User talk:Tony Sidaway/Archive 2006 01 27

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit]

Self portrait, 16 July, 2004

minorityreport@bluebottle.com

Purge page cache

User:Tony Sidaway/cologneblue.css

Incidence of vandalism on a given article

Wikipedia:The Signpost

Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list

My WikiSource page

My Meta page

My Wikicities page

My SchemeWiki page

Chez moi

Wikipedia Community Portal

Get Wikipedia content as XML

Contents 1 Mistress Selina Kyle 2 Sharon Tendler/Cindy the Dolphin 3 The Gibraltar articles 4 RFC/KM 5 Candidate question 6 Userboxes and overload 7 Copied from the DRV page 8 On Templates 9 Reply to your Martin RFC comment 10 Mentioned your name 11 George W. Bush 12 80.177.165.204 Autoblocked 13 Talk page 14 24SevenOffice 15 Blocked 16 Theft 17 Blocked? 18 Message on my talkpage left by a fellow Mega Man fan 19 TDC is at it again 20 Alliance of Catholic Wikipedians 21 Category:Causes célèbres 22 Some consistancy, please 23 RE:Fall of the Ming Dynasty 24 It's 'bout time! 25 template:user en-5 26 Template:User does not trust Jimbo 27 Your opinion 28 Wiki 4 Christ 29 Gmaxwell's userpage 30 Seth Ravin 31 Rimini and TomorrowNow 32 What "edit warring"? 33 Thanks for your inspiration 34 Webcomics RfAr closed 35 Userbox 36 Userboxes 37 Cool Cat's added his RFA again 38 Re. Pigsonthewing 39 Userbox user list 40 George W. Bush sprotection

[edit] Mistress Selina Kyle

Hi Tony. You reinstated (at 1:18, 13 Jan 06) the indefinite block of MSK [1] with the comment "Disruptive troll, block was removed against strong support on WP:AN/I". Including both previous discussion and more recent comments after that (WP:ANI#User:Mistress_Selina_Kyle), I'd say the indefinite block does not have sufficient support at this time. I'd ask you to reconsider and suggest an alternative to an indefinite block (some suggestions have been made). Thanks. Rd232 ^talk 22:39, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sharon Tendler/Cindy the Dolphin

Hi, I noticed that you took part in the AFD on Sharon Tendler. Well the article that was previously made before the Sharon Tendler article, which got redirected towards it is now up for deletion. I thought you might like to vote. Afd Cindy the Dolphin. Thanks Englishrose 23:05, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Gibraltar articles

You un SP them today with the notation that the vandal has hopefully gotten bored. He hasn't. :) It's blocked user User:Gibraltarian, who hits the talk pages of both articles every single day. Long term alerts on ViP has a long listing on him. He's vowed to "never be silenced", so I doubt he's going away anytime soon. Re SP for now. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 00:05, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

In fact, G hit the talk page of Disputed status of Gibraltar using the IP of 212.120.225.244 just 2 hours before you unprotected the History of Gibraltar article. Main problem is that not only does he use a dynamic IP but its 8 ranges. I tried a massive range block and got roasted on it, so the only option is SP for now. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 00:17, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a good case for application of semiprotection. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RFC/KM

You commented on Kelly Martin's second RfC. it is up for archival. you may vote at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Kelly_Martin#Archiving_this_RfC. CastAStone|^(talk) 03:50, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Candidate question

I have answered. I'd appreciate if you responded and we could talk about it, but I realize that may be hard to do with 60 people. :-) Dmcdevit·t 05:49, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Userboxes and overload

Do you know if e.g. Jamesday has an opinion with respect to server load on the present amount of userboxes, categories thereof, and images thereon? Radiant_>|< 21:59, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

No. I'm not in regular contact with the core developers--most of my development work is focused on tools rather than the core software. You might like to ask User:Brion Vibber or somebody if there's a problem with template space. Brion isn't a regular but he was editing the past three days or so, or else you could try email or IRC. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:10, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copied from the DRV page

• The deletion process seems to have been inverted. Now, userboxes are being speedily deleted and then people are left to argue about it afterwards without being able to see the actual template. Speedy deletion is only for cases where it is obvious that the userbox would be soundly defeated at the tfd page. With the level of the debate here I think it is obvious that were these listed at tfd, there would not be an overwhelming majority to delete. Please follow the tfd process from now on. Speedy deletion causes nothing but strife within the wikipedia community. With a transparent tfd process, even the inclusionist will see that process has been followed and will not have as much reason to be upset. Divisive userboxes have a possiblity to be harmful - the userbox wars are destroying the wikipedia community. Please use tfd from now on.--God of War 22:16, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. If I reply, I'll do so on DRV. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:13, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

That was some comment. I wish more admins where like that whith cruft pages, like slang lists.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 07:57, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] On Templates

Regarding the candidates' question on templates: My feeling is that the desire to 'personalize' one's online identity, the same desire that created smilies, has now created templates. Probably they are harmless ('fun') in most cases, but there exists the potential, as in the swastika example cited, for severe templates to open severe divisions in the 'community.'

But I would ask, as Wikipedia seems to be evolving exponentially, will there really be such a thing as the 'Wikipedia community' in the future? Or will special interest bands proliferate, so that edit wars will be fought between two (or more) armies of like-minded editors. Armies need uniforms, coats of arms etc. Could templates be the beginning of something like that? That would be my concern.RomaC 16:36, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Interesting thoughts, nice to see someone who isn't scared to blue sky. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

with the posible exception of schoolwatch every attempt to put together a group to active anything other than short term vandalism has failed. Most people do not want to get involved in draining month long conflicts.Geni 02:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

That's an interesting comparison. I suppose next thing you'll do is say I'm a poacher-turned-gamekeeper! :) But seriously, schoolwatch was about the encyclopedia. Of course it galvanised quite a lot of people into action. But I've come from Usenet where I've seen many long, long feuds, some of them passing on from one generation of Usenet posters to the next (can anyone really remember what was so awful about Stephen Boursy?) --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

under most conditions the boloody minded individualism of wikipedians prevents any organised attempt to get them to work together. School watch is the only exception I can think of.11:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reply to your Martin RFC comment

Hello Mr. Sidaway,

I note you have asked, on 14 Jan., to support my classification that you have indicated you are an "elite" user. I consider the RFC moribund, but I did wish to reply to you. Quite honestly, I would have expected you to stipulate to my classification of you; do you really think you aren't an elite user? Anyway, note that I was flexible in defining my term: words "similar" to "I can do this because I can get away with it" will do. For you, we have:

"Of course IAR is egocentric! You need to be an egomaniac to use it, and a very accomplished one to get away with it. --Tony SidawayTalk 18:13, 17 October 2005 (UTC)"

and

"That's why only egomaniacs ever use this method. It's like a tightrope walk. The idiots may try it, but they don't get away with it, so it's a self-correcting mechanism. --Tony SidawayTalk 19:45, 17 October 2005 (UTC)"

and

"A good empirical reason to trust me is that I'm nearly always right. On hypothetical examples, well they're not a lot of use if they're immediately disowned as soon as they're examined and found wanting. For an example to mean anything, surely it would have to make some kind of sense. This didn't. --Tony SidawayTalk 05:23, 25 October 2005 (UTC)"

(italics mine)

There ya go. Note that I just got this from perusing our conversations at your talk archive. Now, I'm not keen to argue this matter (as we have agreed in the past, arguments between us do little good), so I'm content simply to advance the view that the above evidence provides an at least debatable case for an elitist self-classification by you. You asked me to justify the others; I will do so only when asked by them to do so; as I'm a busy fellow, and the RfC is moribund. If you care about being "nearly always right", I trust you've considered that I had supporting evidence in mind when I advanced the categorization for each and all of you. If you wish to discuss this matter further, please contact my talk page, as I do not, and will not, watch yours. Best wishes, Xoloz 02:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

When I challenged this statement, this was the kind of reply I expected. I've said nowhere that I think I'm elite or untouchable. I emphasized the vulnerability of my approach at the time. And now it's several months later and I'm still taking carefully thought out but very bold actions. And I'm still here. I'm not elite and one day I may come a cropper. I only observe that, so far, I seem to be making enough good decisions, and nimbly sidestepping the consequences of any bad decisions, that I'm doing okay. The impression that I'm elite comes solely after the fact. When I start to do something I've no idea whether it will end up in my being arbcommed up to the hilt--indeed I never give such concerns a moment's thought), which may go some way towards explaining my boldness. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Your reply is fair enough. Your own thoughts on your status are exclusively your perogative; as long as you concede that you may give an elitist impression (which concession you seem to give above), I have no qualm with what you've said (except that I'm not sure "nimbly sidestepping the consequences of any bad decisions" is commendable -- I'd rather you accept the consequences of bad choices, as I try to do myself.) In fact, I'd whole-heartedly commend your boldness, if you were quicker to acknowledge mistakes ("I'm nearly always right" certainly gives the impression you might have more than average difficulty recognizing these mistakes), and less stalwart in defending questionable choices to the utmost. You are still here, and I am just barely hanging on, so that is an accomplishment I must admire. Best wishes, Xoloz 03:05, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Well if I were really as blockheaded and lacking in self-awareness as you seem to thing, I probably wouldn't still be here. At least, I wouldn't be an administrator any longer. Just a thought. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 04:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you're "block-headed" at all; without a doubt, of those who use IAR in the manner you do, you are the most sensible in defending yourself, and your intellect is obvious. I do think you're a tad low on self-awareness, since you mentioned it, but nobody's perfect. I'd be more than happy to have a non-adversarial working relationship with you, but several of your choices cross the line from boldness into -- if not quite disruption -- let's just say, unfriendliness. In all frankness, I do think you would not be administrator if you were not long-tenured, although I admit your security here is aided by your admirable habit of playing devil's advocate for the downtrodden on occasion. Best wishes, Xoloz 16:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mentioned your name

Out of courteousy, I wanted to let you know that I mentioned your name on User talk:Ruy Lopez in regards to a discussion over an arbitration initiated by TDC and other wikipedians.[2] Travb 10:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] George W. Bush

I am curious to your removal of SEMI periodically of the afterforementioned article. Could you enlighten me to why..? I'm very curious. --Megamanzero|Talk 04:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

See m:Protected pages considered harmful. Also note (Wikipedia:Semi-protection) that: semi-protection:

• is intended to allow good edits to be made even while there would otherwise be a serious vandalism problem on a page.
• Is not intended for pre-emptive protection of articles that might get vandalized.
• Is not intended to prohibit anonymous editing in general, and is thus not a solution to run-of-the-mill vandalism.

We cannot know whether we would have a serious vandalism problem unless we regularly remove semi-protection for the purpose of monitoring the level of vandalism and the level of good edits on the article from non-logged-in editors. The semi-protection will be removed for a period of some hours at least once a week, with the intention that if the background rate of anonymous vandalism should fall to reasonable levels the semi-protection status will be permanently removed (at least until the problem re-arises). --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:50, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 80.177.165.204 Autoblocked

The IP 80.177.165.204 was autoblocked by your username. The user The Neokid (who uses that IP) has left you an email describing the reason why he should be unblocked (his friend just randomly typed Wikipedia in as the username and now both him and the owner, The Neokid, cannot edit).

Thank you. 72.232.4.218 19:50, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

See my comments on User talk:80.177.165.204 and WP:AN. Sorry I wasn't technically able to do this and I hope someone else will have success. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:30, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk page

You were going to steal my design. :) --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 22:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 24SevenOffice

We have an apparent inconsistency. You have undeleted two articles AfDd with apparent bad-faith nom but with 100% consensus delete (on a small poll). It makes sense to me, if we are going to question Sleepyhead's AfD noms, to relist both the above, or even the lot. Or DRV the lot. But not to cherry-pick and unilaterally undelete. Maybe you have a 100% record of excellent judgment, I certainly don't so I would have gone back to the community. Is this to do with your ArbCom Super Powers? I am not disputing that some / all voters in those debates may have been ill-informed (I would have voted Keep on both, I think, judging by their content), I'm just puzzled by the inconsistency. Humour me, I only got sysoped today  :-) - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 23:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm just ziss guy, you know?

I'm not an arbitrator, and I'm not all-knowing. I just went down the list and randomly chose one article about a company I'd heard of and some more about companies I hadn't heard of. The former, on a little research, proved to be an obvious keeper so I undeleted. Of the latter, one struck me as an obvious keeper: a listed company with a turnover of some Euro 30m. Now I don't know what our guidelines say about this and I don't care, if we're deleting articles about listed companies with significant turnovers then we're being silly buggers. If guidelines are wrong they should be ignored until they're fixed.

The news that these listings were all made to make a point is the icing on the cake, but I don't see that as a problem. I don't mind if you want to go through the formalities of listing them all for deletion again. If anything important gets deleted I'll just rewrite the article in question so it cannot be deleted. And I can. I'm not a methodical worker, I'm just a troubleshooter. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I have absolutely no problem with bringing these articles to DRV, and actually very little problem with them being undeleted pending that process especially given that the nomination was quite likely in bad faith, but unilateral undeletion with no process whatsoever? That way surely lies anarchy, chaos, wheel wars and madness. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 10:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the problem. The only people wheel warring are a few process wonks, and it's easy enough to shut them up with a rewrite. Been there, done that. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

We're not going to agree on this so I'm not even going to try, I think. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 11:56, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I've posted SuperOffice on DRV to see if we can get a consensus for your actions. It's fine with me if it's undeleted while the discussion is active. I suggest you defend it there, because I had little to say about it. -R. fiend 04:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

You undeleted that SuperOffice article twice? Come on, you know that unilaterally subverting AFD process in that manner is unacceptable. If a newbie had been recreating deleted articles like that, no one would think twice before blocking. As an admin, I am disappointed that you did this. You have been blocked for 24 hours, however, I have watchlisted this talkpage and I will be willing to reconsider if I see some note requesting it. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll request it, provided he takes the article to deletion review and not restore it again. Tony may have signed off for now anyway.--MONGO 08:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I will ask for a request from Tony himself before I consider unblocking. I need to see some acknowledgment that this kind of out of process undeletion flies in the face of community consensus and is unacceptable. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Consensus is officially not policy. Look it up and read the talk page. And well done on escalating the deletion wheel wars - David Gerard 12:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm still around. I'd appreciate an unblock. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

And for the record, I steadfastly and absolutely refute any suggestion that undeletion of an article about a publicly listed company with a Euro 30m turnover is unacceptable. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:39, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I see you also undeleted Tally (accounting) out of process. I will not unblock just because of a request, and especially not if you steadfastly stick to saying that it was all OK. This was just plain disruption. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

No problem. It absolutely is not disruption to undelete an article that should not have been deleted in the first place. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:57, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Um, you deleted the Tally article? Wow! Did you actually bother to read it? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Time for me to be on a limb here....Tony states that the article is noteworthy enough to not deserve deletion, yet didn't vote to keep it, just happened to spot it, recognized it as notable and restored it twice. Now the articles are at WP:VFU and he doesn't have an opportunity to voice his vote and they will both be lost. Provided he agrees to stick to the concensus there and not restore them, I favor lifting his block.--MONGO 09:03, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Both articles are no-brainer keeps, I was just doing the obvious thing. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 09:04, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

The DRV debate is up for five days. Tony's block will have expired well in time for him to voice his opinion there if he so desires. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

No problem. We're going to have to do something about these false claims of disruption, though. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 09:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Looks like the deletionists are more interested in keeping the articles out due to argument over assumed violation of concensus than they are at actually looking to see if the articles are noteworthy.--MONGO 09:20, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Look more like pro process people than deletionists. Doing stuff out of process to such a great degree tends to be a great way to increase the oposition to what you are trying to do.Geni 09:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I understand. However, to now delete the articles for the sake of protecting process seems like retribution and the only thing that suffers is those articles.--MONGO 09:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's what it's about. There is a serious difference of opinion between (not deletionists, really) process people and do-the-right-thing-and-bugger-process people. Broadly speaking the process people tend to look at an AfD and see if the t's were crossed and the i's were all dotted, whereas the do-the-right-thing people will look at the content that was deleted, and who cares if the debate looks okay. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 09:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course you relise the prolem with your "do-the-right-thing" aproach is that for example it would be quite posible for me to go through all the kept articles and delete all the schools. Of course I'm not going to do this but then I tend to respect process since with 700 odd admins the alturnative is undesirable.Geni 11:43, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Well the difference is that when I do an undeletion it usually sticks (as in this case). I think you'd have to agree that trying unilaterally to delete all the school articles would be unsuccessful. So before you do the right thing you have to be pretty sure that, when the dust settles, it will be seen that your judgement was sound. Mine generally is, at least on undeletions. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:44, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I have unblocked Tony - as he has indicated that he will not undelete these items again. I reaslise that there are issues outstanding, but blocks are preventative not punative, and since we no longer need to prevent him, there is no reason for a continued block. If those unhappy wish to persue this further then RfC, ANI and Arbcom are open to them (and that's process for you). --Doc ^ask? 09:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I've rewritten Tally Solutions Ltd (most of the content of the article pointlessly deleted by Sjakkalle was written by me, after the AfD, in any case, so there wasn't a lot of rewriting to do) I'll do the same job on SuperOffice in due course. This should effectively kill any silly process-bound shenanigans, unless and until either article is listed for deletion. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

The total rewrite of SuperOffice is also now complete. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:23, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Theft

Yes, I'll steal it. But if it happened when you were expecting it, that wouldn't be theft! :-D --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:04, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... Then what is it? :) --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 09:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Procrastination, of course! --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:17, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Midaswell steal mine too, Mr. Sidaway! -Zero^Talk 17:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

On looking at Cool Cat's code I decided not to. It was very complicated and I quite like my organisation, so maybe I'll just steal the rather nice colors. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked?

Err... Ok... WTF? Why would anyone want to block you? --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 10:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmm a quick read of your usertalk page shows that several users are regulars here and I do not like their comments.... Are they giving you a hard time? --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 11:00, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

No, they're just a little upset that I undeleted two articles. It's okay now, I just rewrote them from the ground up, which should keep us all happy. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Message on my talkpage left by a fellow Mega Man fan

I thought you might get a laugh or two out of this: ([3]) -Zero^Talk 19:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I found it completely incomprehensible. Very good! :) --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Pure speculation, but I think by "DOOD", he meant the slang term "dude". That's all I could figure out beyond that. :) -Zero^Talk 17:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TDC is at it again

I watch TDC's user page, and someone mentioned on his talk page that he is in a another revert war about Joseph C. Wilson. He is at it again, adding nothing or next to nothing and deleting much more. I mentioned your user page on the talk page if TDC continues.Travb 19:52, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I've warned both him and User:Commodore Sloat to stop or be blocked. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Tony - I will limit my comments on Joseph C. Wilson to the talk page. I agree that edit warring is unproductive; the problem is what to do with editors who are determined to delete information at all costs -- TDC seems compelled to delete quotations from published sources that do not agree with his POV. He is now doing it on Laurie Mylroie as well - I reverted his change once but I won't get into an edit war there too if he reverts again. I have no desire to edit war with this person. --csloat 21:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, but the quote is nothing more than a third rate smear, and constitues half the article. His criticism is still there, sans the length [4]. DTC 21:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I responded on Talk:Laurie Mylroie. This is not a "third rate smear" but the opinion of an acknowledged expert in the field of counterterrorism -- one not normally given to use terms like "crackpot" loosely. I am not interested in the name-calling aspect of the quote; I am interested in the fact that known terrorism experts -- and Bergen is one of many on this count -- consider her theories totally baseless. I will not revert but I will be rewording and adding information from some of the following sources indicating that they too believe Mylroie is not credible: Gunaratna, Burke, Leiken, Benjamin, perhaps others. All of these are experts in the field -- i.e. they are degreed and credentialed in the field and they have solid reputations for peer-reviewed research in the field (unlike Mylroie, whose books would never survive peer review if they ever had to do it). None of them are name-callers, I don't know anyone else they dismiss like this, but their opinion of Mylroie is unanimously contemptuous. I think that the fact that a self-styled expert is roundly repudiated by most credentialed experts in the field is noteworthy, especially if that self-styled expert has had an undue influence on powerful government actors.--csloat 21:35, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Please take discussion to the relevant talk page. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:38, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alliance of Catholic Wikipedians

Thank you for deleting it as a violation of NPOV. I don't know how familiar you are with a particular RfAr in progress, but if it had been accepted, it would have been exactly the "proof" that a particular troll is looking for that there is a Vatican plot to suppress the truth about the Vatican's role in the Holocaust. Robert McClenon 21:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Causes célèbres

Thanks for your contribution to the Deletion Review. Unfortunately the articles have been removed from their categories by Kbdank71 - see Special:Contributions/Kbdank71. You might also want to take a look at the note on my talk page. I am seriously considering an admin conduct RFC over this. David | Talk 00:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some consistancy, please

(cross-posted from AfD)
I'd suggest that if you're going to remove comments like '"You appear to be fundementally misunderstanding what a link like the second one means. Which is odd, because I am pretty sure I explained it to you last time we deleted something like this. I'll see if I can find the link where I explain to you that there"[5] as "sniping" than you should stop making comments like '"You're just going to have to accept that this is a really major company in its home market, Aaron."' [6] - brenneman^(t)(c) 23:09, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I'll try to stop saying things that might somehow provoke you, but you know you're an incredibly touchy guy. What is wrong with saying that you'll have to accept that it's a really major company in its home market? It is a fact that Tally is a major Indian company and that you were at that time attempting to argue that it should be deleted. If you think that's sniping I apologise and I won't do it again.

On my removal, it was because it seems to be in the nature of a personal attack. You raised some event from months ago, and used it to imply an ongoing and chronic lack of comprehension. I of course removed it as an irrelevant bit of silliness, while keeping your substantive point and rebutting it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

So the situation now is that I've deleted all the sniping and counter-sniping. Nobody else wants to read it, I certainly don't. And it doesn't address the issues at hand: various attempts to delete articles that rather a lot of people seem to think are quite useful. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:32, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RE:Fall of the Ming Dynasty

Hello, the article is originally in Chinese, then translated into English by Sephodwyrm, whom I personally know, who posted it on another forum. Somehow someone decided to copy-paste it here, and Sephodwyrm alerted me to this page, where I marked it as a copyvio either from the original Chinese or from the translated version. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 02:46, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll just delete it. It's had months of sitting there. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 03:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] It's 'bout time!

I'd say this is a polite way of saying that the userboxes that are dividing folks into political-religious-ideological factions are about to strangely disappear...[7]--MONGO 11:58, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I've been waiting for that unequivocal statement for two weeks. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:42, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] template:user en-5

Mr. Sidaway, may I inquire why you removed {{user en-5}} from your babel..? Perhaps a {{user en-4}} would be sufficent..? Of course it is your userpage; I didn't meean to be imposing... but you know. :) -Zero^Talk 16:13, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how it got there. I'm a native speaker of English, specifically standard British English and my local North-East dialect, but not a professional writer or speaker. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:22, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes you are. You have not been giving yourself much credit...and furthurmore, it states, can contribute with a professional level of english. A EN-4 infobox should at least be inserted in your babel, based on your usage in various conversations. -Zero^Talk 16:28, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but I don't agree. User:Geogre uses English in a way that I could never match. He is what I would describe as a user who communicates in English at the level of a professional. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:40, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

No. Its a matter of mastery. {{User en-4}} states: This user contributes with a near-native level of english. You have mastered a wide variety of vocablary; and are therefore above the "near-native" threshold. So "User en-5" is sufficent. Please do not belitte your ability in regard to the usage of the english language as various editors besides yourself know better. -Zero^Talk 18:06, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

• Also, I noticed the template was dark red - possibly an offense to your eye problem. I've changed the template so that its easier on your eyes now. :) -Zero^Talk 18:09, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Since you've put it back and you mean it as a compliment, I accept it with gracious thanks. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:49, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:User does not trust Jimbo

I've deleted this again as a violation of WP:NPA. Just thought you should know. Canderson7 ^(talk) 17:26, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

No complaints from me. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

So if someone doesn't trust Jimbo, and make their opinion known, they make an attack? --Candide, or Optimism 20:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd draw the line where a user constructs a template and associated category in order to promote the idea that Jimbo is untrustworthy. At the very least it breaches good faith. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

See also...this new junk: Category:Users in Defense of Userboxes and Individuality on Wikipedia notice boilerplate message...me thinking of deleting it, but not sure of criteria for a speedy on this one...maybe take it to CFD?--MONGO 19:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Well...it's gone already...nevermind!--MONGO 19:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your opinion

Hello again, Mr. sidaway. I'd like you to see these situations : ([8] and [9]). Please do not hesitate to step in if the situation gets out of hand, as several wikipedia policies have been breached by this user despite my entreties. -Zero^Talk 19:22, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I think you're doing very well. Please continue to take steps to keep the conflict of opinion civilised. If he attacks you, remember that I'm proud of you and you don't need to defend yourself aggressively. On the substantive points, perhaps you can agree to compromise by saying in the article that the US version does not give ages but the Japanese version states that they're 16 and 17. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I did state the ages were not in the US versions in my first comment, and the article states it in the Trivia section as well. I think this user is a tad young (conjecture based on their writing style and comments) and needs to be informed on wikpedia policies and guidelines; I think a welcome template is in order to set things straight. Oh, and looking at this user's userpage, respectively, I think he is a she. :)-Zero^Talk 20:16, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, I think a "welcome" message would be a good idea and I'll ask someone suitably neutral to do this. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Too late.... :) I hope this does not muddy the waters... I only want to help.-Zero^Talk 22:13, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wiki 4 Christ

I noticed you talking about user categories being used to harness support in votes and discussions. I just wondered if you were aware of this example of it. See also the 'Network of Christian Wikipedians' at wiki4christ.com. Sorry if I should've brought this up somewhere else, by the way.--Cherry blossom tree 23:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gmaxwell's userpage

Hi Tony, I only meant it in a light hearted way, and seeing as he wrote the troll comment himself and the image is free use I am not sure why people are getting so upset about it. Arniep 02:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Tony, he put the comment on his userpage himself [10]. Arniep 03:00, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Seth Ravin

All I did was put deleted page on it. Mushroom is the one who redeleted the page. If you feel like the afd vote was in error, take it up at DRV or talk to Mushroom. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 08:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Well of course it was in error, but I'm trying to deal with the aftermath. I'll undelete the history as Aaron will be unlikely to be able to play silly games with it in its current protected state. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:33, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

That was uncalled for. Your "history" undeletion before simply amounted to a complete restoration and placing the {{deletedpage}} on an unprotected page. I do apologise if my attempts to understand if you were actually ingnoring, for all practical purposes, two AfD results offended you. Can you perhaps point to other examples of where deleted pages have had their history restored in this manner? - brenneman^(t)(c) 08:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Read the section on WP:DRV describing the process. Putting a "deletedpage" cap or similar on the top is all that is necessary to enable the history of any article to be undeleted, though of course we don't do that with copyright infringements. I've no idea what you were up to, but as woohookitty has protected the cap page there should be no further problems. I wasn't offended at all, just wondering what on earth you were up to. , --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Tony, by leaving the page in that state uprotected you are clearly violating the spirit of that section. There was less than a page of material there, if you simply wanted to "re-write" it into User:Tony Sidaway/TomorrowNow, than you could have copied that material into a scratch sub-page in your user space. There is no need to preserve GFDL for a re-write. There is, in fact, no conceivable reason to have the page in the state that it is in barring some sense of satisfaction it may give you, or perhaps some gamesmanship where you're angling for another undeletion. Wikilawyer much? - brenneman^(t)(c) 09:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh I disagree with you on the idea that I violated the spirit. Protection should be reserved for cases where there's a clear need--you coming along and poking around with it doesn't demonstrate that need. However it's currently protected by Woohookitty so don't worry.

It's true that I could have temp undeleted and userfied. The two strategies achieve the same object. As for "angling for another undeletion", I have undeleted, and when the article rewrite is complete the histories will be merged. That's the whole point. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 09:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

And that's precisely what I've done. A perfectly good article saved by spending a few minutes just changing the primary subject. Why wasn't that done in the first place?

Aaron, when you state that actions that I take have no conceivable reason, please consider that we vary in our powers of imagination, and some of us can conceive far more than others. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rimini and TomorrowNow

If that's what you want to do, then that's fine with me. I nominated Rimini because it was previously deleted, and because I am still not completely convinced this company is any more notable than so many others; I sort of think we have to wait and see. Any company can get a little press write-up, it's not like it's listed on the Dow. My main beef was with the Ravin article, because it was the sort of nauseating vanity I hate (even after the clean-up it was still pretty bad). -R. fiend 21:03, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Looked like a fairly normal bio to me. Some of the stuff needed trimming, but I think it made more sense as a single article about him than two articles about his companies. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What "edit warring"?

I've reverted edits yes, but only once and by two different users. That's not edit warring, I would've thought even you would know what edit warring is and that's definitely not under the definition.. It looks like you're just trying to get flimsy excuses to ban me as as everyone already knows, you have some kind of personal thing against me (calling me an "asshole" on wikipediareview.com, making loads of posts trying to justify bans for me, etc)... --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 23:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

If you're behaving yourself, you have nothing to worry about.

On Wikipedia Review, I said you "regularly [get] blocked for acting like an asshole" and cited three articles I had written about your block history on Wikipedia:

• Blocks on Selina. Part 1: 20-Dec to 31 Dec 2005
• Blocks on Selina. Part 2: 1-8 January 2006
• Blocks on Selina. Part 3: 9-16 January 2006

Those posts comprise a block-by-block description of the circumstances of each block. I made them to refute suggestions that the blocks were part of an unjustified campaign against you on account of your opposition to the deletion of userboxes and your involvement in an RfC against Kelly Martin.

I note further that you have been blocked twice since then, each time for 24 hours:

1. 21:22, 18 January 2006 Tznkai (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves) blocked "User:Mistress Selina Kyle" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Blocked for uncivil disrpution and personal attacks. User was warned and broke her own agreement. See WP:AN/I)
2. 00:38, 21 January 2006 MarkSweep (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves) blocked "User:Mistress Selina Kyle" with an expiry time of 24 hours (vandalism of Image:Flag of Taiwan.svg)

I notice also that neither of the administrators who blocked you in those instances had blocked you before.

On edit warring, I'd say that what Jtkiefer, you and malber have been involved in matches the description of an edit war. I'm also a little concerned about what is going on on Damadola_airstrike. with various parties removing well sourced information. Go easy there. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I hope you're having fun with trolling the trolls on WP Review. Lir showed up on #uncyclopedia this morning ;-) - David Gerard 16:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

It's going around in circles and the same old obsessions keep coming up. They're really a rather dull lot. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for your inspiration

First sentence of this. Further ideas welcomed! I have a structure there ... - David Gerard 16:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

You, sir, are sick! Sick, I say! I shall have pleasure suing you in a court of law in New Malden. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Webcomics RfAr closed

The Webcomics RfAr has been closed. Aaron Brenneman is admonished to be respectful of consensus in creating and altering Wikipedia policy. While boldness in editing is valuable on Wikipedia, it is no use to Wikipedia to have written policies that create dissent. Aaron Brenneman, Dragonfiend, Snowspinner, and Tony Sidaway are all cautioned to remain civil even in stressful discussions.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Kelly Martin (talk) 02:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, so you're clerking, then? Let me know if you need help. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Userbox

I noticed your userbox miniproject per Jimbo's reccomendation, and I greatly agree with its goals. I have changed my userbox in question (it was the only picture I could find I realize it would be better off without, since I personally dont even have an opinion for or against fascism, or at least not one I care to express on wikipedia), and I am requesting that you recognize this on you list. Thanks a bunch.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 03:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! I'll happily update your entry. Please consider contacting others whom you're acquainted with on Wikipedia and let's see if we can change the culture, one person at a time. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 04:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I shall. Mind if I link/add to your list as I encounter people?--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 04:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Please feel free to do so. Remember to be very polite, and I'd suggest only approaching people with whom you have a positive working relationship based on mutual respect. It's easy for this kind of request to backfire.

I'll sort the list into alphabetical order, to make it easier to maintain. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:35, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• Also, regarding your "comments" by the user's name in question, I'll politely ask that you leave them out if they aren't constructive. Your opinion of my userpage has nothing to with this situation; could you keep them to yourself please..? -Zero^Talk 15:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Which particular comments? Oh I get it, because I wrote that I wasn't sure because your userpage is cluttered. Well it's an objective fact that I couldn't ascertain the precise contents of your userpage because it is very cluttered, with some text overwriting other text in parts. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:59, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I am quite positive that you could see the userboxes despite the overlapping. I am also positive that you could see from my viewpoint how that could be considered hurtful. And concerning the userpage in question, there seems to be a problem with how I set up the javascript, and it appears that the text "squashes" on less than 1024x768 or higher resolutions, as I conformed it on a widescreen laptop. I've simply removed such things until I figure out how neaten up the format. And you should have guessed that we reploids aren't religious anyway. -Zero^Talk 17:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry to disappoint you, but I do find your userpage very difficult to read. I notice that my userpage, which I use in Cologneblue skin, looks pretty horrible in other skins. The wiki just isn't that good at presentation (which needn't be a problem in an encyclopedia but makes userpages difficult to get right). --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

You've not dissapointed me at all. I don't deny that my userpage was cluttered and very difficult to percieve some text, but I do know that it was no where close to be being impossible to see my userboxes despite the text overlap. -Zero^Talk 14:45, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

These reploids always have a thing for craziness. Must be that there Sigma Virus... Anywho, I noticed you were noting userboxes against censorship on the list. It brought question to my mind because non-censorship seems to be a wikipedia policy if I remember correctly (WP:NOT). Also, if I make an addition myself, should I sign it or will it suffice to have my name in the history? I figured it would be practical to have a date for any additions to the list so that it is easy to see how up to date it is.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 22:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

No, just the female reploids are crazy. They are so similar to real women! (Need I say anymore?) -Zero^Talk 14:45, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't want it to become discursive, so just edit it to keep it up to date, no signatures and no datestamps. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:45, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Userboxes

I may have a lot of userboxes but only a few of them could be possibly categorised as political or religious - and I don't support any specific political or religious groups - I'm not actually a member of a green party either just agree with the sentiments as from a purely fact-based scientific point of view the state of the environment is going rapidly downhill --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 14:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, you have a green party membership box, a "drug free" statement, and so on. I know you don't understand this, but I think it's okay for us to make statements like this when they're about ourselves, on our userpages, but when we do so with a userbox it says something about Wikipedia and about people of political view X on Wikipedia--it turns opinions into commodities that can be quantified, handled, managed, manipulated and so on by people who are adept at that and that's where I draw the line. We should be individuals acting together in the interests of Wikipedia, not factions linked by badges on the userpage at surface level and by template and category links at the database level. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cool Cat's added his RFA again

Hi Tony, since you're one of Cool Cat's mentors, I wanted to let you know that he's [resubmitted his RFA. --Deathphoenix 15:41, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re. Pigsonthewing

I don't want to mess with it, but as he's now banned for a year, should a "blocked user" template be added to the top of his userpage? Ral315 (talk) 19:15, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I already put a note on his talk page, but if it makes you happy do pop a template on the front page--preferably one that can show a link to the full decision in the WP:RFAR history: like this. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Userbox user list

Should I be hurt, flattered, or relieved that I'm not on your list? ++Lar: t/c 22:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Hold your breath! I haven't finished compiling it. Over the past twelve months I have been in contact with about 780 users on English Wikipedia, and so far I have only cataloged about 130 user pages. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 03:31, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] George W. Bush sprotection

I don't see what purpose it serves to "ceremonially" un-sprotect the page for a few hours every few days. "Test unprotection" and "monitoring background vandalism" is an unconvincing pretext, we already have a couple of years worth of statistics for "background vandalism". Nothing has changed and the results are as predictable as all the previous times. This seems to be simply a ceremonial form of protest on your part at the existence or necessity of semi-protection. You might equally well unprotect the Main Page every once in a while, but that would be an equally futile exercise. -- Curps 07:04, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh I think you're misreading this totally. I love the effect semiprotection has had on this article, and think it should continue.

As with all temporary protection, it is in order to lift the protection regularly, precisely because (whatever you say) the vandalism levels on George W. Bush at this time are not known. One data point is completely inadequate for this measurement, so I'm lifting unprotection again, noting your objection. As on previous occasions I want at least a few hours' data. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:30, 26 January 2006 (UTC)