 18:08, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Tony, the Apartheid editor is back and reverting again. I'm hoping you have the magic touch that can deal with this. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:02, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] physical space - errors

Hi I saw your vote to save Physical space but I have just put in some comments about how wrong it is and I hope you'll rescind your vote. It may kind of look good to the casual reader, but it misses the whole idea of curved spaces; the curvature is defined by the geometry within them and it is misleading to look outside. I think there are some popular books on this and I can look for them if you want. But we are stuck here in a 4-dimensional space and the "straight lines" this guy is thinking of are actually the geodesics in it; you cannot wish away the curvature and stick our universe in a larger flat space. Thanks for reading. Pdn 17:54, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Physical space

OK - thanks for reply. You seem to have a reasonable point. I do wonder if it is cleanable, though. The whole title "Physical space" is misleading. The contents for physics could be deleted, and entries put in for "artistic space" or "artistic space concepts," "psychological space" (which we all need so much), etc. Large parts of the article were also written by people identified only by an I.P. address.Pdn 18:09, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kantar

Thank you Tony Sidaway !
Please send along any other elements in the original entry besides that main content... for Kantar
For example, the writer, any links, et cetera...
dsaklad@zurich.csail.mit.edu 07:45, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Worries about speedies

Yes, I see how that can happen even now - but that was an instance of an admin not reading the history of a vandalized page before deleting it, and it was quickly found and recovered, and I'm sure the admin will pay better attention in the future. Of course, so should the lot of us, but I fail to see how this would become worse if two or three CSDs are added. Yours, Radiant_>|< 12:47, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

• "He is most famous for his tireless campaigns to have the death penalty abolished." - asserts notability. Once more, this was quickly found and recovered. It is indicative that some admins should be more careful with speedy'ing, but existing fallback mechanisms (reading the logs, VFU, speedy restoring) do work. The question, ultimately, is a tradeoff between costs and benefits. Adding a couple of speedy criteria would save the dozens of VFD frequenters about twenty discussions per day (not to mention the fact that these are precisely those votes that tend to attract sock puppet keep votes and exasperating spurious discussion). It would plausibly lead to a couple more improper speedies. But analyzing the recent undelete log, I find a total of twelve undeletions amidst the last two thousand deletes, of which only two were actually about articles (the rest were procedural, undoing one's own delete within minutes, restoring a deleted template's talk page, etc). Consider the efficiency. Radiant_>|< 13:41, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, I'm glad that you are not bothered by the current VFD load, but fact is that many people are, as indicated in that discussion. Also, there is no reason to suspect that VFD would stop growing. Radiant_>|< 14:04, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Foreskin fetish

Tony, there are several problems with using the term 'intact' rather than 'uncircumcised' here.

The first is that when there are a choice of words, we should use the most precise. Intact has a more general meaning, yet the fact that we wish to convey is that the penis has a foreskin (equivalently, has not been circumcised).

The second is that uncircumcised is always correct, whereas 'intact' may not be. Consider a penis with a pierced foreskin. It is clearly not intact, yet it is uncircumcised. If we use the more general meaning here, we may be factually incorrect. A hypothetical foreskin fetishist might be driven wild with primaeval lust over this particular foreskin, yet it is not intact. If we say 'uncircumcised', however, we are correct.

Finally, if you remember, Wikipedia is not a propaganda vehicle. The terms "intact" and "mutilated" are heavily pushed by anti-circumcision activists, yet are imprecise (and arguably inaccurate) and often less suitable, as I've explained. Using a less accurate term with positive connotations is subtle propaganda, like changing instances of 'circumcised' to 'genitally enhanced'. Uncircumcised is a neutral, accurate term, literally meaning 'not circumcised'.

It may well be that there are 'intact penis fetishists' in the world, and clearly there would be an overlap with foreskin fetishism. However, there is no good reason to exclude foreskin fetishists who don't reject a pierced or tattooed penis.

- Jakew 13:15, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Tony, I have no disagreement with your assertion that a circumcised penis is not intact. That is not the issue.

The fact is that a penis can have a foreskin, yet not be intact. I'm intrigued by your assertion that: "A pierced ear, nipple or nose is still an intact organ and indeed usually the piercing will heal unless delibrately kept open." How do you reconcile this with Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary's requirement that it must be "in the original state?"

What if a penis has a foreskin, but has been bifurcated or subincised? Is it intact then? What if a glansectomy has been performed?

It must be clear that while the presence of a foreskin is required for a penis to be intact, it is not the only requirement. - Jakew 14:10, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Apartheid

That's fine by me, Tony. Thanks for letting me know. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:33, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RfC

Yo. You are a longtime witness to my dispute between me and Davenbelle and Stereotek. It would be great to have what you think at the RfC case below. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 10:37, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Davenbelle and Stereotek

Hi. As you can see here my rfc cases future looks grim. how should I proceed now? --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 11:38, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Coolcat/Davenbelle/Stereotek

Hi there! From your comments I believe you're going to do some informal mediation between this triad. Would you object if I deleted the unendorsed RFC, as Daven&Stero requested? Yours, Radiant_>|< 13:36, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Moved to User:Coolcat/Davenbelle and Stereotek, good idea. Radiant_>|< 13:52, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Coolcat's RfC

I find it hard to see what has happend recently on the RfC page, as anything else than Coolcat ignoring Wikipedias policies, and attempting to force his will through. I see it as something similar to what he did today regarding the Antiwar.com article, or when redirected the Abdullah Öcalan article to the PKK article, ignoring the clear concensus on the talk page. Such behavior should in my opinion absolutely NOT be encouraged or rewarded in any way, so because of that I actually still think that this specific RfC should be deleted as it originally was supposed to. -- Stereotek 14:21, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Okay, fair enough. I can see it's gone now. And of course you can still read it, in case you wanted to use it for mediation ;) Radiant_>|< 14:40, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mediate?

Hi Tony

I know you're not an official mediator, but I wondered if you'd be willing to try to help calm down a situation here. The reason why I'm asking you is basically that we disagree so often that I can't see that the person concerned is likely to regard you as having a pro-circumcision (or pro-Jewish or pro-gay) agenda.

The person concerned has agreed in principle, if with some antagonism, to mediation through somebody.

The mediation is partly over conduct, but also over some edits with which most users seem to disagree.

You'll find the original disagreement over at [1].

Examples of the conduct can be found there. Also at: [2] [3] and [4].

If you decline, I understand. - Jakew 20:02, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Tony,

You're exactly right, and I should have stated his username. I apologise for that. I hope that he won't hold your past disagreement against you, but obviously I have no idea. Would you mind asking whether he'd accept non-binding mediation with yourself? If so, what in your view is the best way to proceed? If not, does he have a preference for an alternative person?

Thanks. - Jakew 22:41, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wiki leave

OK, I know I have handed my mess in your hands for a second time. I have a business trip starting the day after till Wendsday. This should give you the time you need I think. Oh btw. I have the RFC thing backed up. I intend to intorduce my cases again if your atempts fail yet again. I'll advertise it this time ;) --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 20:29, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Well done, Tony

Well done, Tony —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MARMOT (talk • contribs) 22:26, 16 Jun 2005 UTC.

[edit] Trey Stone

Hey Tony, He's going to articles and copying pasting versions from a text editor or something, erasing new contributions in the process. Note how I changed El Salvador lead to read country rather than republic [5], then he comes and inserts his own [6] Neutrality is an arbitrator and blocked him, and now we have to undergo that for naught? Well, it's easy enough with a rollback button. Naturally, I am treating the erasing of new contributions with the copying of old vers as vandalism, pure and simple. Cordially & sincerely yours, El_C 08:14, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I also just spotted that he was back to edit warring. I've blocked him again for six hours. I told him to behave well but I'm beginning to come to the conclusion that he's utterly incapable of exercising self-control. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:19, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

With him gone, I finally got moderately collegial dialogue moving in the notorious Fidel talk page, not without some hitches, but still. Anyway, it's too bad Neutrality is away since he was the one who blocked Trey Stone indefinitely. It would be good to hear his take on how to deal with this situation. A six hour repreieve you say? Wee. This is where I would place one of those animated gif image macro you so detest, try to guess of which complexion! Cordially & sincerely yours, El_C 08:34, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Earlier you had posted that you were not going to intervene. IMO you changed your mind at a most inappropriate time, since Neutrality is now away. This makes it seem as if you are more inclined to give Trey Stone the benefit of the doubt than Neutrality. Please reverse your move and instead discuss this matter with Ben when he reserves. 172 09:03, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I did not realize you said that, Tony. Could you please account for the change of heart? Thanks. El_C 09:14, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'll respond here rather than going to both of your talk pages.

Trey asked for an admin review. For various reasons unrelated to the merits of the case I refused, but I asked on WP:ANI to see if someone else would do so.

Nobody did. Meanwhile while I won't review his recent behavior there are two points that suggest that an indefinite block may be unsuitable at this time:

1. He is subject to an arbitration case. If arbcom wants him blocked or banned from certain activities it can issue an injunction, but it hasn't done so. I'm aware that Neutrality is an arbitrator, but he apparently wasn't acting pursuant to a published injunction when he blocked Trey Stone.
2. He isn't an imminent threat to the wellbeing of Wikipedia and, although he is clearly considered to be a serious problem for Wikipedia in the medium-to-long term if he keeps alienating other editors, no member of arbcom, Neutrality included, has yet tabled any unconditional bans as a remedy.

So there doesn't seem to be any overriding policy reason for this indefinite block, and in the interests of natural justice it is better if Trey Stone is able to respond to the case as it proceeds.

I released the block temporarily, pending the conclusion of the arbitration case. When Trey resumed edit warring, I blocked him again for six hours. When that block expires, he knows he must not revert (except for say reverting vandalism such as page blanking) or I will simply restore the indefinite block. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:24, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In the interest of justice, Tony, I hereby appoint you to watch over and account for his actions closely so long as he is unblocked by you. El_C 11:55, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please also play your part. I don't expect you and Trey to be friendly, but please give him a chance to show that he can collaborate. Try to take his edits as honest attempts to make the article better. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:39, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You lifted his block. I had to fix his vandalism. You unblocked a user which Nuetrality blocked indefinitely as a vandal and a troll. Coincidentally, a day after Neutrality left. Had it been yesterday, you could have gauged on his response. You say: it is better if Trey Stone is able to respond to the case as it proceeds. I am not involved in his case, Tony. This is your mess, you deal with it. I've done plenty for that article in the last few days. It is your turn to play your part, Tony. El_C 12:54, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If he's going to disrput the relative peace I helped build in that article during the time he was gone: with Kapil, Commandante, 172, and others, I will not lift a finger, Tony. But I will be looking squarely at you, and I will be holding you accountable. And for your information, I have never been in any dispute with Trey Stone, ever, nor have I yet to really interact with him at this point, for that matter. El_C 13:09, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Tony, there is absolutely no doubt as to what the outcome is going to be. Trey Stone has never moderated his behavior over the past year and a half, and he will not do it this time. Further, you will not have the time needed to adequately baby-sit him. (Trey Stone often makes up to a hundred edits a day.) El C, since you have never been in any dispute with Trey Stone, I think that you should go ahead and restore Neutrality's block right now. 172 13:23, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Boy, you sure sound pissed. I'm sorry if I upset you, but it's wrong to claim that you've never been in a dispute with Trey Stone when you've just reverted his edits six times this morning. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:21, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My emotional state is besides the point, Tony. Those six reverts were vandalism as I shown directly above. He was earsing any newer contributions by copypasting older ones overtop, without accounting for changes. Are you playing games? El_C 13:30, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I find it difficult to accept that you regard what you describe--clearly reverts to an earlier version of the article--as vandalism. I'm utterly baffled by this. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:34, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Right, so wikifying American was just something he objected to, geographically? El_C 13:56, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I doubt Trey Stone would object to my helpful corrections to the lead, that reorganized the sentence, wikified, etc. His copypasting of the older version didn't change any content on that end. Trey Stone has been around enough now to know that one should try to keep impovements (grammatical, wikiing, etc.), yet he chose to ignore these. What do you call that, Tony? El_C 13:39, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is the comment that puzzles me most. Looking at the article, it's clear that Trey Stone simply reverted to his own previous version of the article. I don't know what meaning you intend to convey by "copypasting of the older version", but if it means "go to article history, click on chosen previous version of article, insert edit summary and press 'Save page'" then it's correct. This activity is also known as a revert. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And how is allowing him to respond to the case as it proceeds related to him editing and/or vandalizing articles? El_C 13:24, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If he started vandalizing articles, that would be another matter. Naturally the absence of an injunction, which arbcom could have issued but did not, means that Trey Stone is free to edit any article within the policy constraints that apply to any other editor--except for the revert limitation I have imposed as a condition of his temporary unblocking. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:28, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Did you not read my first message closely, Tony? That was vandalism. El_C 13:32, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have imposed as a condition It's strange that you seem to be arguing that Ben had no right to impose restrictions on Trey Stone's editing while you imply that you yourself have the power to 'impose' certain regulations as 'conditions.' Your interference is not only helpful, but now indefensible in terms of any consistent argument. I'm beginning to suspect that your actions are not motivated by good faith, and perhaps have to do with your own longstanding biases against me. El C, you have every right to restore the block, and, IMO, the duty to do so, as a responsible administrator. 172 13:37, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

According to Tony, I'm "pissed," 172. That's funny, I don't feel pissed, but I thank him for the mischaracterization, I guess. Heh. /bows El_C 13:43, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

172, I never known Tony to exhibit any bias against me, whatsoever. El_C 13:45, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There seems to be a misunderstanding. Tony seems to dislike me; I'm not aware of any of your interactions with him outside this conversation. (Everyking once brought up a comment by Tony implying that I have no business editing on Wikipedia, and that he'd be glad to see me gone.) 172 13:52, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Or maybe, I don't see. I have no idea anymore. I'm quite preplexed by his responses to my comments.El_C 14:20, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dunno if I have biases against 172 as I barely became aware of him prior to some big arbcom kerfuffle. I'm not gainsaying Neutrality's block, which I think was probably justified by the full circumstances, but I'm distinguishing it from the arbcom case and making a personal decision to defer such action, without examining its merits, until the end of the arbcom case. I don't do block wars so if someone else jumps in and blocks Trey Stone that's game over for Trey as far as I'm concerned. I obviously don't want to give Trey carte blanche to abuse this freedom so I've told him he mustn't revert war.

My impression that El_C sounded "pissed" was due to his edits of 12:54 and 13:23 UTC, which was in turn I think due to my insensitive wording of suggestions in my own prior edit--for which I apologise. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:56, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I believe my response was quite appropriate considering the suggestion, Tony, though I do admit to not have really cared to sugar coat it, that does not mean I am pissed. Dosen't matter. All I was saying is: if you're going to unblock, you gotta be prepared to do the work. I knew right away Trey Stone was vandalizing because he did not seem to care less about non-content improvements. As soon as I saw that American was unwikified, I knew he never bothered. But you're going to argue with me over the semantics of vandalism? I accept your apology, of course, glaldy, I just wish I'd get some introspection on your part on the issues I raised above. El_C 14:11, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well you still sound pissed to me. But that's not the point. If you're pissed it's because I pissed you off, for which I apologise. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:00, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I could find that post by Everyking, which quotes an IRC log, but it's not important. Just keep on eye on him, since he's here under your patronage. 172 14:01, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't dislike you, but I did make some remarks on your behavior at one time. I've also said negative things about Everyking's behavior, although I think he's also a fundamentally good guy and, like you, normally an asset to Wikipedia. That latter reason is, by the way, why I have agreed to a proposal that I alongside two others should mentor James. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:05, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

James doesn't need a mentor. I wish he'd give up on those damn Ashlee Simpson articles and devote all that every to more important topics, but, beyond that silly preoccupation, he's unfailingly informed, civil, and reasonable; and he often assumes good faith to a fault, when dealing with vandals who cry 'admin abuse.' 172 14:12, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

He is a good chap, but his obsession with Ashley Simpson and his blind spot in that area suggest to me that he does need a mentor. This gives him more freedom that has had had in the recent past, and allows him to demonstrate that he's gotten over it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:00, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Final note

My final note, Tony. I have to get going. I just wish to say that I am dissapointed by the way you have approached this, and the manner in which you responded to my comments above. If my opinion matters to you, you will reread all my comments closely again, and hopefuly reiterate or respond to those ones you thus far failed to address (and I mean, systemically). Finally, I will say again: I worked hard to build the peace in that article, and at the very least during my absence, I expect you to keep it. Thanks for reading. El_C 14:30, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm still struck by the fact that you interpret reverts as vandalism. I won't get into a "systematic" response to your comments, because Wikipedia isn't a Usenet forum and the technology isn't suited to protracted, point-by-point debate, nor does the subject merit it. I'll just leave it that reverts normally aren't considered vandalism and I see no reason to do so here. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:00, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm struck by your refusal to interpert events critically, and I will not be speaking to you any further. Goodbye. El_C 19:10, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm really sorry about that. I didn't mean to offend you. I just don't agree with your interpretation and cannot understand, from what you have written, how Trey's edits, as you described them, were distinct from reverts. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:16, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am sad to see yet more hysteria involving this user, and applaud Mr. Sidaway for his meritorious conduct thruout. Sam Spade 21:36, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm probably went a bit far w "hysterics", but Tony Sidaway is a particularly fine user, and your interaction with him upset me. Sam Spade 00:13, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Since Tony is deleting my hysteric edits, I'm just going to smile politely. :) El_C 00:19, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Halfway edits

I trust that my current halfway edits do not constitute reversion. I am willing to discuss changes on Talk pages, and have done so J. Parker Stone 19:46, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] In my defense

the reason I was blocked in the first place has to do with "vandalism" on said page, a part of which was the removal of personal attacks, which according to official policy I have every right to do. J. Parker Stone 19:50, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Inviting folks to become users

Tony, you took exception with my handling of an anonymus user on the Talk:Terri Schiavo page. I'm rather confused by this. You asked that I not "pressure" people into becoming users. I didn't think I was, rather that I was offering an invitation and a link to do so. In fact, my invitation was significantly less strident that those made by others on the same Talk page. You're obviously an editor of note. How would you suggest I handle this in the future?--ghost 12:17, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well you implied that only logged-in users were members. Fact is we're open to anyone. I didn't mean to offend you but felt that this was a form of pressure. We do have a lot of valued editors who don't, and won't, create a user account. They're as much members as you or I. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:23, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. I made the request simply because the editors on that page really like when new voices join, and we like to have a name to match the contributions. I coach my invitations better in the future. Thanks for the clarification.--ghost 12:33, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Harrumph! Where were you when Neutrality and others virtually ran off one of our better editors (LRod), never to return, a couple of months ago by reverting his edits to Terri Schiavo on sight solely because he wasn't registered. In fact, Ghost probably remembers it. Duckecho 13:31, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I do, and that's why I questioned it. Although in fairness, Tony's been on vac.--ghost 13:38, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't always find myself in agreement with Neutrality's attitude to Wikipedia. Just because he's a fellow administrator and an elected member of arbcom, does not mean I have to agree with him or that I believe all of his beliefs are congruent with, or even compatible with, Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:08, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well that brings up a question. I've had a problem with him on more than one occasion making wholesale hit-and-run edits on Terri Schiavo with no discussion on the talk page and contrary to consensus laboriously reached among active editors. And they're frequently not even good edits. I have seen similar complaints recently addressed to him on his talk page. I can't believe this person is an admin. I find it even more incredible that he's on the arbitration committee. If he's the answer, I'm scared as to what the question is. Is there no accountability anywhere in Wiki-dom? What's to be done about someone like that? Duckecho 14:53, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Arbitrators are subject to election, and administrators are subject to the same rules as everybody else. I don't always endorse his actions. That doesn't mean that there's anything wrong with his edits (any more than mine, for instance). Obviously I don't like it when anyone behaves in a way that frightens other editors away, but I have no personal knowledge of any such behavior on his part. If you have a specific gripe, tackle him about it. If this doesn't get anywhere, make up a RfC. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:06, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Abortion

ok. while the topic can be contraversial I did not remove anything. See how again my edits and hard work is gone. Please assist. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 15:45, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Have you ever seen this? If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, do not submit it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:07, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes. But like "Bad Wolf" of Dr. Who, Same individuals are appearing on all wiki time frames. I just want to deal and reason with individuals and not senseless reverts. You were talking about doing something about this on RfC page. I am all ears.

I see you as a guide as you are one hell of a guide. Should I reopen my RfC case directly and tell it to the two people (you and silsor) to comment? Or some other course of action? --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 23:18, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm short of time. Try to find diffs and whatnot showing people engaging in following. I need to see evidence that people, a tight group of them, appear on articles for the first time after you first edit them, and perform patently unreasonable edits, particularly reverts, in response to yours. If you can support this, I think it should be documented. Do so in email. My email address is well advertised; you may be asked to validate your email address if this is the first time you've emailed me. If I agree with you I will make an effort to dissuade those people from engaging in stalking. If you get no reply in email tell me so on this talk page. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:32, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] W. Mark Felt

Salve!
I nominated W. Mark Felt as a WP:FAC. As you commented on the Deep Throat talk page, I'd appreciate your comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/W. Mark Felt. PedanticallySpeaking 15:47, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vanunu

I thought it was in the text; I've added it now. Putting it in the intro, as well as other trivia like the Glasgow rectorship, were clearly POV pushing. I agree that AI is not a "neutral" site; would you be willing to move the links to their correct section? Jayjg ^(talk) 17:22, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Brandon School - Thanks.

Tony, I thank you for the information that you responded to my comment about Brandon School, as it is very helpful. I have only been editing for less than a week, and I'm learning new things everyday. I was advised in a Wiki forum, to learn the process by doing Vfd's, but I guess they didn't tell me of the other options that are available when editing pages. Thanks again. Srcrowl 02:51, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RFC against MARMOT

Hello Tony. As a somewhat involved party concerning User:MARMOT, I invite you to comment on the RFC that was just created. It may be found here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/MARMOT. Thanks! Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 01:10, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Insight into the situation

"Allow me to give my assurances that I would never intentionally manipulate a page, poll or RfC. The principle of assume good faith has been circumvented, and I hope you will endorse this." MARMOT 10:56, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The issue here Tony, is that not many of the edits would individually qualify for a block, MARMOT knows this and is just wasting people's time. This is one way to end it, as it is clear polite discussion and requests is having no effect. I'd rather see the guy discuss whatever issues he has in the proper channels, but apparently he doesn't care too. The overwhelming majority of MARMOT's edits are not helpful, so taken as a whole that makes the ArbCom case worth it. If you think it is a waste of time, then you block him yourself. Otherwise, opposing the Arbcom will just keep MARMOT wasting more of everyone's time. - Taxman ^Talk 12:28, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] You are responsible for this

As always Trey Stone is attacking the very same articles, making reverts, presenting the same circular arguments on talk, and declaring that while he has time to revert and POV articles, he does not have time to do any actual reading on these subjects. [7] 172 02:11, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

i don't have time to read your personally-selected books on this subject, no. i am getting ready to go to college and am looking to do things with my friends before i leave over the summer -- wikipedia is not high on my priorities. and my arguments have been far more substantive than your condescending "well this is the reality" attitude. J. Parker Stone 02:35, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

i am getting ready to go to college and you don't have time to read? You'll fail out in no time if that's your attitude, especially at Occidental. If you are majoring in history or a social science, you will find yourself assigned quite a few books and articles that I have listed in articles, and your professors will be far less willing to tolerate bullshit than I am on Wikipedia. On Wikipedia you get to talk back to me here and you get away with not having done any reading, but you would not if you were taking a class with me-- same with your professors next year. 172 02:44, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

lol, of course i read for classes. do you even think about what you're posting? J. Parker Stone 02:46, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

and i apologize that i don't take wikipedia as seriously as academia. so sorry.

BTW, I love how you say "talk back" as if you're in a position of authority J. Parker Stone 02:47, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Tony, I am not concerned about his personal attacks so much as the attitude that he has no obligation to do any serious reading and thinking on a subject, but instead can get his way on any article by wearning down opposition... Just take not of his edit above. 172 02:50, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

i have already addressed this, and i don't need to be a "professional" historian to edit articles on wikipedia. J. Parker Stone 02:52, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Trey Stone, no one is saying that you need to be a historian, but you need to take Wikipedia more seriously than you admit to taking it above. You must back up your assertions on talk pages with meaningful citations, not conflate your own beliefs with fact (have you ever read Wikipedia:No original research?). When I provide you with list of solid scholarship, including some texts that I have been using in courses before you were probably born, you cannot just disregard it and go ahead with reverting and attacking me for holding beliefs that I do not profess. 172 03:03, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

the edits on History of the United States (1988-present) have more to do with rewording and toning down the POV than factual data. J. Parker Stone 10:05, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

BTW, I know this is old, but I couldn't help but be reminded of it while you're reminding me of my political ignorance and unprofessionalism: [8]

Or this: [9] J. Parker Stone 06:32, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

These are all out of context. We were in a heated dispute over the actions of the Clinton administration and South Korea, **not** the actions of North Korea. I admitted that I'd thought that the Sunshine Policy was working; Adam obviously considered it appeasement. He called my stance-- the same as Clinton and Albright's at the time-- Stalinism, so I engaged in tit-for-tat hyperbole in my edit summaries, comparing his stance (the same as that of hard-liners in the Bush administration) to another form of tyranny. In retrospect that was unjustified, no matter how I was being treated, but at the same time it is unfair to ignore that my comments were not unprovoked. Also, the McCarthy picture was a polemical response to Adam's placing of a "hero of socialist labor medal" to "Cde. 172" from the "Dear leader" on my own page. Again, I regret the response, but it was not unprovoked. 172 10:03, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A scholarly response. J. Parker Stone 05:04, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Everyking Mentorship

The Everyking mentorship has officially been approved by the arbitration committee (see here) and is now in effect. →Raul654 05:51, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

I don't foresee any need for that. If anything does need to be discussed, we have the article talk pages. Everyking 11:59, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Apartheid

Tony, just to let you know that I've protected Apartheid again because of more reverting, and a possible 3RR violation, by an anon IP and a new user account, possibly the same person. However, as you've been keeping an eye on the page, feel free to unlock and proceed as you see fit. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:51, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Jayjg has violated the 3Revert rule. Jayjg's actions are unacceptable. SlimVirgin is often found working with jayjg to circumvent the 3R rule on Wikipedia. People have not addressed the inclusion, it's all about ad hominem attacks and ad hominem illogic to support the deletions. Have a great day!!69.221.63.132 21:37, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Tony: the ad hominem attacks against me have to stop. I prefer that the Talk revolve aroung the Inclusion, but it never does. Please help me! A two-word inclusion that is fact does not destabilize an article!

If this chap has broken the 3RR, make a valid report on WP:AN3. I can't see it myself, and in any case I don't enforce that rule. In any case I think it must be obvious to you by now that you won't get your way. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:00, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] My RFA

Thank you for supporting my RFA. Guettarda 00:26, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Policy of Wiki to newcomers

Who appointed you to tell the world I have made no notribution to wiki? I registered my user name yesterday, that's correct, well done on your important research there, but listen dude, 'anyone can edit wiki', i've been a long term reader and editor of wiki in an anonymous capacity. This anonymous capacity has no less validity than that of a registered user, registered users to not even have to provide email addresses anyway. You want a list of my former IPs so you can go and research and tell the world what articles i've edited? Economic factors led me to take so long to register (I used a public library computer for some time...)and that's irrelevant anyway because one of the list of benefits they state for registering is the ability to vote on deletion. So whether i've been 'registered' for ten minutes or a day pal, i'm gonna excercise my RIGHT to vote. Now go and complain to the authorities if you think I, as a user, a newly 'registered', need undermining... thanks, you're obviously really in favor of new blood participating in the wiki project, we need more like you. Do some more research next time before EDITING OTHER PEOPLE'S VOTES. My user page explains I have been an avid reader and editor in an anonynous capacity, maybe because I don't seek accolades for my work, which is in direct contrast to your user page. Thanks for the welcome.--0001 01:42, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ended

Don't worry about me Tony. I'm completely, wholly, and utterly done with any internal wiki participation after two days. I've had it. I won't vote for anything anymore, this thing is set to become a glorified toy catalog filled with pop culture crap and pokemons and unsigned band bios...i understand now I should have made clear I was new pseudonym user, and not a new user altogether, I should have stated that it says to state that, I only read it today. Maybe i'll just take breather for a couple of months. I had gotten fond of cleaning up articles and when I joined I had no idea that a hardline clique was actually running the delete part...i don't however think the credibility can be assertained from simply the edit histories, or if someone's anonymous...if it is abundantly clear someone has thoroughly 'read' the articles up for delete, and thier comment makes a sensical argument, then it should be left alone. Also to you could tell them 'google hits' is a little bit useful, but you shouldn't be dictated to by google...some subject matter which is clearly gonna be meaningless in 5 years doesn't belong here does it? I don't know, actually man, I really don't think I have a clue. I'm depressed now. Sorry to bark at you I just had like ten users pay out on me and I dunno I just reckon i'll roll it up for now dude, use wiki for research, and maybe plan a couple of big articles on my word processor and try em out in a couple months. I think maybe one's experience of wiki can become jaded if you sit there looking at what people do and don't want in wiki. I initially fell in love with it just for reading and learning...I can read this stuff for hours...i'm gonna revert to that. I think that's for me don't you?

[edit] Again, you are responsible

For taking it upon yourself to "mentor" Trey Stone, you owe me a response to his libelous comments on this page. 172 08:25, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

if you're gonna keep raving about "libel" BS then I take back the GD comments. J. Parker Stone 08:27, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's like watching a married couple squabbling. Hey, you guys, make up and be friends. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:31, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'd do that but it'd involve too much systematic verbiage. J. Parker Stone 21:14, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Request for guidance

In reference to your (IMHO slightly aserbic) comments to User:001 under the VFD for Books about George W. Bush, could you advise me, as a relative newcomer to Wiki, where the official do-not-do list is for those wishing to avoid being tagged as trolls. It is hard enough avoiding being a "newbie" (whose views are unwanted as unformed), a "flamer" (because one sues language that someone else elects to consider inflammatory), or a "sockpuppet" (for being in agreement with someone with whom the Clique are in dis-agreement). Thank you (in advance) for your assistance. --Simon Cursitor 12:59, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mesereau(x)

I note that the mad-deleter seems to have lain low, or given up or something. Myself, I'd have left the whole thing for 2 weeks (to give the spammers time to move on) and then have cleaned house from the more extreme inwards, also removing the "hello - I can't be bothered a capitalise this surname" merchants as well. I am starting to think that spam-deletion sometimes just encourages spam-vandals (who just want to be *noticed* really). In the medium term, they move on, and you can clean the floor after them. Pace, now I think of it Blue Peter and the elephant. Thank you. --Simon Cursitor 10:50, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit]  ???

Please stop acting in a disruptive manner [1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Enviroknot). If you don't quit fighting with other editors I will block you. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:09, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

When are you claiming I have done so? It is a number of other editors who have been harassing ME.Enviroknot 12:33, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Silverback

I'm beginning to wonder if Silverback's recent string of edits on FOX News is in violation of the 3RR. Could you take a look? It seems like he is usually very careful about following the letter of the 3RR - always skirting the line, never going over. crazyeddie 17:46, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ooh err, missus

I'll take it as read, then, that WP doesn't want my edits. Smileyrepublic 21:26, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Your insults to me

   * You have edited with this user from 25 May.

What does that have to do with anything?

   * In that time you have made over three hundred edits, but just forty-eight edits in article space.

And the rest were reverting vandalism. What's your point?

   * Even so, by your FIFTH day editing with this username, you were revert warring on Dhimmi

What are we supposed to do about people who are trying to insert falsehoods into articles? Especially when they are users like Yuber who refuse to discuss their edits rationally?

   * You've been engaged in edit warring recently on Jihad.

See the above. Attempting to insert false information to Wikipedia is vandalism.

   * You're stirring up a rather ugly flame war on the same article and related ones.

Who have I flamed, and how? I would appreciate seeing some specifics.

   * You're engaged in pretty general violations of WP:NPA.

Again, specifics? Enviroknot 00:53, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In your reply to me you said you had only been reverting vandalism, you indicate that you think that other editors are inserting falsehoods in articles and you seem to think that this means you can do what you like. You act as if you haven't done anything wrong, and yet you've been engaged in some of the most toxic behavior I've ever seen on Wikipedia. You ask for specifics, but the arbitration case is full of specifics. I'll give one particularly worrying case: an edit summary "Users were challenged to provide evidence of liberal movements in Talk: none were forthcoming. Feel free to put forth evidence of existence of liberal groups in Islamic nations if you wish." You used this summary to justify inserting the statement: " However, there are no liberal Muslim movements that have significant power in any Muslim states, nor is it clear that such liberal Muslim movements have significant followings in any Muslim states." This blatantly dishonest reasoning--taking silence on a matter as evidence for an unsupported factual statement--is extremely inflammatory. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:35, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Blatantly dishonest"? Hardly. The user making the edit - read, DELETING THE INFORMATION - is supposed to provide factual basis for doing so. NO Muslim nation has a liberal government or rising liberal political parties. They are hard to find and always far outnumbered by non-liberal Muslims in nations that do not consider themselves "Islamic." This is not an "unsupported factual statement", this is reality. Even in liberal nations like the Netherlands and Canada, the Muslim populations refuse to acclimate to liberal standards. Please do not insult my intelligence by claiming this is an "unsupported" statement.

And again, it was a REVERT to those who were engaged in an organized campaign of stripping information FROM the article in question. They did not provide any factual basis to justify their removals.Enviroknot 11:14, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It is recommended practice to remove unsupported statements of fact from articles. You are putting it the wrong way round when you say that someone should disprove a statement in order to remove it. The reverse is the case. A statement of fact that is not supported does not belong in Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:21, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You are right, it is recommended practice to remove unsupported statements of fact. Therefore, PROPER NPOV would require that the assertion that liberal muslims exist in numbers large enough to make a political or social difference, in the Middle East or otherwise, MUST BE SOURCED. These users are refusing to do so. Their only "source" is a dubious Liberal movements within Islam article which contains no demographic information and is largely original research itself - violating both Wikipedia policy on original research and policy on not sourcing articles to other articles only.

If you STILL think I am wrong, please explain why without insulting me. I would also appreciate it if you would tell your toady Calton to stop claiming that every vandal he finds is me, and get him to stop vandalizing my user and talk pages. You have been making it nearly impossible for me to assume you are operating in good faith.Enviroknot 22:16, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You say "PROPER NPOV would require that the assertion that liberal muslims exist in numbers large enough to make a political or social difference, in the Middle East or otherwise, MUST BE SOURCED." You're right. However you must not manufacture your own unsupported statements to counter statements made by other people. Simply ask them to support the thesis that liberal islamic voices are significant. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:35, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Alternatively I could make edits to their statements or remove their claims from the article; however, they would likely accuse me of vandalism. And since they refuse to support their thesis, what am I supposed to do? It's bad enough dealing with the bad-faith idiots who continually claim I am using sockpuppets when I am not, but I am working very hard here to operate in good faith and it seems you and your fellow editors are refusing to take that seriously - as you did above.

I would also remind you that I was not the one who inserted the statement about liberal Muslim movements lacking power and support. It has been repeatedly reverted in and out of that article by many editors, whether it was put there to balance the wild and unsupported claims about "liberal Muslims" or not.Enviroknot 22:51, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thousands of Wikipedia editors make good edits on the Wiki and resolve their differences within Wikipedia behavior guidelines. Anarchists have worked alongside fascists on the same article and produced good, neutral work. To achieve that kind of result, trust is vital. You must learn to trust other editors and communicate your concerns about them as you would communicate them to a beloved brother.

And what am I supposed to do about you? I gave you the benefit of the doubt below and you gave me the same tired line. I have been telling you the truth and operating in good faith and you have given none back.Enviroknot 18:16, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Roger Moss (photographer)

Thanks! And good riddance to Roger. Radiant_>|< 22:45, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Congratulations, your bad faith has won.

It appears Arbitration Committee has twisted a Request for Arbitration to include me in it, and has further decided that I may not edit anywhere.

This will likely be my last message to you. It is a pity that your bad faith is mirrored by the rest of Wikipedia.Enviroknot 03:24, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think David Gerard said it best when he suggested that you seem to be incapable of accepting that we're smarter than you. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:32, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You mean, you are incapable of accepting when someone tells the truth.Enviroknot 18:17, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If you're telling the truth, then David Gerard, a man whom I have known online for some ten years, whose reputation is unimpeachable, and whom I have met recently, and regard as a friend, is a man who would lie at the drop of a hat, with no obvious motive. We should talk. You know my name and my location. You can email me --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:51, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Interested in an L.A.-area Wiki meetup?

It appears as though L.A. has never had a Wiki meetup. Would you be interested in attending such an event? If so, checkout User:Eric Shalov/Wikimeetup.

- Eric 06:22, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hey, I'm going to college in LA. And my name's Eric. COINCIDENCE?!?!?!?!?

Maybe I'll go and accost Tony about supporting banishing me from wik... J. Parker Stone 21:59, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is the first time someone has suggested that I was a California resident. I wish I was. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:09, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

A proposal has been made on Wikipedia:Requested moves to rename Wikipedia:Naming conventions (movies) and move it to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films). Please see the discussion and vote on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (movies). --Viriditas | Talk 10:32, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Moore edit

It was wrong to remove the reference to the family who were scandalized and appalled at their son's funeral being in Moore's movie without permission. This is very legitimate criticism of Moore and deserves mention.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Desmay (talk • contribs) 15:35, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC).

[edit] Checkers

Hi Tony! I think I restored the wrong version of the Wikipedia:Checkers article. Sorry about that. Anyway, I think you may have noticed that I have now submitted the thing to VFD (Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Checkers). Sjakkalle (Check!) 28 June 2005 11:40 (UTC)

[edit] In re Terri Schiavo (partially restored)

> (Earlier personal attack and intentional distortion of my statement) You are falsely accusing me of using my administrator status. (Denied)

> (Later) Now I recognise that you *are* a problem user and as an administrator I've added you to my list of editors to watch carefully. I want you to read and, over the next few weeks, demonstrate a clear understanding [of] No personal attacks.

Now you may consider yourself accused of misusing your administrator status and engaging in a personal attack. Your idea of a debate over a difference of opinion is apparently to throw your weight around. Well done. Have fun. Duckecho (Talk) 29 June 2005 18:06 (UTC)

For a second time you falsely accuse me of throwing my weight around. Do read No personal attacks, and attempt to implement it in your engagements with others. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 29 June 2005 19:58 (UTC)

If I may...You're both right, and both wrong. The proprietorial attitude came thru from both of you, but isn't entirely out of place, because you're both respected editors. However, I must protest Duckecho being blacklisted over this matter. And if he is, then I think it would be best if you added yourself. This was a misunderstanding that's spirialed out of proportion. Nothing more.--ghost 30 June 2005 19:49 (UTC)

With respect, I think the problem, which I would have taken up with Duckecho had I not been in the wrong by making a bad edit, was his unnecessarily vituperative edit summary. Such summaries make for bad editing environments. I shall be watching Duckecho's edits, his comments and not least of all his edit summaries. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 30 June 2005 20:29 (UTC)

Understood. Since you feel it necessary to monitor a User, I'd like your blessing to do the same for you. Can you please instruct me in how to do so?--ghost 30 June 2005 20:42 (UTC)

Tony, would you mind publicising the list of editors whose edits you are stalking in this fashion? I think if you are keeping a greylist, you should keep it openly. Not that I think you should keep one. Grace Note 03:22, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

All edits on Wikipedia are publicly visible. For instance if you can type {{user|Tony Sidaway}} and it will expand as Tony Sidaway (talk • contribs), then any time you feel like it you just click on the "contributions" link. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 03:49, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

a partial reply to this nonsense is here. Because of one "vituperative edit summary", you are taking it upon yourself to monitor "Duckecho's edits, his comments, and not least of all his edit summaries"? And this edit summary was in response to something you admit was a bad edit? Sheesh. You screwed up. Duck fixed it and threw you some attitude. you apologize for the bad edit on his talk page, Duck says he appreciates it, tells you we've had a bunch of drive-bys from folks who do straight vandalism or insert wrong information. Then you tell him "Beware of the proprietorial attitude"???? Apparently, you took everything he said as a personal attack against you and specific other editors, rather than as a list of problems we've been dealing with. He then makes some general remarks about people who fell off a turnip truck coming in and editing the page, and you take it as more "personal attacks"? Nothing Duck said was proprietorial. We've had a lot of problems on the Terri Schiavo page for months. It is currently in mediation because it's gotten so bad. That isn't being proprietorial, it's reporting status. You admit you did a bad edit. Duck fixed it with an edit summary that had attitude. You apologized for the bad edit, he said he appreciated it. Everything after that, proprietorial behaviour and personal attacks is stuff that you invented. It didn't happen. But it appears you've sunk your teeth into this one and are too invested to let it go. "I shall be watching Duckecho"??? No, you just disqualified yourself from ever being able to render any sort of neutral administrative judgement with regards to Duckecho. You're the one who is carrying around the grudge here. FuelWagon 1 July 2005 00:01 (UTC)

• Here's my two cents worth: Tony does have a point that duck can be proprietal; a look at his contributions, while difficult and lengthy, would eventually verify this. His comments about wack-jobs who've just fallen off the turnip truck indicate he thinks that there are weirdoes out there. That alone, I would agree with Duck, is not offensive, and both of you do appear to contribute. However, taken in the context of his attitude towards NCdave and calling Ann a Pain in the @--, it becomes clear that Duck's faulty logic that the courts must necessarily be NPOV is flawed at the base. That is not to say that he is clueless. Most of his edits seem responsible, and his 500-word summary on improvements for the Schiavo article did not show much bias, but the preceding three links revealed bias was there but dormant. My conclusion is that both of you over-reacted; I would not have snapped back at Tony, but instead acknowledged that I do have a slight amount of proprietoral (spelling?) attitude and then proceeded to justify it by my contributions. Likewise, I am not critical of Tony for making a small typo. We all do. Also, his comment wasn't "evil," but I think I would not have been as critical of Duck regarding the turnip truck comment. Duck has done enough other weird things to criticize, but he also benevolently put in a link to my court case in the activism and protest section back on May 14, two days before my birthday. I bragged about my prowess in court, win lose or draw, and he continues to make generally responsible edits, but if you have time, Tony, you are welcome to keep an eye on us, so long as you follow the context and discussion. --GordonWattsDotCom 1 July 2005 01:14 (UTC)

Gordon, this was specifically about the conversational thread between Duckecho and Tony Sidaway. In that thread, there was nothing proprietorial and nothing that qualified as a personal attack, despite Tony's claims. Duck's interaction with Tony did not warrant Tony's response. Tony wasn't referencing Duck's interaction with you, Ann, or anyone else, he was talking specifically about what Duck said to him. You have stooped to digging up dirt and slinging it as mud from whatever personal grudge you have against Duck. If you have a problem with Duck, you should bring it up to a neutral administrator. But at this point, Tony no longer qualifies as a neutral party in this discussion. And asking him to "keep an eye" on us is adversarial. FuelWagon 1 July 2005 14:30 (UTC)

I said "That alone [Duck's comment], I would agree with Duck, is not offensive, and both of you do appear to contribute." Here, I not only defend Duck, but I also acknowledge hard work and contributions. You miss the positive, or at least don't comment on it? However, any statement or action is only understood in its proper context. I have not ax to grind with Duck, or I would either tell him about it or tell it to the mediator mediating out page disputes. In case you haven't noticed, in my 500-page summary (and even the "extra" stuff I submitted), I did not criticize Duck. I even defended him for criticizing erstwhile admin, Neutrality. I didn't "dig up dirt." I merely quoted him; if there was any dirt, it came from his mouth (or keyboard, as it were). You are entitled to have your opinions of Tony, but, as I pointed out, they are only partly justified. Perhaps his credibility has slipped a tad, but we're all human. It would not be out of place for you to defend Duck from when I quoted him -if the quotes were in the context of a false representation of him, but my representation of Duck was mostly positive, with the use of quotes merely for the purpose of bringing balance. There is not "problem with Duck" right now, and no ax to grind. Maybe you are too sensitive? You can make a mountain out of a molehill, but that is trying to beat the law of diminishing returns in the theory of marginal utility. (Surprisingly, Diminishing marginal utility is yet a third entry, albeit a stub article.) It is simply not worth it to steam over small fries.--GordonWattsDotCom 2 July 2005 01:15 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of Quotes for Michael Moore

Why exactly did you remove the quotes from the Michael Moore article. Was it because

1.They are in Wikiquote, and therefore do not need to be replicated in the article 2.They have been chosen arbitrarily, or in a POV manner

Please explain. TDC June 30, 2005 15:18 (UTC)

Believe it or not, I also agree. Would you also care to chime in the Ann Coulter article on this subject as I feel the two are very similar and I have made little progress convincing other editors. TDC June 30, 2005 16:45 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TDC"

[edit] Charles Chan

You're probably right; i shot from the hip in response to a deceptive appearance of a dump job taken from a highly structured Web page. Thanks for the correction. --Jerzy·t 30 June 2005 18:40 (UTC)

[edit] Armenian Genocide

Heya Tony, do you have knowledge of this topic? I have listed a bunch of concerns to the talk page. Are you able to assist? - Ta bu shi da yu 1 July 2005 01:37 (UTC)

Understood. Thought I'd ask anyway. - Ta bu shi da yu 2 July 2005 02:03 (UTC)

[edit] Science High School

Hi Tony, I believe you confused Science High School with Newark High School, you might want to look over both articles. Kappa 1 July 2005 20:42 (UTC)

[edit] RfC case you may want to comment on...

Hi, just created the second RfC case, added a few things not much. Last one was deleted as you may recall. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 1 July 2005 22:37 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Davenbelle and Stereotek

[edit] email

Tony, check email...sent more pics...--MONGO 2 July 2005 15:46 (UTC)

[edit] Southeastern Anatolia Project

(s)Sorry to bother you but Duk doesn't want to reason. He convinced himself that I am guilty unconditionaly. I do not know what he is flagging as copyright violation on the latest version of the article (which is User talk:Coolcat/GAP temp). I do not know how to proceed.(/s) --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 2 July 2005 19:00 (UTC)

I have never commented on the latest version of the article, I don't know what Coolcat is talking about. I have only commented on the second copyvio (the one I processed). This was almost two months ago. In fact, I have done everything to avoid Coolcat since then, aside from defending my actions.--Duk 2 July 2005 19:22 (UTC)

Wrong alert, I pity myself for waisting your time yet again Tony. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 2 July 2005 21:13 (UTC)

Note: Coolcat tells me that his complaint covers only the latest revert and deletion of the Southeastern Anatolia Project, So I'm striking out my comments (part of our conversation) on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Davenbelle and Stereotek , since it regards an older action.--Duk 2 July 2005 21:25 (UTC)

Understood that you don't agree with what he said, but I've deleted the strikeout to that I can read what he actually wrote. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 2 July 2005 23:23 (UTC)

What are you talking about, I only struck out My comments--Duk 3 July 2005 00:28 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't realise that. Honestly when people tack comments on to comments without paragraph breaks it is difficult for me to read. Look if I'm supposed to care about this nonsense one of you is going to have to explain why it's so important. All I did was remove some strikeouts so I could see what was happening. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 3 July 2005 00:31 (UTC)

Clarification- Coolcat is complaining about the latest revert and deletion of Southeastern Anatolia Project. He thought I did it, but I didn't - Radiant did. Also, I though Coolcat was complaining about an earlier revert and deletion of the GAP project that I did, but he wasn't. So I struck out my part of our discussion on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Davenbelle and Stereotek since it was a misunderstanding. --Duk 3 July 2005 00:39 (UTC)

Thanks. It occurs to me that, if Coolcat had ever displayed such buffoonery as I have in this discussion, he might have been drubbed over the head with it for the rest of his Wikipedia career. Just a thought. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 3 July 2005 01:06 (UTC)

[edit] User:Coolcat's RfC

Hi there! Davenbelle sent me the following msg,

Hi, Cc's RfC didn't certify again and I do not mind if it ends up deleted. I would like to point out that he is refactoring the page a lot and I don't have time to document it all. He has moved a lot of comments around which has resulted in the context of peoples' posts being lost. He did a whole lot of this on talk pages such as Armenian Genocide and is yet another reason he has attracted a crowd of opponents.

FYI, I will be offline for most of the rest of the week; back to Padangbai :)

— Davenbelle July 4, 2005 07:50 (UTC)

Since I believe you were involved in mediating between them, I'd like your opinion on what to do with this. Yours, Radiant_>|< July 4, 2005 08:01 (UTC)

• Okay. I've unlisted the RFC from the main page, but not deleted it. It's a shame it's come to this now. Yours, Radiant_>|< July 4, 2005 18:39 (UTC)

[edit] ArbCom

I agree. The situation is indeed unacceptable and need to change. Thank you for your efforts bringing the case there. -- Stereotek 4 July 2005 17:38 (UTC)

Okay then, I give up. This is no longer funny. Fighting with someone like you, over a user like Coolcat ain't worth my time. I am sure it'll consume hours of my time, and I'll properly loose anyway. So like RickK, I am leaving. I don't understand why you are defending someone like Cc, I really don't, but again that is your decision. Maybe, if you are lucky though, he'll provide you with 10 barnstars and a startrek rank! You never know, and it shouldn't surprise me! :-) -- Stereotek 4 July 2005 19:27 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Homosexuality

Did you eat my comment deliberatly? And RPA makes me very nervous.--Tznkai 5 July 2005 05:29 (UTC)

bok You put that on my user page :P please fix.--Tznkai 5 July 2005 06:36 (UTC)

[edit] Hey

You know, I find it rather insulting that simply because you disagree with a proposal, you add an extra vote to it that basically proclaims the proposal to be a piece of crap. This is something that people spent quite some time on over the past six weeks, and just because you don't think the situation is 'broken' doesn't give you the right to decide for everyone else that they may not try to improve it. Radiant_>|< July 5, 2005 20:57 (UTC)

• You can oppose all you want; in fact, from the moment you stopped participating in the discussion the thought occured to me that you would oppose any such proposal (even if I never understood why you would object to a proposal to codify common practice). However, the proposal Z is a prime example of WP:POINT. Radiant_>|< July 5, 2005 21:31 (UTC)
• I would like to continue this discussion, but I find it difficult to talk about our respective opinions as long as there is a fundamental disagreement about facts and reasoning. In particular, I believe you have repeatedly voiced a number of rhetorical fallacies, so I feel I should point them out so that you can consider them.
  1. "VFD isn't broken so we shouldn't fix it" is a straw man. Nobody claims VFD is broken. People are trying to improve an existing process. Since no process on Wikipedia is perfect, there is no reason why any of them could not be improved (by which I am not claiming that these proposals are the correct improvement, but asserting that we shouldn't even be discussing possible improvements is absurd).
  2. "There is no problem on VFD" is a fallacy, since many people claim that there is a problem. Given the consensus-driven way Wikipedia works, if enough people think there is a problem, then something is not as it should be, and that should be discussed.
  3. "If people think VFD is full, they should simply nominate less" is vacuously true. It is wishful thinking at best that is even remotely possible to change people's behavior that way. It also asserts a false cause - VFD growth is not caused by users nominating more on average, it is caused by Wikipedia having more users.
  4. "People should nominate less" is also in direct contradiction to your claim that 80%-90% of articles nominated on VFD are deleted by consensus. Obviously cleanup is needed. This is also caused by Wikipedia growth; q.v. meatball:CommunityMayNotScale.
  5. "If people think VFD is too long, they shouldn't read all of it" is a let-them-eat-cake proposal, and in direct contradiction to the idea of VFD, which is to form consensus. In order to be consensual, it should be accessible to the average user, and excessive length blocks them from participating. Some people want to read it all but find themselves unable to, and claiming they shouldn't do that is akin to writing an article in highly technical jargon and claiming that if people don't understand it, they shouldn't be reading it.
  6. "We are already doing this (e.g. speedying attack pages) therefore we don't need a rule for it" is a fallacy. Those few rules we have should match with practice. If we are already doing this and we agree that we should, then the rules should reflect this, at the very least to educate newbies. If we are already doing this and we think that we should not, then we should strengthen the rules and convince people not to break them. Or, as a third possibility, we should get rid of the rules entirely and assume that, in good faith, admins can speedily delete whatever they think inappropriate, but I'm pretty sure we agree that the third option is not practical.
• Like I said before, I have no problems with you opposing these particular proposals. But your opposition to the entire idea of improving a situation of which many believe it could use improvement is not helpful to the wiki. Yours, Radiant_>|< July 6, 2005 22:42 (UTC)

[edit] You begrudge me defending myself?

Tony wrote on Talk:Coolcat;

This is utterly mind-boggling. A copied sentence, a copied paragraph? These are not matters for the copyright lawyers! --Tony Sidaway|Talk

It's not a matter of a simple copyvio, but rather, the non-stop complaining, for months afterwards, where Coolcat claims he's been mistreated. He hasn't been mistreated (with regards to Dianosis:Murder). Yet over and over Coolcat cites Diagnosis:Murder as evidence of his mistreatment, blaming the copyvio people who can't read size 28 text and misrepresenting the situation. Tony, do you begrudge me defending myself? I'm not the one who has kept this alive. --Duk 6 July 2005 00:11 (UTC)

In answer to your straight question: no, of course I don't begrudge you defending yourself. My point is that as far as I can tell you're going way OTT in your interpretation of copyright law. Now I really have no idea what his beef is with you or yours with him, but I think I do know a little bit about copyright law. ---Tony Sidaway|Talk 6 July 2005 00:33 (UTC)

With regards to Coolcat, as I've told you before, I've done everything in my power to avoid him since dealing with his copyvios, the exception being when defending myself. My only beef with him is that he keeps claiming I mistreated him when resolving his copyvios. Oh, I should mention, more than once I have suggested to other administrators, who were looking into Coolcat's complaints, that I would step aside if they wanted to re-evaluate Coolcat's copyvios (Frazzydee and Ugen64). None have. I'd like to pass the same suggestion to you, although this should go without saying, being a wiki and all.

With regards to copyvios, I think your ideas are a little out of line; an uncited sentence or paragraph length copyvio isn't acceptable, especially when it makes a significant portion of the article. But I'm not going to argue with you about this any more. I suggest you take it up on the mailing list, or at Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems instead of arguing with me. There are lots of people at those places that probably know more than both of us :) --Duk 6 July 2005 00:59 (UTC)

[edit] CSD Proposal 3-B

You voted or commented on Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/3-B or Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/3-A or both. I have proposed a revised version, at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/3-C. This version is intended to address objections made by many of those oppsoed to 3-A or 3-B. The revised propsal refers explicitly and directly to the criteria at WP:MUSIC. If you have not already done so, please examine the revised proposal and vote on it also. Thank you. DES 6 July 2005 06:14 (UTC)

[edit] Request for arbitration

I think the state of the current RfC Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Davenbelle and Stereotek demonstrates that intervention by the arbitration committee may now be merited. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 4 July 2005 17:28 (UTC)

It shall be done. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 6 July 2005 11:17 (UTC)

Oh? You were a step ahead of me :) --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 6 July 2005 11:22 (UTC)

[edit] Edip Yuksel

Hey Tony,

I've been following the Yuksel issue for a while, and was one of the supporters of undeletion, as I felt process was not followed. I've also been cleaning up the article, attempting to make something encyclopedic out of it. I was wondering what led you to believe there's been a campaign to delete it. While I admit the first VfD was a little strange, it never struck me as anything more than an innocent oversight. I'd really like your view on it, because I'm now considering changing my no vote to a delete on the basis of what appears to be VfD sockpuppetry. As with a previous article, I was borderline to begin with (on the basis of content and notability), and what appear to be people trying to game the system are pushing me into the delete camp.--MikeJ9919 6 July 2005 20:06 (UTC)

[edit] Tidewater plantation

Tony, I think the boxes I placed there were relevant and necessary for Tidewater plantation. It needs better wikification, a more expository tone, AND some kind of reference material. - CobaltBlueTony July 6, 2005 21:08 (UTC)

[edit] The GAP Project

I've made a proposal at Talk:Southeastern Anatolia Project#Clarification and would appreciate you comments. --Duk 7 July 2005 02:57 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal P1

This is a useful idea, but the way it's currently worded it would require patent nonsense (for instance) to be listed in the category you mentioned for two days (since patent nonsense usually neither asserts notability, nor is referenced). What I would suggest is a variant wording... something like this,

• An article about a real person, band, website or RPG player character that does not assert importance or significance of its subject may be tagged with a special template. If after forty-eight hours no assertion of notability is added, the article should be deleted. If a disputed or controversial assertion is added, the article should be listed on Votes for deletion.
• (follow up with some examples of what asserting notability means, which can be copy/pasted from other proposals)

I'd say that since nobody voted on it yet, you can still reword it. Yours, Radiant_>|< July 7, 2005 14:35 (UTC)

FYI, User:Netoholic has now twice reverted the addition of P1 to the main proposal page. Someone else re-reverted the first such change. I did not re-revert the second because you and debating the wording off-line. But you will need to deal with Neto when this comes back online. DES 7 July 2005 17:13 (UTC)

• Okay, I've done as I suggested. Please check it. Yours, Radiant_>|< July 7, 2005 18:47 (UTC)

Tony, Please help me. I think your proposal is going to fail on principle, and it's probably not your fault. Please work with me in trying to convince Radiant to take your new proposal over to Wikipedia:Countdown deletion, and hold more discussion and a later vote - separate from the CSD proposal. It is confusing to have this proposal be so out of place, and there should be no need to rush anything. -- Netoholic @ 7 July 2005 19:53 (UTC)

I did it because it has potential, and you're throwing it in with the rest of that trashy set of proposals does the idea a severe injustice. -- Netoholic @ 7 July 2005 20:41 (UTC)

[edit] Pottsville High School VfD

I noticed your keep vote and copyvio concerns at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Pottsville High School. It is in fact a copy-vio, and I wonder if you want to change your vote. If the article is cleaned up, I will change my vote to reflect that, as the copyvio will no longer apply. --Scimitar 7 July 2005 18:51 (UTC)

[edit] Your protégé

Your "protégé" seems to need more "mentoring." [10] I doubt that couching him on how to harass users like El C is part of the training under your "mentorship." I know that you disagree with El C and Ruy Lopez's POV-- so do I-- but I hope that you understand how this crosses the line. 172 7 July 2005 19:42 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I'm sorry that I was mistaken about your views. (BTW, I'd always assumed that you were also American too.) The Che comment is utterly inappropriate, as Trey Stone is certainly using it as a term of derision. The comments on how El C and Ruy Lopez also have "their own language" are also insulting and condescending. 172 7 July 2005 20:11 (UTC)

Thanks, though I think a at least a temporary block would to serve as a warning will make him more likely to listen. Despite being here on your good graces, his behavior toward users whose views he believes he disagrees with has changed little. 172

He asks me to do "research," then finds it "amusing" I use terms such as Right Deviation, as my own language (?!). Well, it (and ultra-left deviation) is a common enough term, in Wikipedia also. Random example: "as the then General Secretary of the Party and it was, thereafter, politically identified as Right Deviation of the Communist party in the Period of Post-transference of Power." (from: Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) Janashakti) El_C 7 July 2005 21:59 (UTC)

El C, joking about Communist terminology is not a violation of anything. sorry if you took it seriously, but i can't help but view this as an overreaction, especially considering you yourself basically insulted Adam Carr for his bourgeois "class allegiances" and "false analysis." J. Parker Stone 7 July 2005 22:10 (UTC)

and personally, i have never heard the term "ultra-left deviation" until now. that's just me, though. J. Parker Stone 7 July 2005 22:10 (UTC)

as for Ruy, he has inserted ultra-left (now i'm using it) POV into articles, the most noteworthy of which is the Khmer Rouge. i commented about this on his page -- no "harassment" has taken place. if 172 was objective he'd be denouncing Ruy's POV-pushing, which is far more blatant than anything I've ever done despite the fact that he doesn't seem to think so. J. Parker Stone 7 July 2005 22:15 (UTC)

I did not insult Adam, I take exception to the accusation. I spoke of the class allegiances that his world view promotes, a discussion you were not a part of, and yes, that his analysis was false. And he is more than capable to speak for himself. Please stop trolling me. El_C 7 July 2005 22:34 (UTC)

Odd, somehow I had you pegged as a right-of-centre British desi (judging from your pic, though "Sidaway" baffles me). Guettarda 7 July 2005 22:23 (UTC)

I've blocked User:Trey Stone for continuing to be obnoxious on this very page after being warned in email to stop it.

Not sure what you mean, Guettarda. What is "desi"? Sidaway is my surname, it's apparently quite a popular surname in the English Midlands. I'm considerably to the left of mainstream UK politics. My Political compass tends to come out as around -8 or so on both the left and libertarian scales. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 7 July 2005 23:07 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. My mistake (see desi). From your picture you look Indian, but Sidaway didn't sound very Indian. Not sure where I got the impression of your politics...wouldn't be the first time I had a totally wrong picture of someone on Wikipedia. Guettarda 7 July 2005 23:12 (UTC)

Oh, I see. I suppose the picture (which was taken with a very low resolution Siemens phone camera at dusk on a railway train) looks ambiguous. I'm English with some Irish and Scottish ancestry. I think it would be fun if people imagined me speaking the words of my edits in an "Indian" accent of the kind Peter Sellers adopted for The Millionairess. Oh Goodness Gracious Me! --Tony Sidaway|Talk 7 July 2005 23:24 (UTC)

[edit] ExpDel

I have no idea why Neto keeps moving the 'expeditious deletion' proposal to a subpage of 'countdown deletion', but I don't think it's a good idea as this is a new proposal rather than a rewording of an old one. It's now on Wikipedia:Expeditious deletion but I would also not mind making it a sub of the CSD proposal once more. I have protected the page against being moved again, that seemed the best way to stop this mess (the alternative would have been blocking Neto for recent 3RR violations but I thought that was too harsh). Feel free to unprotect or move it if you think it appropriate. Yours, Radiant_>|< July 7, 2005 20:47 (UTC)

[edit] autofellatio

Ok, I'll stop, but I still think that that image has no place in Wikipedia. --Hottentot

[edit] GNAA VfD

I'm going to setup the VfD again, this time I will be watching carefully. This will be the last time, and I will be making sure that it is conducted properly. - Ta bu shi da yu 8 July 2005 03:06 (UTC)

---

I would really have appreciated a note or a bit of discussion on whether to reopen the GNAA VFD which I closed. I didn't protect it because I care about the outcome, but because I'm truly interested in preventing conflict, ill will, and the rash of GNAA trolling which has accompanied the article's listing on VFD in the past.

When I take the time to make a decision which I think might be controversial, I always remain open to discussion (indeed, I provided links to two locations where it might have been discussed). Given sufficient reason, I'm always willing to change my mind, but I certainly don't expect my actions to be peremptorily reversed without explanation.

Incidentally, perhaps the old one should be closed again now that Ta bu has opened a new one. — Dan | Talk 8 July 2005 04:27 (UTC)

I honestly don't care about trolling. Wikipedia isn't a troll-friendly environment. I re-opened the VfD when I discovered it had been closed before the lag time expired. It should not have been closed without clear evidence of jiggery-pokery. I don't think there was any in this case. It's about six months since the last nomination and it's just about time for another. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 8 July 2005 07:40 (UTC)

Begging your pardon, are you being serious about the last bit? Do you intend to continue listing this article on VFD every six months? That sounds an awful lot like intentional disruption to me. Incidentally, this causes a lot of work for me as an IRC op, since they always barrage #wikipedia with floods and nonsense. — Dan | Talk 8 July 2005 20:22 (UTC)

[edit] Usenet people

We're trying to determine if a Usenet personality named "Romath" is notable enough for a Wikipedia article. She was an Alt.Usenet.Kooks "Kook of the Month" for July 1999 and also received the "Tar & Feathers" award. [11] If you have any insight, your participation would be in the VfD would be appreciated. Cheers, -Willmcw July 8, 2005 06:43 (UTC)

Thanks for contributing. Maybe you do deserve an article or two. Cheers, -Willmcw July 8, 2005 23:33 (UTC)

[edit] Tag 'n bag

Hi there! I'm glad we got some kind of compromise proposal together. Even if it doesn't seem to pass the vote now, it would be worthwhile to get feedback and discuss it longer. I apologize if I was rude to you earlier this week; I think we'll continue to disagree on a wide variety of subjects, but I'd be happy to work with you. Yours, Radiant_>|< July 8, 2005 18:47 (UTC)

• I understand your point about abuse - however, the problem that some people speedily delete articles that do not fall under any speedy deletion criterion, is not related to those criteria - rather, it is related to those people. The solution would be to file an RFC against them, and RFAr if they're unwilling to amend their ways. CSD is intentionally limited, and it is one of our very few strict policies. I'm okay with people bending guidelines, but people contravening policy should be strictly admonished. Radiant_>|< July 8, 2005 19:23 (UTC)
• What you say was likely true for Wikipedia one or two years ago, but because of growth it is no longer true now. In a small community, you can work with no rules whatsoever. When the community grows, at a certain point this no longer works. Thus there is a need for some rules to draw a strict line about what is and is not acceptable for, say, deletion. RFC will work in this case - if one admin decides that school articles are not encyclo and starts speedily deleting them, this will get noticed. Since the consensus disagrees with that decision, that will be made obvious (such as on AN/I or RFC). And the admin will change his ways, either because he is convinced or because he rests his case in the face of consensual opposition. Radiant_>|< July 9, 2005 08:14 (UTC)
  • Sorry but your response was a straw man. I strongly oppose instruction creep and overcomplicated procedures. But we need a small number of rules to keep the Wiki workable. Call them conventions, if you prefer. Rules such as the 3RR, and the RFC procedure do make the wiki a better place. Wikipedia is neither a bureaucracy, nor an experiment in anarchy. Radiant_>|< 08:59, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Convene

Actually, I just mistakenly pasted in the same reason when doing a mass unblock of all the people Radiant had blocked for the GNAA listing; I don't particularly care if it's a sock or not and didn't see any blockable behavior. (As for reviving the VfD, I think really the VfD should have been nipped in the bud before anyone threw their two cents in, but I suppose it's too late for that.) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:31, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Article "List of Italian-American mobsters" in category "Category:Italian-American mobsters"

Hey Tony, apparently the article "List of Italian-American mobsters" in the category "Category:Italian-American mobsters" reproduces this category. I suggest this should be cleaned up. I tried to post it on the merge list but I did not want to screw up things so I thought I write to the cleanup taskforce. Best, JamaicaJan, 15:49 (CEST) 10 July 2005

[edit] Population transfer

In the Population transfer article an editor has replaced a paragraph describing anti-Greek ethnic cleansing with one attributing ethnic cleansing to the Greeks. Based on the editor's contributions, this editor appears to be presenting a Turkish POV. Could you comment? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:46, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RFID "inappropriate content"

your edit message on RFID:

Unwik Intelligent traffic systems redlink generating a constant stream of inappropriate content

how does a 404 link generate inappropriate content? — boredzo (✍) 08:34, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Taboo (album)

Perhaps I was a bit hasty in speedying that one. I've cleaned up the spelling as best I could and moved it to Taboo (musical) where it appears to belong. It's already linked from Taboo (disambiguation). - Mgm|^(talk) 12:18, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rules?

I think that's a contradiction in terms. If, by your assumption, people are going to follow rules only generally and use their common sense instead, then one or two rules more or less is not going to make a difference. If, on the other hand, people strictly adhere to those few rules we have (by which I specifically do not mean the many guidelines), then these new proposals have been worded tightly enough that they won't be scoring any false positives. Barring some very rare mistakes since we're all human here, such as Mel's deletion you mentioned earlier, which was quickly caught and rectified. By the way - physical damage? As in the servers getting overloaded and burning out? How do you figure that?

The consensus thinks that VfD is overloaded - therefore that is a problem. The fact that you are not bothered by this problem does not mean that it does not exist. Nominations of school articles have nothing to do with that since there is no criterion proposed that has anything to do with schools (I do wish that people would stop that though, but I can't think of a practical way how). On the contrary, the vast majority of VfD nominations are deleted thru that process - therefore nominating less articles is therefore not a solution since the consensus wants that amount of junk gone. "Simply making people realize" anything is wishful thinking and has no practical application. If either of us could simply make the other realize that he is right, we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place. Radiant_>|< 14:10, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of biomedical terms

Please see my reply to your comment at Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion/List of biomedical terms. — Dan | Talk 01:19, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Coulter

The quote section has been there quite a while, and has been debated at length before -- see archive 1. Full disclosure: I went under the name Wolfman in that debate. Given the previous participation of many editors & long-standing debate, it doesn't seem to me that the default should be to remove the section given an essentially tied poll now. If you feel strongly about removing the quotes (and apparently you do), perhaps the best way forward would be to post an RFC. Regards, Derex 03:15, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, it's never going to be to the satisfaction of all. But, I do recall that I brokered a compromise back around September. This had two parts. First, a 'disclaimer' which appears to be intact. Second, I reduced the number of quotes by selecting those most illustrative of her style. I think that got it down to 8 or so quotes. That compromise was pretty stable for quite a while. Apparently, there has been quite a 'quote creep' in the meantime. The best way forward might be a discussion of which quotes contribute most rather than whether there should be any quotes. Regards, Derex 03:42, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/List_of_biomedical_terms

While I agree that they are a valuable resource, they clearly have absolutely no value as encyclopedic articles. I thought that a link to the original database would be sufficient but clearly you think otherwise. Therefore, I have an obvious compromise. I suggest something akin to the FOLDOC status pages. i.e., move the lists into the wikipedia namespace. Regards, Stewart Adcock 07:13, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Tony, I think your comments on Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion/List of biomedical terms are way out of line. If you thought the articles should have been kept, you should have made your arguments during the VfD. Instead you acted unilaterally, declared yourself above the rules, and resorted to profanity and ad hominem attacks. Surely you can find a way to say, "I disagree" that's less inflammatory than describing other people's actions as "mind-numbing stupidity"? RoySmith 11:26, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Trey Stone 3RR block

Tony, I see that you lifted the block on Trey Stone. Why does the fact that I imposed the block bear any relevance to the matter? I wasn't involved in the Ronald Reagan article. You said that there was "some question" about the 3RR violation. Well, if you look at the AN3 page, you'll see that there are questions about many of the cases reported, yet I don't see you lifting these blocks. If you had examined the diffs and came to the conclusion purely on technical grounds that a 3RR violation had occurred, that would have been a different matter.

Obviously, it is no big deal. It is just that I am troubled with your sense of priorities. Correct me if I am wrong, but you seem to place the right of the individual to edit on Wikipedia above our need of having a harmonious working environment. For my part, I tend to see editing Wikipedia not as a right but a privilege; one that is indeed offered to anyone, but one that is also revoked if an individual contravenes community standards of behavior.

On the one hand, I admire you patience, your obvious kindheartedness, and your willingness to try to work with a socially maladjusted individual like Trey Stone. On the other, you seem so easily influenced and swayed by his protestations. As you know, I (and others) have exhaustively documented his anti-social behavior going back many months. When we opened the RfC, he treated it as a joke, and his behavior thereafter got demonstrably worse. Only much later, when ArbCom started talking about remedies, i.e., real sanctions, like a year-long ban on editing articles related to politics, did Trey Stone panic and try to convince everyone he had cleaned up his act. In other words, he was immune to rational exhortations to change his ways and responded only to the imminent threat of reprisal.

In any case, there are now four votes in support of a temporary injunction against Trey Stone editing articles related to politics while the ArbCom settles the case, and it goes into effect approx. 1530 UTC today. Given the real possiblity of infractions, I sincerely hope that henceforth you will be as diligent in defending this community's desire for a harmonious editing environment as you have been about defending Trey Stone's "right" to edit here. -- Viajero | Talk 09:06, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

lol, "socially maladjusted." and V, I would find it much easier to deal with your edits if you would actually discuss them, as i have tried to several times without success. i am currently working to compromise with 172 on the Stalin article and hopefully others as well. i made you an offer on your talk page that you did not take seriously and kept reverting my edits out of hand. J. Parker Stone 09:10, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Terri Schiavo

Hi Tony, I had the same experience with this article. FuelWagon and Duckecho appear to have been preventing non-approved editors from making changes. I recently did a copy edit, which was reverted by them both, accompanied by personal attacks, leading to FuelWagon filing an RfC against me (now deleted), on the grounds that I had made a reckless edit and wouldn't admit it. Duckecho has announced his departure, and Ed Poor is keeping an eye on things, so the situation may start to resolve itself now. However, I'm going to continue to check that other editors are allowed to edit. If you want to join in that effort, or help to keep an eye on it, you'd be more than welcome. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:28, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good, Tony. You might want to put Talk:Terri Schiavo/Mediation on your watchlist too, as this seems to be where the most recent discussion is taking place. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:18, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] My apologies for my behaviour on #wikipedia recently

Dear Tony,

I would like to offer you my sincerest apologies for my unpardonable and childish behaviour in spoiling the plot line of the recent Harry Potter book on the #wikipedia IRC channel. I did not think before I answered the question about "who dies in book 6" and I did not pay attention to your specific request not to reveal any information, for which I am truly sorry. I do hope that you may have met me sufficiently to determine that this behaviour is rather out of character for me, and I promise not to talk about the plot line of the Harry Potter book in public on IRC again - or any other new book, for that matter. I am also very sorry for spoiling the book for other channel users, including yourself.

If there is any way that I can make my behaviour up to you, please do ask; I am entirely at your service.

Best regards,

NicholasTurnbull 16:41, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] problem over my userpage

I moved my talk page to archive 1, by mistake. Now it redirect my talk page to archive 1, how could I correct this mistake? Thanks. Fadix 17:28, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] IRC/article idea

I got the idea to write an article on the actor who played "Our Brian". Enjoy. Mike H (Talking is hot) 18:35, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Yet Another London Wikimeet

Heya,

We're organising another London meetup, for Sunday the 11th of September; specifics still to work out, but it will probably be fun as ever, and involve a few drinks and a nice chat in a pub. We'd love to see you there...

James F. (talk) 22:08, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ann Coulter

Please check out Talk:Ann Coulter#Old issues and the bits before it. crazyeddie 08:53, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Trey Stone

Please review this provocation (out of the blue), and my response. Thanks. El_C 10:08, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

it was drawn to my attention by someone. for chrissakes, i thought we were done with this. J. Parker Stone 10:10, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] thank you for your opinion on my RfA

Hello, just a quick note to say thank you for voting, even though you were not convinced of my experience. "From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked." (Luke 12:48, NIV) Never was a truer word spoken. I feel empowered, yes, but not in the "oooh cool delete button!" way I was kind of expecting. Already I feel the weight of the responsibility I have now been entrusted with, a weight that will no doubt reduce given time. Perhaps I am ready for it, or perhaps, as you say, I am not. I hope that in the coming weeks and months I can prove you wrong, but no matter what I thank you for giving your honest opinion, it is really important to me. Thank you. :) Garrett^Talk 10:59, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Master Thief Garrett

Thank you for your comment on the Incidents page regarding these deletions. They are indeed out of process. While you and I may not agree on what the WP:CSD should be, I believe that we both believe that whatever criteria are adopted should be followed. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:41, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Hi, it's me (understatement of the century). Just becuse you think I am unworthy of the job doesn't mean you have to roll your eyes into the back of your head and respond with barbed words the moment your unfit candidate "sins" by making an error of judgement. Yes, an error of judgement. I admit it, I screwed up, simple, hominem erratum sunt and all that crap. BUT if you are going to tell me where I went wrong you should do it in a manner that doesn't reek of your displeasure. And there you go discussing my actions on /Incidents, and didn't even tell me. OK, so it's now a place I should be checking all the time, but that's not the point. You may feel all holier-than-thou right now, but you just slipped up there too. I'm not angry, nono, just... disappointed, that's all. Yes. That's the word I'm looking for. Garrett^Talk 00:56, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry to see that you're taking this so badly. No, I didn't slip up as far as I'm aware, but feel free to suggest that in future people making edits on WP:ANI should inform the principal subject of their edits there that they have done so.

If you'll just take some time to calm down you'll see that I compliment you on your work so far and describe you as "certainly administrator material" who however, "only three months an editor...may be a little too green to exercise the good judgement we expect in all circumstances." I also said that you were "doing a good job and I don't want to minimize that." Administrators do fuck up. When this happens it should be discussed on WP:ANI, I've discussed my own fuck-ups there without embarrassment. We owe that much to Wikipedia. I second Snowspinner's words: "Thank you for cleaning up some of the piles of crap people leave around the project. I have absolute confidence everything you did was done in a good faith understanding of the rules". Welcome to the Monkey House. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:39, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, looking back you did say that as well. Hm. I guess I kinda saw you in rather a bad light back there. :( Sorry. Garrett^Talk 03:45, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Langer

When I first came across the article (which has been recreated a number of times in different forms; when I first saw it, its sole content was: "Person from Ireland, who is know as a bit of a fool. Slang word for idiot.") I asked a friend from Cork, who told me that he'd never heard the word, and suggested that the article was a heavily disguised attack on someone called "Lang", "Laing", or possibly "Langer". As I already had my suspicions, I was perhaps too quick to take his word. In any case, though, I see that the article was VfDed, and the vote was to transfer it to Wiktionary ([12]). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:41, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused; you seem to have recreated the article, against VfD, and added the "wiktionary" tag. I assume that that's not really what's happened, and that I'm missing something, but I can't work out what. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:28, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

The VfD, decided last year before the recent vote on transwiki deletions, resulted only in a decision to transwiki. There was no deletion result. Moreover the current article is patently more an encyclopedia article than a dictionary article. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:39, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

I take "transfer" to mean "move" — that is, removed from one place to another. That certainly is how I read the VfD debate. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:48, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Well that problem here is that another interpretation is possible--and indeed there was at the time, as far as I'm aware, no practice of deleting transwikied pages. The article was deleted out of process, and with no justification that I can discern. There were only two delete votes, and one of those expressed as "very weak". It was also closed irregularly--Rossami had voted in the discussion and then went on to close it. If there really is a terribly pressing reason to delete this perfectly good article, it should be VfD'd. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:02, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

The proposer can surely be taken to have voted "delete, which makes three — and one of the "keep" votes was also "weak". Another way of putting it is that there were only two "keep votes, one of which was "weak". But the route to take if you really believe that the article was deleted out of process is to nominate it for undeletion. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:30, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

No, bad speedies can be summarily restored. I do this daily, we'd lose a good many useful articles if I didn't. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:35, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have mentioned that I've raised this issue at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Langer, in an attempt to get other opinions, and I've copied our discussion there. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:33, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

No problems. Please feel completely free to discuss Wikipedia matters anywhere on Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:01, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration Committee case opening

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek has been accepted and is now open. Please bring evidence to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek/Evidence. Thank you. -- sannse (talk) 13:30, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Tony, I presented some evidence. I am new to arbcom hearings so whenever you have time Ill be greatfull if you can comment on how well my evidence is. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 16:19, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Butt hook

Hi Tony, I just wanted to thank you for salvaging this article, its a topic very close to my heart. And I don't care if it's encyclopedic or not! --Scratch 14:45, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rafael Carreras

Thanks for reviewing my n00b admin actions. I certainly agree with your recreation now that I see the proper article you've put in its place. I have to admit that when I deleted it, it certainly seemed like there was no assertion of notability, except that he had a "big dick" (or something like that). Anyway, I just confirmed that a quick Google search would have established notability, and am a little embarassed that I didn't do so with this one, like I did with most of the others. I'm going to be sure to do that in the future. So I don't think this needs VfD. Again thanks! --Dmcdevit·t 04:56, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Hah! That would be a good one. We could have a criteria for inclusion page at WP:DILDO:

A gay male porn star is notable if he meets the following criterion:

1. Has had a dildo named after himself

Well now, look at me. I really need to go to bed. Good night. :) --Dmcdevit·t 09:33, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Stanley Kubrick

Previosuly (on User talk:Manning Bartlett)...

You deleted Template:Stanley Kubrick. I just want to know where I can read the TFD discussion. --Commander Keane 04:29, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I had a look at this. It and another two similar templates were listed for deletion. There was substantial opposition but somehow, with no consensus, it got deleted anyway. I restored because of this irregularity. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:55, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Since then, I made Template:Stanley Kubrick Film and put it on all the Kubrick films articles, getting rid of the Template:Stanley Kubrick on each page. I guess I'll leave it how it is now, but I suppose Template:Stanley Kubrick needs to be deleted again. Nice talk page by the way. Also, how did you access the olf TFD discussion? --Commander Keane 09:04, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Religious persecution by Jews

Hi Tony. I closed the deletion debate above as a "keep, no consensus", but I have recieved a number of complaints about it, from User:IZAK, User:Ambi and User:Jfdwolff have protested my decision and are moving to reopen the debate at Talk:Religious persecution by Jews. One user, User:Danny has added a vote to the debate after I closed it. I don't really know what to do now. On one hand, I understand that they are upset, this was a controversial article where emotions run deep, and having so many delete votes and yet failing to get the article deleted is frustrating. On the other hand I feel that I made a decision based on what I felt was right based on the debate, I see no obvious error in the way I counted the votes, and I am seeing corallories with football referees who don't change their decision, no matter how many protests he gets. Since you particpated in the debate, your opinion as to whether I closed the debate correctly or incorrectly won't count so much, but do you have any advice as to what you think I should do? Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:21, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thomas Garret

Thank you very much for catching my mistake. I apologize, and will take greater care to check on an article's background before deleting it in the future. I've had admin capabilities for a very short time, but I'll ensure this won't happen again. Regards, and thanks once more, Sango123 21:58, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] VfD pollution

Ril enlisted Persecution by Muslims for VfD again, just 24 hours after the article withstood the first VfD. You might be interested to watch it. [13] --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 10:46, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Calvary Christian High School VfD

I've placed a notice on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Calvary Christian High School asking for opinions on how this was closed.
brenneman^(t)(c) 12:31, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion/Calvary Christian High School. Common sense is remarkably helpful sometimes. Ambi 01:45, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

The issue here is the way you interpret a consensus. BJAODN - as pointed out to you on ANI, is shorthand for Delete and BJAODN. This is the way it has been always interpreted by everyone I've ever seen in the whole time I've been at Wikipedia. If you went around all the people who voted BJAODN and asked them whether they meant that it should be kept, I'd be very surprised if you received even one affirmative response. And yes, it makes me angry if you expect that everyone should have to spell out this or you'll not count their votes. If you really think BJAODN means keep, go ask the people who voted, as I suggest above. If instead you continue to just ignore their votes, I will make sure to scream each and every time you do it. Ambi 02:17, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Doesn't BJAODN stand for Bad Jokes and other DELETED Nonsense? Jonathunder 04:00, 2005 July 31 (UTC)

Precisely. Look, if you're convinced that there was a real likelihood they meant anything else other than delete, why don't you go and ask them?

I and others have told you that BJAODN has always been interpeted by everyone else as delete. In all my time on Wikipedia, I have never seen an incident where anyone - even the most inclusionist of people - has chosen to interpret it otherwise. To continue to assert that there was some likelihood that people wanted otherwise - despite delete being in the BJAODN acronym - without providing a shred of evidence smells like being deliberately obtuse in order to have school articles kept. You've made your beliefs with regard to school articles clear, and this at least makes me wonder if you have too much of a conflict of interest to be closing school articles.

Of course, if you continue to insist that BJAODN actually means keep, feel free to ask the people who voted. You might prove me wrong, but I highly doubt it. Ambi 04:07, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Since I see you haven't done me the courtesy of a reply, I've been reading through other recent contributions. I'm a little bemused as to how Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/KarlSchererRevisited3 can possibly be interpreted as anything but merge. Once again, it seems like an idiosyncratic reading of the votes in order to see that the article is kept. Ambi 04:36, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Having received no reply and found no less than twenty-five similar incidents of articles being kept despite having few or no keep votes, I will be proceeding with a Request for comment promptly. Ambi 06:11, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Let me rephrase. I continue to take issue with the practice of treating delete votes as keep votes where parties are split between redirect or delete - or, in this case, where BJAODN votes were treated as keep votes. This seems to me to be a serious misrepresentation of the voting intentions of those who voted; their votes have been counted as the complete opposite of what they actually voted for.

But it seems that you honestly believe that someone who voted BJAODN really meant keep, or someone who voted delete on an article would really prefer that it be kept unchanged as opposed to redirected where voters were split between the two options. Such a practice has two negative effects; it leaves people with a choice of seeing their wishes misrepresented, or else having to take time that would otherwise be spent writing articles running around to all the delete voters getting them to change their votes to keep, lest Tony take the opportunity to count them as keep votes.

So if you're really serious, anyway, let us settle this. What would you think if I went around each of the twenty-four cases where you've kept articles despite their having few or none at all keep votes and asked every delete voter whether they would have preferred the article to be kept unchanged or redirected? If you're right, then there'll surely be a genuine lack of consensus, with plenty saying they'd rather have the article kept unchanged.

So how about we come to an agreement - if there is a genuine lack of consensus among the responses, then I'll quit whining, but if it does turn out that the vast majority wanted the articles deleted, then you knock off this practice of discounting votes in closing VFDs. Thoughts? Ambi 10:45, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Six votes to merge and six votes to delete is not a consensus to delete. It is, however, a consensus that the article should not remain as is. I'm not suggesting that the VFDs be re-run, as they're now in the past now, but I am suggesting that we find out what those people wanted. You consistently interpret VFD votes so as to make delete votes = keep votes if there is a substantial number of redirect votes. If that is the will of the voters, then surely they will provided some justification for this perspective.

You say that a delete vote does mean a delete vote, but when there are six redirect votes and six delete votes, you treat the six delete votes as six keep votes - instead of six redirect votes, which is much more in keeping with the likely intention of the voters. Thus a misrepresentation has occurred.

You said that a BJAODN vote means moving it out of the article space. But despite the fact that very nearly all the votes were for either BJAODN or deletion, you kept the article there - which was against the wishes of basically everyone who voted. In the circumstances, I cannot see this as being anything other than a misrepresentation of the votes of nearly everyone who voted.

I'm all for the autonomy of the closer. When I went through your contributions, I saw quite a few borderline calls - some I agreed with, some I disagreed with, but were still quite within the bounds of closer discretion. The only articles I'm concerned with here are the 26 (sorry, I initially miscounted) unforgivable cases - cases where very few, if any, voters wanted an article kept, and yet you kept the article. That, as far as I am concerned, goes well beyond the boundaries of closer autonomy. Ambi 13:06, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

In these 26 cases, the article was kept despite there being no or virtually no keep votes. In these cases, an article has been kept where there are several votes for both delete and redirect. It is abundantly clear that there is not a consensus for deletion, but it is more clear that there is not a consensus to keep the article unchanged. Your "no consensus" closures thus have the effect of doing the opposite of what the delete voters wanted. They clearly wanted stronger action than a redirect, but they also very clearly did not want the article kept as is. Instead of doing the action that follows the general consensus of all those there - which in all but one of these cases would have been a redirect (and in the other would have been a delete), you have kept the article intact - quite clearly contrasting the wishes of the VFD voters in every one of these cases. Ambi 14:59, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Please see my comments on Ambi's talk page. - brenneman^(t)(c) 15:05, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Yangon

Hello, you may be interested in voting on whether the article Yangôn should be moved to Yangon. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 21:21, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Apparently another sockpuppet

I see you blocked User:Existentializer as a sockpuppet of a frequently banned user. I think we have another sock of his now...

User:Ni-ju-Ichi, based upon his edit history, looks to be exactly the same guy... note how he reverts Vampire and Vampire fiction to same states he was edit warring over earlier (with same false claims of reverting "vandalism" -- although this time in abbreviated form) anmd also the preoccupation with Islam.

I'd appreciate it if you could undo his edits on Vampire and Vampire fiction if he starts warring over them and then blocking this new one... since he keeps coming back I think more severe steps, if any exist, need to be taken, as he has proven himself unwilling to work within the rules. DreamGuy 05:08, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

If you look at Ni-ju-Ichi's first edit, you'll see it was to this article Eyeshield_21_(anime). If you look at the history of this article, you'll see that the only other user to edit it was Kurita77. I think it is very clear that he is a sock of Existentializer/enviroknot.63.70.62.84 16:40, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Holy crap!

I just thought you should know that I just edit-conflicted with you twice in a row! Trying to close Scooby doo, then Mary Waldron. You are good! (but annoying at the same time for the same reason:) ) Well, anyway, just felt like ranting to you about it since I've taken it as a sign that I should get to bed now. Carry on! :) --Dmcdevit·t 07:22, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Your comment

Please not that no text was deleted. Thank you for your opinion. - Tεxτurε 14:36, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Help please

Tony, I wonder if you could take a look at what's going on at Talk:The God Who Wasn't There. I placed a good faith copyvio warning yesterday - I may have been wrong, but it was good faith. Now I'm getting all sorts of nasty personal abuse - I don't need this. The notice has been removed as 'vandalism' - and I certainly don't want to revert after the treatment I've been getting. If I've done anything wrong - I'll be happy to apologise and be corrected (gently please). --Doc (?) 22:00, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks (I knew you'd be fair), and it's nice to be vindicated by a disinterested party (although I'm still at little taken aback by the attacks)--Doc (?) 22:49, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Btw, contrary to the accusations, I had listed this as a copyvio [[[14]]] - so it is now listed twice (I don't know if that if it matters) --Doc (?) 22:57, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright Violation Accusation

What is your basis for accusing Brian Flemming of Copyright violation regarding his movie "The God who Wasn't There"?--Marcperkel 22:52, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I haven't accused Brian Flemming of copyright violation. I've verified for myself that wording on the site that Doc Glasgow cited also appears in the editing history and recent contents of the article. This means that by publishing it *we* would be violating his copyright. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:06, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

• If i might suggest that you look in the discussion section where Brian Flemming states that he personally wrote the material in the site that the link points to. If you read the discussion it will clear it up. I pointed this out to Doc Glasgow and he refuses to change. He apparently is recruting other people, like you, to do his dirty work. This is all really clear if you just read what the author said. When the actual author verifies that it is not a violation, that's as good as you get. I would also point out that false copyright violation claims are a criminal act under the DMCA. --Marcperkel 23:41, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Marcperkel, I would like to point out that it is KNOWINGLY false information about copyright claims that is prohibited, and nobody in the history of this country has been prosecuted for it as far as I can tell. Please tone done your hysteria level. Also, Assume good faith. DreamGuy 23:50, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

I've left a message for the user known as BrianFlemming on his talk page. Now in all likelihood this chap is who he says he is, but because it's possible for anyone to create a username on Wikipedia his assurance on the Wiki isn't enough. We do have a procedure in these cases and it's being followed. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 04:33, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I've investigate the copyright violation claim thoroughly and updated the entry at WP:CP and removed the notice. The disclaimer on the website applying to the press kit covers use on Wikipedia. I have refactored the discussion page and added a prominent notice there about the disclaimer. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:34, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hoax

I think the Rana lechuza hoax has already enough votes (Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Rana lechuza) to be deleted. I would apreciate if you could do so. Thank you, -Mariano 07:19, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Signature preferences

Hello, Tony, I was looking at User:Tznkai's talk page, and I came across this [15] from you:

Sorry I inadvertently put this on your user page. You can make this kind of thing less likely to happen if you put a talk link into your signature. Enter Tznkai]]|[[User talk:Tznkai|Talk into Nickname in preferences.

I had been wondering for some time about how to link my signature to my talk page, so your suggestion was very helpful, even though it wasn't made to me! I've been experimenting, and I managed to get rid of the vertical line "|" (which I don't like), and to make spaces and put brackets. Then I thought I'd like the word "talk" higher than my name. I've seen that on other signatures. I tried entering Ann Heneghan]] ^{[[User talk:Ann Heneghan |(talk)} into the field, and I'm happy with the results, except that the date is now up in the air, which I don't want. Any ideas on how to have "(talk)" up in the air, and the date back down again? Thanks. Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 12:08, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me, and for taking the trouble to fiddle around with your own signature. I tried moving the first "sup" tag along, as you suggested. It worked perfectly - as you can see!

And yes, I'm settling nicely into Wikipedia. I'm beginning to realize that it isn't a good idea to spend to much of my Wikipedia time on the same subject, so I've been making some minor changes to Laura Ingalls Wilder, and Relative Clauses, and the Duchess of York, and other, unrelated articles. I'm thinking of starting an article on the DIT Conservatory of Music and Drama, which is where I work. Our "rival" institution, the Royal Irish Academy of Music has a Wikipedia article, but we don't! Thanks again! Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 14:24, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RfC

I've only just come online and seen this. I've endorsed your summary but may leave another comment somewhere. Don't even think about having yourself de-sysopped. You're a great admin: cautious, respectful of policy (letter and spirit in my experience), mindful of any perceived conflict of interest, keen to garner other views before you act. I'll look more carefully at the diffs later, but at first glance I can't see anything wrong with the way you close VfDs. Chin up. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:12, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Same here. I've reviewed the diffs posted as well, and all I can see is a bunch of articles which were ultimately redirected somewhere else or rewritten into appropriate and keep-worthy material. In the end, that's what we want, no? Don't let the haters drag you down. —RaD Man (talk) 07:25, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Price-Anderson

It hasn't been protected for a couple of weeks now Tony. :) --Woohookitty 01:44, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] VfD Antonia Bance - not complaining!

Hi Tony. Your closure of this was obviously correct, whichever way the votes are counted. But I was interested which two delete votes you discounted; I think only User:Dcarrano falls below your threshold; was the other one me? -Splash 03:38, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough. I certainly have no problem with 50/50 being kept (or the raw 60/40, for that matter). Thanks. -Splash 03:57, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tekken characters

It wasn't a renomination, because the previous VFD nominated all the articles, while I nominated 31 out of 50 of them. Many of the keep voters argued that several of the articles had a good deal of information on them, so I only nominated the ones that had brief one-paragraph descriptions. However, I see how such a quick follow-up to the previous VFD would incite bad feelings.

I have already created an article, Tekken characters, that includes all the information (copy-and-pasted) from the minor articles. The more detailed characters have a brief summary, and a link to the main article. I actually noticed that a few users have already redirected some minor characters there. Maybe I'll just let the Tekken fans sort it out.

I didn't appreciate that the VFD subpage outright deleted, without consensus; simply removing it from the main listing should have been enough, so you could at least discuss it with me before deletion.

Regardless, thanks for the feedback. --Poiuyt Man ^talk 06:42, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Khmer Rouge

You see what happens as soon as you unprotect? Adam 07:49, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

The reason the article was protected was to stop communist propagandist Ruy Lopez filling it full of his communist propaganda and starting endless edit wars. As soon as the article is unprotected he starts again. Now there will be another round until it is protected again.

PS you need to archive your Talk. Adam 08:29, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

• Rolls eyes at naive comments.* Since you clearly have had no experience in dealing with Lopez or his many clones, or with this article in particular, I suggest you stay out of it and let those of us familiar with the problem deal with it. Adam 08:39, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I and others are working on a case, but it is extremely difficult to get any effective action against politically-motivated wreckers like Lopez. Adam 08:51, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Consensus

Just so I'm clear - it sounds like we agree on Consensus. Two-thirds clearly needs discretion and I only viewed your opinions on 75% to be a difference of opinion and not any kind of abuse. - Tεxτurε 20:45, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Stubs on Deering Oaks

Tony, FYI the stub templates that were on Deering Oaks were not being "mucked around with" they were created out of process, and failed to conform to the standard for stub tempaltes. They were created by User:Maoririder and used only by that user. Thus they were listed for deletion. If the Deering Oaks article survives VfD it will need to be properly stubbed. I would probably have soen so, but soe no reason to bother when i was in the process of listing it on VfD. If you haven't taken a look at User talk:Maoririderdoing so may enlighten you on this situation. I am genuinely trying to be helpful to this user, but have not found it easy. DES ^(talk) 22:17, 3 August 2005 (UTC)