User talk:Tony Sidaway/Archive 2005 09 30

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

deletion

Template:User Tony Sidaway/User

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

Contents

[edit] Khmer Rouge blocking

I have been trying to put an NPOV notice on top of the page. Adam Carr has been reverting me. As you said, this page has been protected multiple times, and there has been a major content dispute going back years, so I'm not sure how putting an NPOV notice on top is "disruptive", or something to be blocked 48 hours for. I also don't see where you can have the authority to tell me I can't edit a page, especially when all I am trying to do is put an NPOV tag on a page which is obviously contentious.

As far as Wikipedia, I see certain users who break the 3RR, make personal attacks, create sock puppets and that is not to mention insert POV, and it takes ArbCom months to deal with them. Yet on this page you are taking it upon yourself the authority to ban me for 48 hours because I simply want to put an NPOV tag at the top. And of course, in the midst of all of this rule-breaking which persists for months, there is no rule of course about adding an NPOV notice to a page.

Despite all of this, since you seem to have a problem with *me* putting an NPOV tag on top of the page, if it would make you happy, then I will let *you* put an NPOV tag on top of the Khmer Rouge page. Since you have arbitrarily decided I can not edit this page, I suppose I then would have to rely on you to put such a tag on. Ruy Lopez 23:58, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

I see you put up the NPOV tag. If the tag remains there, and Adam Carr doesn't edit the article, I won't edit outside of the discussion page for the rest of 2005. I have been willing to compromise and work towards a solution for a year, Adam Carr has been the one who said he would not abide by a mediation committee decision and whatnot. I am willing to compromise, although Carr's intransigence has made that difficult. Ruy Lopez 00:27, 18 September 2005 (UTC)


Tony, I strongly support your basic approach, at least for now. I don't think people who oppose it understand the situation right now too well. I made up a compromise version based on the latest ones that Adam Carr and Ruy Lopez were revert warring over. Although it of course moved towards Ruy's side from the majority's, it met with basic approval for CJK, who was "on Adam's side." Unfortunately Ruy has not made any comments on it, or any substantive matters recently. At this stage, it is not really a content dispute, as one can see by the smallness of differences between everybody's version. There are POV problems in the common core, you identified a major one, but those should be taken care of when people start talking and editting in a reasonable way, and sticking a NPOV tag on firmly for now is a good idea. At this stage it is much more a widespread Wikiquette problem. Everybody there should just cool off, and take things very slowly, and eschew personal attacks, and remember that etiquette is more important than content or neutrality. I think that you being adamant about violations of common courtesy or sudden tag removal or placement is a very good idea. John Z 22:37, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
As far as my comments - a new (or very old rather) issue was introduced, so I just commented on that, about the 1970 coup. The GRUNK/FUNK issue I have commented a lot on in the discussion and archives, I could reiterate what I said if desired. Then there's the edits CJK put in in July, while the GRUNK/FUNK argument was going on, which is discussed in the discussion, which I could reiterate on. In the context of the past few months, the 1970 coup edits are the main new issue, so that is what I have commented on. But I am happy to give my opinion on whatever versions are out there. Ruy Lopez 04:46, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
Well it's good that you've been able to get some reasonable editing done rather than these revert wars. If you look at the protect log I am about the only sysop interested in getting this article back into a normal editable state. It's easy for us to say "oh, dispute, just protect and wait for things to settle down" but it's ridiculous when the thing can't be edited at all for more than one month out of three. Okay, I hope you will find yourself able to support this position by replacing the tag if it's removed without good reason. A little firmness, and lots of goodwill, we should get things rolling again. --Tony SidawayTalk 23:20, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Khmer Rouge

This is a grossly unfair ruling. You are in effect saying that Lopez is free to wreck the article again with his ridiculous communist propaganda edits, but if I revert him I will be blocked. This is using your admin powers to take sides in a long-running content dispute, which I would have thought was an abuse of your authority. If you study the edit history (not someething I would wish on anyone), you will see that Lopez has been trying for many months to remove all factual statements which reflect badly on the Khmer Rouge, and that all other editors who are following this article oppose him, although most eventually lose patience and leave - I do not. His NPOV tag is just his latest ploy to bring the article into disrepute. There is no "NPOV dispute" at this article. Lopez is not interested in "NPOV" - he is interested solely in imposing his communist views on this and many other articles. I suggest you withdraw this ruling, and do some research on Lopez's history at Wikipedia before you penalise those of us trying to defend Wikipedia against ideologies and cranks. Adam 02:38, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

PS please archive your Talk.

Instead of discussing the content of the page, Carr launches into an ad hominem attack, what a surprise. As far as Carr's suggestion to "study the edit history" and his suggestion that I'm imposing POV on "many other articles", I could say the same of Carr. In fact he was admonished (Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Skyring#Adam_Carr_admonished) in a 6-0 decision by ArbCom for his "discourtesy and personal attacks" several months ago.
And Skyring was banned for a year, so watch out. Adam 10:04, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
He also keeps accusing me of being in a communist sect for some reason. My interest in this topic was actually spurred by a book by Noam Chomsky, an author whose work was banned in the Soviet Union, not exactly a communist hardliner. I also want to include material from American academics (who tend to be more conservative than European academics) like Michael Vickery. I should point out that I am not now, nor ever have been a member of a communist organization, Adam Carr has said publically that he used to belong to a communist group. So somewhere along the road he went from being a fanatic communist to fanatically anti-communist, and now I guess he accuses anyone who disagrees with him of being in some communist sect like he used to be.
As far as the neutrality of the article, let's look at the photos instead of the text for a summary. The second photo says "Photos of young Khmer Rouge fighters, most of whom came from poor peasant families". Well, just like there was no such thing as the Viet Cong (they called themselves the National Liberation Front), there is no such thing as a Khmer Rouge, as is mentioned in the beginning of the article, they called themselves the Communist Party of Kampuchea (Cambodia). And the party had no army - the army fighting in the countryside was the Cambodian People's National Liberation Armed Forces, the head of which was Sihanouk, who had run Cambodia until he was thrown out in a coup in 1970. But let's put those things aside. The fighters mostly came from poor peasant families? Well how about, say, the USA, are the enlisted men and women in the armed forces from the wealthy families of the US, or even from upper middle class professional families? No, most enlisted are from poor and working class families, that's well known. Would such a caption appear on the US army page? No, it would be considered POV. Why isn't it here? The next picture is 24 people executed by the Cambodian government. One who has studied the history would know that most of the people in this photograph were probably medium-high level members of the communist party who were killed during a purge, thus they may have been "victims" of the "regime" (another POV word, would "Bush regime" be considered NPOV?), they had also been part of the "regime". That aside, do pages of the US Democratic or Republican party feature two dozen faces of the people who were executed in various US prisons while they were in power? It is POV. Then there is the "death toll" graph. This is the most laughable - it is a graph, which makes it seem like it is a scientific study of precipitation or something. Of course, the evidence for these numbers is scant, if existent at all. As far as Carr's accusations that I am trying to cover up genocide or whatever nonsense he is saying, this graph actually covers up a genocide. The US Air Force admits it dropped hundreds of thousands of tons of ordnance on Cambodia prior to 1975, a massacre which this chart helps cover up. Ruy Lopez 04:47, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
Most of what you write is original research or red propaganda. While I agree there is a place for improvement to make the article sound more NPOV, I think the articles quality is above the average Wikipedia article, and is a disservice to kill it with a POV tag. I have read plenty of material about the Khmer rouge, as part of my readings on crimes against humanity, and what I can say, is that the article, from my own knowledge is accuratly represented and I can cite books if need be. And I will go further and say, that this article is near to be a featured article candidate, and can be prepared to be one. Also, reading your answers at the articles talk page, it seems that you have difficulty understanding that "proving" something doesn't justify doing what you want to do with the article, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it report what is said about a subject... The fact of the matter is that most publications about the topic goes in the other direction from the one you take. There are free internet hostings out there, if you want to defend a thesis you are free to take a host. Fadix 06:21, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
Red baiting is the way to get elected, Willie Horton or will he not get elected on Television Wikipedia, the drug of the nation. El_C 06:39, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
I won't really qualify my answer as red baiting. I don't think I have called him a Communist, or accused him of such. The material really seem to be red propaganda, not that he is a comminist. Fadix 16:33, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
Most of what you're saying here is very vague. You accuse me of writing "original research" but cite no examples. Then you say I am writing "red propaganda". Since May I have had three issues - put an NPOV tag in, FUNK/GRUNK, and I reverted CJK's new edit while the FUNK/GRUNK edit was unresolved. So my one piece of "red propaganda" was the FUNK/GRUNK issue. I should add that all of the major American scholarship basically says the same thing I said in my changes regarding to FUNK/GRUNK, so I suppose they're "red propagandists" as well. Then you go into talking about the Khmer Rouge and crimes against humanity. I don't see how this pertains to the core dispute, which was the FUNK/GRUNK one though. You also keep talk about citing books, and how "most publications about the topic goes in the other direction from the one you take". Well, please cite them. A look through the archives shows me citing the major scholarship over and over, Fadix makes a lot of vague charges, then goes off on a tangent with a soliloquy about the crimes against humanity of the Khmer Rouge (I guess the US dropping hundreds of thousands of tons of bombs on Cambodia doesn't deserve mention as a crime against humanity), then comes back and says that there are sources that disagree with me. Disagree with me about what? What are these sources? I've cited mine on the discussion page. Perhaps you can tell us on what topics the anonymous sources you read "go in the other direction" on before you cite them. Is this sort of vague thing, interspersed by moralizing, supposed to help the content dispute? Ruy Lopez 04:41, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
Who made you believe I'll keep this vague, I'll answer to Tony's request to my answer in the talk page of the article. I don't do empty talk, it's not in my nature. Fadix 05:00, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jaques Brel and John Lennon look down at the foundering comparison to Biff Rose

While I applaud your efforts to raise the subject of our debate up to the level of wordsmiths such as Jaques Brel, and John Lennon, a single listen to the later works will acquaint you sufficiently to the lacking stylistic qualities included in Rose's later work. The comparison falls far short of relevance considering the level of ingenuity and intellectual sincerity of Lennon and Brel versus the angry hate fueled ditribes of Biff Rose. What is of note is that when people like David Duke and those of the White Power movement use the same kind of language in similar situations, it is referred to as hate speech. But when apologists try to slip Rose into the role of a linguistical and theatrical creator who shouldn't be bound by any guidelines, I myself have a hard time disagreeing. Artists should be free to speak as they please, everyone should be...but when someone is unable to separate bitter anger from clever wordplay supposedly promoting thought through his "conflict" theater, in the words of john Lennon, "don't you know you can count me out." The important thing here isn't the sentiments Brel used to power a larger work, but the larger workt of Rose's later career, totally imbued with his racist and anti semtic idealogy. Bypassing those issues would be akin to ignoring Lennon's pacifism, and heroin addiction, or Brel's ebullient songs, or his portrayal of the seedier elements of life with a harrowing honesty as well as an honest appreciation of their purpose. Rose on the other hand mostly pokes fun at people less fortunate than him, or merely different. Kike and nigger, words he uses with an alarming regularity, do not impart wisdom. In some cases, as with Patti Smith in her excellent Rock and Roll Nigger, there is the ability to devalue those words. Biff Rose's usage is not akin to that kind of interpretation. Instead, his songs during his later period exterpate any of the hippie ideaology his earlier works prescribed. And it might due you some good, Tony, to check out Brel's career- he expressed manyu views concerning the people of his hoemland- many not so flattering to them. In his wikipedia entry, this is noted. And Not by me.Jonah Ayers 04:24, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

I thank you for your support in my successful RfA. I hope I can live up to the expectations of the community. I felt really nice that you still continue to watch me, and I will surely look forward to you for suggestions, and I shall free to come to you to have the benefit of your experience. --Bhadani 10:16, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:Tony Sidaway/Emergency archive

Sorry to archive your Talk in your absence, but the page was so humungously long I couldn't open it otherwise. Adam 10:13, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

No problem, and thanks for taking the initiative. I moved it to the right place and it's now accessible as 09/18 on the top nav. --Tony SidawayTalk 11:12, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Expansion theory

I only reverted because I was doing RC patrol and I instinctively hit rollback when I saw the top had been made blank. So I assumed the article was blanked. Then I scrolled down and saw I was wrong, so I did the courteous thing and reverted myself, not wanting to get involved in determining which was the better version. Everyking 12:07, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh I see. Yes, that was the safe thing to do. --Tony SidawayTalk 12:09, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bagrationi

Why did you unprotect this? It was originally protected because Levzur was removing the dispute tag, and he'll probably go right back to doing that now. What do you mean by "no discussion in three weeks"? There has been plenty of discussion since the article was protected. More discussion, in fact, than I'd been able to drum up in the entire history of the article up to that point. Perhaps it is indeed time to unprotect now that it's not just me vs Levzur, but it would have been better to ask the participants beforehand. Isomorphic 05:54, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Ah, just read your correction. Regardless, it would have been nice if you'd asked rather than decreed that the article should be unprotected. If an edit war ensues, I will not be surprised. Isomorphic 05:57, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Asking isn't really a good idea. I was going to unprotect anyway. Even two weeks is pushing it, this was well into its third. --Tony SidawayTalk 06:01, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Out of curiousity, why isn't asking a good idea? I don't particularly like leaving articles locked either, but the issues that led to the protection aren't resolved. I doubt they'll be resolved without banning Levzur, a fate he has only narrowly escaped in the past. Isomorphic 06:11, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
If that really is the case, then protecting articles is not the solution. --Tony SidawayTalk 10:00, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Academics and notability

I have seen a number of very dubious nominations on AfD of academics with prestigious positions and numerous publications (Ian Lustick, Jacob Klein, Marshall Poe, and probably others), and some of these have just barely escaped speedy to reach AfD (Lustick was actually speedied while on AfD, but recreated by me). We really need to get some consensus on this. I think a problem is that some Americans can't get out of the mindset that a "professor" (or "college professor" as they tend to call it) is an occupation rather than a position. Your suggestion, OTOH, that anyone who has published anything in an international journal (which would include a large number of postgraduate students, even undergraduates) could be included, is unlikely to be acceptable to a majority; I would suggest starting from the "top" and begin by agreeing what we can easily agree on, then work towards the relatively more obscure. If we can agree on a few things, some other things may be possible to extrapolate from those. Uppland 16:13, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Trouble @ the Biff Rose corral

Sojambi Pinola and Willmcw seem to be trying to bend the rules to their desires. Sojambi posted someone's email address, and willmcw was posting smarmy attacks that maligned editors. I removed them, as well as alerted other admins and yourself about their work. See Willmcw's talk page in regards to his attacks...216.175.112.9 03:05, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] VfU mechanics

Tony,
Are you planning in weighing in on round two of this discussion? The first bit was really semantics, the "how will it actually work" section is the real meat of it. DES, for instance, has summarised his views as follows (the bits I've bolded are where he and I agree, and added comments intended to inflame you into contributing to discussion):

  1. DR should treat keeps and deletes as nearly identical as possible.
  2. If a majority thinks process was violated, some action must result.
    Thus a Keep could be overturned at 51%.
  3. DR should be as final as possible.
  4. The DR mehanics should be as explicit as possible, leaving little to implication.
  5. "Process not content" must be enshrined as a DR principle, in general.
    I don't think I even need to prod you here.

I'm pretty sure that you'd be unhappy with this outcome, while being equally sure I'd be unhappy with the outcome you'd be happy with. ^_^
Now through poking you with sharp stick,
brenneman(t)(c) 04:20, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

We don't do things by majority vote; VFU has been an anomaly and should be rectified so that it is in line with deletion policy, of which the guiding principle is: if in doubt, don't delete.

"Process not content" is a travesty of undeletion policy, both play a part but content is always far more important in an encyclopedia than process.

Having said that I'm not going to participate in this because my recent research has convinced me that AfD and VFU/DR account for a very small and diminishing proportion of all content on Wikipedia. It's a side-show and its latterday domination by extreme exclusionists is unlikely to be a problem in the long term. --Tony SidawayTalk 07:11, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. - brenneman(t)(c) 07:39, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Tony, sorry for eavesdropping, but your 'research' seems to bear out my anecdotal experience in NP patrol. I'm on the brink of giving it up as having a Canute-like pointlessness, but I'm very interested in the 'where does it end' question. I've scribbled down my musings here (although probably saying nothing new), if anyone is interested. --Doc (?) 12:18, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-Polonism

An anon keeps creeping on to this page and nominating it for deletion (without actually completing the nom on the main AfD page). It's obviously bad form to continually nominate something but when the AfD note has been placed it's also bad form to simply delete the notice (as was done a week ago) without going through the process. Anyhow, you unprotected so I thought you might decide whether to delete the nom or carry it forward.

Personally, I think at this point I'd actually vote delete. The POV is so systemic on the page I think it needs to be started again. Various (months long) attempts to rename, merge, split etc. are inevitably hijacked. Marskell 11:29, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

It seems to have been correctly nominated now. --Tony SidawayTalk 13:44, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] McDonald's

Hi, Would you mind taking a look at McDonald's? For some reason, I can't revert the vandalism on that page. It works fine on preview, but after saving, it's back to what it was (a text saying: YO GUYS BRING BACK THE MCRIB PLZ!!!). Or am I completely missing something? --JoanneB 16:09, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

That vandalism doesn't seem to be present now. Check your browser cache. --Tony SidawayTalk 16:16, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, I've noticed, sorry. I thought I'd cleared my cache. Thanks for your reply! In my contributions, I saw I accidentally posted my message several times, sorry about that too! Until now, every time I got an error message, the message hadn't gone through. But I'll pay more attention to it in the future. --JoanneB 18:12, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bob Dylan unprotection

This article has been protected against all edits for about 27 days in the past month. That's a ridiculously long period of protection over a squabble between a few editors on this wiki. Moreover the RfC which is given as a pretext for page protection has not been edited since Sep 16th, five days ago. I'm unprotecting so that the page can be edited. Editors who are aware that their edits are being discussed in the dispute should probably discuss proposed changes first and gain consensus. All others should feel free to edit. --Tony SidawayTalk 16:56, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I believe this unprotection is premature. Lots of articles that I've seen remain protected much longer than 27 days (we had a problem user on Nehru, and that got locked for several months, for example). The RfC has been edited multiple times in the last day (but on the talk page, i.e. discussion; we've stalled waiting for Monicasdude to respond to the RfC on the main page).
Nonetheless, since it is unlocked, please keep an eye, editors, on shennanigans by Monicasdude. I suspect, in particular, that he will quickly litter the article with link spam to his personal sites. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:18, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
P.S. We went through an unprotection cycle a couple days ago. Admin Ryan Delaney was already keeping an eye on the RfC, and the lock; an uninvolved admin took off the protection, but was quickly persuaded to reapply it (not by me). I know you're acting in good faith, having just seen some sort of log of protected pages; but my feeling is that every editor other than the disruptive one with the RfC against him would rather keep the protection in place (there's a temporary copy of the page for editors to work on, though I don't think that's really done anything). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:29, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't want to re-assert the protection because I'm not convinced that any harm can be done to the Wiki if people edit the article. If you can find another sysop to protect it again, I'll not consider reprotecting until another three days of article protection have passed.

Seriously, though, nearly four weeks is a very, very long period for edit protection, even if vandalism were involved. Maybe you honestly cannot come to an agreement after weeks and a stalled RfC, but this is no reason to stop other people editing the article. --Tony SidawayTalk 17:35, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Since the disputed section was discussed by several users during the protection period, and the majority of comments opposed it, and because no one actively disputed admin: Ryan Delaney's declaration that lyrics characterizations of that sort was inappropriate as original research, I deleted the section without inserting the alternative text I'd previously proposed. The article is therefore silent, for the moment, on a point for which no consensus has been reached. I expect you'll now see why this dispute reached an intractable stage. Monicasdude 18:42, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Well I'm still a little mystified. Your edit seems reasonable, if the circumstances are as you have described them. --Tony SidawayTalk 18:49, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Circumstances are not, of course, as Monicasdude wrote above. He has a particular WP:NOR/WP:NPOV position he wants in the article; and his first edit once you unprotected was to perform the exact same revision that started the whole RfC thing in the first place (against overwhelming consensus of editors). I know you're not involved in it, Tony Sidaway, but I just can't see any good coming of letting Monicasdude resume abusing his pet page. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:23, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
And this is why the dispute is intractable. User:Lulu doesn't want to comply with the NPOV policy, but wants his opinion written into the article as fact. There's never been a clear consensus among editors on the matter -- at the time of the first edit dispute, which led to page protection, there were two editors on each side of the argument. During the protection and RfC, two or three more editors weighed in, all opposing or questioning the conclusory statement user:Lulu insists on. He said earlier on the article's talk page that "non-inclusion" of a position on the matter amounts to POV rejection of his opinion; that's not an approach that's consistent with the "non-negotiable" NPOV guideline. I think the article should be neutral on the disputed issue (although the great weight of published commentary rejects user:Lulu's position). User: Lulu doesn't. Monicasdude 19:58, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attacks?

On the Dylan talk page, you've asked me a number of times to "stop personal attacks." Scouring through my comments, I honestly cannot find any personal attack that I might stop. Stating that Monicasdude has repeatedly reverted everything written by other people, with little eye to content, is just as neutral as I know how to state the fact. Help me find a way to say that that you wouldn't consider a "personal attack", please. I confess that I am a little annoyed after all the epithets Monicasdude has hurled at me, but I haven't done any of that on my part, at all. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:19, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Well you're entitled to your opinion of Monicasdude's activities, and he's entitled to his opinion on the quality of a given edit. You know if you disagree with an edit somebody makes you can alter it yourself; there's no need to go on saying that that the person who made it is being uncooperative and whatnot. I find this constant harping on what Monicasdude will do very depressing; I thought we were trying to discuss the content of a disputed edit. --Tony SidawayTalk 17:27, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Maria Pia de Saxe Coburg Braganza

There are people in this page that change the authentic and original baptism name of the duchess Maria Pia of Braganza and insert as title of this page the name Hilda Toledano. Hilda Toledano was only a pseudonym name that she used when she wrote some of her novels and also a pseudonym that she used in particular in salazarist period for political problems (You can see also in this web page : http://www.projectedletters.com/vault/maria-pia/maria-pia-3/ ). Don' t exist other documents where we can see the name Hilda Toledano. She was knowledge as Maria Pia Saxe Coburg Braganza and in all the official documents of this woman the only used name was Maria Pia Saxe Coburg Braganza.(see http://www.theroyalhouseofportugal.org/html/pater.html ). So the attempt to change her name is only a fool the portoguese historical truth ! And this is also illegal . I ask to reintegrate the name Maria Pia Saxe Coburg Braganza as title of this article and instead Hilda Toledano redirect to Maria Pia Saxe Coburg Braganza.

The name of Maria Pia de Saxon Coburg Bragança is reported:

Now please, can you inform me where can I see a document that identify this woman as "Hilda Toledano" so also I can understand your pretension to leave in this web page the name Hilda Toledano. At the contrary case this is a tentative of mystification of the historical truth. So please reinsert the story of the duchess life in her page in Maria Pia de Saxe Coburg Braganza and Hilda Toledano only a redirect to Maria Pia de Saxe Coburg Braganza, as before was. Thanks. Manuel, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

All you need to do is get an administrator to move the article Hilda Toledano to Maria Pia de Saxe Coburg Braganza. This will be done if you and other editors can arrive a consensus that it should be done. Please visit Wikipedia:Requested moves and follow the instructions there about how to start a page move discussion. --Tony SidawayTalk 19:07, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

ok thanks, please after control if I correctly have done. Manuel, 21 Sept 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I fixed it. The discussion should take place on the current talk page, so I altered that. I also added the appropriate discussion to the talk page Talk:Hilda Toledano. Please add your "support" vote to that. --Tony SidawayTalk 20:01, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Biff Rose

The revert war has started once again. Willmcw reverted an edit, only because it was done by someone posting anon. It was a good edit. There was no reason to revert it, but willmcw likes to work in tandem with Sojambi Pinola. I request you freeze the page again so we can get a proper consensus before the page is unfrozen. As it is now, Willmcw, since he is an adminstrator has been bullying people with his official status.Jonah Ayers 01:19, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Shocked!

Well, I don't know what to say my friend! Your statement that I am at the top of your list for admin is a great compliment and I am not sure I am deserving. I know I have been confrontational, rude and have engaged in edit warring, although I have calmed that down a lot lately. I've pretty much reconstituted and have been involved in article creation more and recently became more engaged in RC Patrol. I would have a lot to learn about Vfd, IRC and whatnot...having not participated much there...I only have a little over 100 edits to Wiki-namespace, but that would change I know. The rollback button and the ability to block vandals (after repeated polite attempts by several editors) would be much valued. I find myself getting beat out by admins in reverts on vandalism due to the lag time as you can imagine. I think a few would chime in against me and they would probably be justified in their opinion as I know I haven't always worked well with others. I will say that Mel Etitis was close to the facts when he told me several months back that my user account was used primarily for disruption, and I took that to heart and tried to (and think I have) made a turn around. I think that JamesMLane should be an admin, but see that some time ago he turned that down...we should ask him as well, as he may have changed his mind. In a nutshell, yes I would be honored and would accept, especially if you do the nominating. Let's also see if Mr. Lane is also interested as I think he is certainly more qualified than I am.--MONGO 02:21, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

There is no hurry so if you decide to do it in the future, then we can discuss it then. See ya around.--MONGO 05:51, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] re Userfy

I already replied in the VfU, but: the resulting redirect across namespaces is then deleted. The article does not remain in article space. -Splashtalk 21:11, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

The deletion of the redirect doesn't result in any deleted material. Moving across namespaces is also an act that any editor can perform, and results in no deletion of material. --Tony SidawayTalk 21:18, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Friendly Note

If you disagree with my edits, feel free to voice your opinion. HOWEVER, DO NOT tell me to "cut it out". You're neither God, nor the supreme grand high editor of Wikipedia and you have no business telling me what is and is not good content with any more authority than that possessed by another editor. Your comments are disruptive and not conducive to the discussion in process, so please butt out. Agriculture 05:03, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Don't tell me not to "push it" Tony. All I'm doing is engaging in editing, which I have taken to discussion due to a differing opinion. You have no more right to push your own opinion than any other editor. Don't you push your own privelages and rights as an admin. You are not God, and your opinion is not all that matters here. BACK OFF. Agriculture 13:54, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Well you've stop edit warring over this for now. I'll leave it there. --Tony SidawayTalk 14:49, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

It wasn't an edit war in the first place Tony. As soon as the other side started talking, I started listening. You may be "leaving this", but I'm not. At the heart of this matter is your irresponsible behavior and demeanor. You are not God's gift to Wikipedia so stop acting like it. Agriculture 16:40, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
You sound just like a guilty child trying to bluff his out of a fix by pretending it's all someone else's fault. Give up. I'm not impressed. --Tony SidawayTalk 20:47, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Knock off the personal attacks Tony. I didn't do anything wrong and you damn well know it, by the time you chimed in with your "I am your god, Tony Sidaway" opinion, we had already taken it to discussion, where it is currently being worked out. You sound like an administrator who has been caught abusing their position and thinking they are the be all end all of Wikipedia. I suggest you go read the administrators guide as you are woefully ignorant of your place here. Agriculture 20:50, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Let's review the situation.

  • You repeatedly added to an article about West Virginia a rather inflammatory piece about the state's reputation for inbreeding.
  • I received complaints about your actions.
  • I looked at the article history and found that you had persistently added this inflammatory material despite opposition by at least two editors.
  • I filed an incident report saying I found it hard to imagine good faith in the circumstances.
  • I told you to cut if out on the talk page of the article.
  • You then, in an edit titled "Friendly Note", accused me of making disruptive edits.
  • I told you not to push it.
  • You accused me of "pushing" my own administrator privileges.
  • I remarked that I was leaving it as you'd apparently stopped edit warring.
  • You then denied engaging in an edit war (04:28 23 Sep, 16:07, 23:29) and accused me of acting irresponsibly.
  • I then remarked that your behavior in piling accusation on accusation resembled that of a child trying to evade responsibility.
  • You then accused me of abusing my position as an administrator.

I make that one incident report and three or four admonishments from me, one edit war, one newcomer who will probably never edit Wikipedia again, and several false accusations from you. Good going, old chap. You're obviously showing us administrators and newcomers who is boss, and that's no mistake. --Tony SidawayTalk 22:08, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

I didn't "repeatedly" add an inflammatory piece to an article. I added it a small handfull of times, making sure to follow 3RR because the user removing it didn't even bother to take it to discussion. As soon as it was brought to discussion WELL BEFORE you got involved, I quit, because once it goes to discussion I go there as well. The issue here is your attitude Tony. Forgive me for saying so, but you're a condescending prick. You've got no right to be going around telling people to "cut it out" and the like. You can say "I think you need to back off here, as there is a complaint". That way things get sorted out, but no. Your method involves you pretending to be God's gift to Wikipedia and throwing your cumbersome weight and attitude around because you feel like being a dick about it.
As for the "newcomer who will probably never edit Wikipedia again", not my fault. If he chooses to run away and cry instead of going to discussion, that is his business. Admins like you scare off more users every day than I ever have. Agriculture 22:15, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RfA

Just to say thanks for supporting my RfA. Please do let me know if you see me screw up anytime. --Doc (?) 19:21, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Unacceptable deleting tactics

User:Ted Wilkes has repeatedly deleted paragraphs from talk and article pages. See [1], [2], [3], [4]. He even falsely claimed to have moved content from the Talk:Elvis Presley/Homosexuality page to the Talk:Elvis Presley/Sexuality page, but the content has been totally deleted. See [5].

There are similar deleting tactics by User:Wyss. See [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12].

[edit] Encyclopaedia Dramatica

Thanks for unprotecting the page, but it looks as if the edit warring has already begun, just 20 minutes afterwards. I wonder if this is a good idea after all. Erwin

Oh looking at it now I definitely don't think it needs to be protected again. Only three edits all day, and two of them are yours! --Tony SidawayTalk 19:50, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] London streets

I have no problem with keeping articles on any of the streets you mentioned. And if we don't have articles on Baker Street or Carnaby Street, we probably should have articles there, too. But Longest streets in London has a list of lots or streets we don't need articles on. But do we need articles on Berwick Street or D'Arbley Street? How about Vauxhall Bridge Road, Bermondsey Street, Shaftsbury Avenue, Margaret Street? User:Zoe|(talk) 22:30, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Definitely Shaftesbury Avenue, one of the most famous streets in London. Probably the others too. You mention Berwick Street, but as well as this we should also have articles on other famous Soho streets such as Greek Street and Frith Street. --Tony SidawayTalk 19:46, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Maoririder Arbitration case

Hello,

The Arbitration case to which you added comment has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Maoririder. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Maoririder/Evidence.

Yours,

James F. (talk) 19:36, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Davenbelle up to his old tricks

I'm disgusted at this. Words fail me. --Tony SidawayTalk 09:58, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. --Cool Cat Talk 11:34, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/o/n/User_talk%7ETony_Sidaway_Archive_2005_09_30_6e6b.html"