User talk:Tony Sidaway/Archive 2006 05 20

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< User talk:Tony Sidaway

purge edit icons

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

1 User:Cantus
- 1.1 Tawdry political ambition
2 Clerk
3 Jim Nussle, again....
4 Blocking Policy
5 I'm just an inbred 'merican
6 A favor please
7 Blocked
8 My case.
9 Request for Arbitration, Administrative divisions, Tobias Conradi
10 Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Muhamed
11 A comment, I don't mean to bother you
12 Deathrocker
13 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dualabs
14 Blocking of User:Vít Zvánovec
15 Template:User Sock Puppet and Template:User Puppet Master DRVU

[edit] User:Cantus

Hi Tony. I wanted to tell you that Kiw (talk • contribs) looks an awful lot like your friend Cantus (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log), with a history of socketpuppeting (don't wou love making up words?). Just letting you know. Good wiking, Mariano(t/c) 08:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, an old and acknowledged sock of Cantus, now indefinitely blocked. --Tony Sidaway 15:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

would you mind keeping an eye on Developed country, possible additional sockpuppets performing the same deletes. thanks. Appleby 20:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tawdry political ambition

This is clearly a personal attack. I'm not actually offended, but it is an attack, just not a very good one: Could you expand this attack with some diffs and a bit of exposition so I can understand what exactly it is that I'm meant to have done? Reply here, I'll put this page back on my watchlist for a while.
As to the wider issue, you still don't seem to understand the actual problem:

The block was bad form, but I really could give a rat's arse about that. Annoying, irritating, autoblocker makes me pull my hair out, etc. But no harm done to me, water under the bridge, etc. I'm only concerned about what the block says about your mindset.
Clerk's don't have any authority. Full stop. Your continued insistance that the block was not only justified but required (e.g. "it's not like I have much choice") is troubling, but still not the central issue.
The real issue is that you've apparently got no idea what it is you're conceptually meant to be doing as a clerk. You simply can not be making recomendations or observations, personal observations, and putting them under the clerk banner. The fact that I agree with those views is immaterial.

brenneman^{L} 01:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I've picked up on this from the Clerks page an AN/I, so forgive me for poking my nose in. I'd like to comment on your third point. I've just been over the Clerks page for the fourth time today, and I still see nothing prohibiting Clerks from expressing opinions, suggestions or analysis. In fact, there's language to suggest they're allowed, just like everyone else. I agree that Clerks have no authority, but I've looked up on things there, and over at RFAr, and I'm not seeing anywhere Tony has used the Clerk's office to justify the block...only his presence in commenting as a Clerk on that page.

But your third point...with respect, Aaron, until we're appointed to the ArbCom, neither of us have any say on what Tony should be doing as a clerk. The Arbitrators created the position, they appointened the clerks, and they decide how they'll evaluate their input. If you felt he misrepreseted you or someone else's views, that's one thing...you could have stated so. But you changed his comments in, frankly, a pointless fashion. --InkSplotch^(talk) 02:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clerk

I am pleased that Aaron hasn't been "coming after" you as much as some had discussed while he was running for adminship. But It should be obvious that he seems to try and goad you, provoke you and be a bit of an pest. If he has a beef with your summaries, etc., he should have found another way to handle it. I think (and don't get me wrong 'cause I like Aaron a lot and I think he does good work) had I been you, I would have done the block that you did. After edit conflict, I see the above so maybe my perception is off again.--MONGO 01:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine with him but I get weary of his semingly endless penchant for silly bloody stunts like this. --Tony Sidaway 07:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

It's going to make it hard for me to continue not savaging you for your wild-eyed block if you insist on making personal attacks without providing a skerrick of evidence. You may have noticed that I'm trying to be as nice as possible while adressing the actual issue of what a clerk should and shouldn't do. I've not asked you to justify the block, not asked for you to comment on this occasion at all. You, on the other hand, have had a few good kicks at me. It would probably look better for you if you limited yourself to facts: Silly bloody stunts like [diff1 this] and [diff2 this] and [diff3 this]. Stop making it personal. - brenneman^{L} 07:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

You're both fine editors and contributors to the project. "Mistakes were made". Please forgive each other and move on. -Will Beback 08:09, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. --Tony Sidaway 10:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jim Nussle, again....

I just happened to glance at the Jim Nussle article, and I found that the article had recently been vadalized again. The changes (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6) were all made by the anonymous user 207.32.33.5.

I was wondering since Nussle seems to be more and more of a target about the possibility of having his article protected to keep new and anonymous users from changing the article.
JesseG 02:48, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Done. --Tony Sidaway 03:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I have a sneaking suspicion that our old friend FourthAve is back. The El Reyko 07:42, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Jim Nussle is of course a target. You Republicans think it's OK to vandalize Wiki by removing or adding damaging info about a candidate (as with Jim's adultery), i.e, you target evil Jim as the best thing since Tammy Faye Bakker. But not currently by me, boychiks. That request for Arb was way outta line, and was simply ignored. The updated version will be similarly ignored. You guys are out of the loop. Rant and rave all you like: I snoop into your mail and your edits.

As for the comments about the Julien Dubuque Bridge, someone seems to be having visual and auditory hallucinations.--FourthAve 08:42, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

We're going to have to do something about that trollery of yours. Are you sure wikipedia is the place for you...? That is not the way we carry ourselves at this site. -Zero^Talk 10:53, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocking Policy

Refer to:

[edit] I'm just an inbred 'merican

(Copyrighted material removed) ... For now I have become the strangest case you ever saw As husband of my grandmother, I am my own grandpa! --MONGO 03:35, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Brilliant! --Tony Sidaway 12:52, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A favor please

Hello friend, do you remember me? In the month of September 2005, your vote had made me an administrator. we all know that the life here is exciting and full of challenges. I would request you to please spare fem moments for me, and favor me with your comments and suggestions (here please) on my performance as a wikipedian. Let us continue to build the Better than the Best global encyclopedia. Thank you and regards. --Bhadani 10:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I know you remember me. --Bhadani 10:17, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I certainly do. --Tony Sidaway 12:50, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

First off i restored a section deleted in violation of an AFD, which is against policy, mainly because it was removed in violation of WP:NPOV and in violation of WP:AFD. My reasoning was made clear. Then i stuck to my 1RR as my first edit wasnt a revert, it was a restoration.

Second, User:Deathrocker already admitted to using Anons before to vandalise mine and Admin Sceptres user pages, as well as to impersonate me.

Third off, i also requested advice on how to deal with the Children of Bodom article. A serial vandal (A check user has shown 5 different anons and 3 user names to be the same person) keeps removing the Melodic Black from the info box, regardless of being warned by a WP:RFC and the admin warning on the article by admin User:Snowflake. So if you would care to assist in this matter, that would be appreciated, as they have openly stated that they can simply change the article as many times as they want because of my 1RR.

Ive only used an Anon once, and i admitted to that and requested a 1 week block for it after using it to make a few comments on things, so that somethings were clear regarding some plans for working a series of articles, and so i could assert my view. In that time, the history for that anon can be checked, i edited no articles on it, only talk pages, to honour my ban. Im not unreasonable if people are not unreasonable with me. Ley Shade 19:52, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I put in a complaint about Spearhead after he used the 1RR thing against me, as i tried time and time again to tell him i agree with the deletion of the part, but not when an AFD said it was to be kept. I offered to open an RFC but he refused, so, there wasnt much i could do. I didnt realise doing a restoration was going to get me banned though.

However the Children of Bodom article is getting a hell of a lot of vandalism, and i cant revert it either. Is there any chance you can revert it and put a protection on it. That way the user might actually engage in using the talk page like i already asked them to do. I even refernced them to the RFC and explained WP:CITE and WP:NPOV to them, and they still refused to care, there whole attitdue was Wikipedia sucks, yew suck, and i can do whatever i want. I know im 'skating on thin ice', so thats why im actually asking for yew to do something about it, and enforce a little bit of anti-vandalism here. Ley Shade 20:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll look at this later. Please be patient in the meantime. --Tony Sidaway 20:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

The IP is back on the Children of Bodom article [1]. This page really needs reverting back to the unvandalised version and protecting, it so frustrates me i cannot do anything to stop this vandalistic mess, i dont even know the wiki for the board to alert against vandals =(. Ley Shade 00:56, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

That looks to me like the kind of editing that I'd describe as a content dispute. It appears to me that this fellow has a minor quibble about the precise wording of the description of the subgenre of heavy metal to which the band's music belongs. How do you feel about this characterization? Do I have it wrong? --Tony Sidaway 01:36, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

An RFC already went through with the user before, and it was decided that in according to WP:CITE and WP:NOR, that the majority of sources claimed the band to be those three, so the RFC decided they should be listed. Then i brainstormed the Genre Controversy section to account for the other minor sources which the RFC didnt even ask me to do, and was copyedited for better neutrality.

However, since my 1RR, the user has claimed themselfs Above Policy, and has sworn to use as many anons and sockpuppets as he needs to to violate WP:NPOV until only his view remains based on his comment I dislike black metal and refuse to accept cob as being black metal. This isnt very Wikipedia like, as i also dislike Black Metal and Death Metal, but they are still there because thats what sources say.

All attempts at working with the user have been ignored, as have countless admin warnings. Due to this, im at a loss at what to do, as initially i autothered the first RFC to deal with the content dispute, but now the user is clearly vandalising the page in an attempt to disregard sourced information and the neautriulity of POV.

The RFC and all efforts made at on the Children of Bodom talk page, for you to look at if you need to. Ley Shade 01:43, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Sorry if I appear a little slow on this but heavy metal isn't my subject. I seem to recall listening to Paranoid in 1970 and deciding it wasn't for me. I'm still investigating. At first sight I'd say that it doesn't look like much of a consensus emerged from the RfC if you often find yourself fighting a lone battle on this issue. But there could be other factors. --Tony Sidaway 02:26, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Well the consensus was basically that the information with most sources goes on the infobox, and the not so sourced information goes on the Genre Contoversy. The irony of this is that the part the anon keeps violating policy and admin warnings by removing, is the one that has the most sources in support of it =\ Ley Shade 02:57, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

The user just blanked my talk page [2], which has thankfully been reverted by some Kungfu person [3]. I think this somewhat proves the ill faith of the user. Ley Shade 04:25, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

More edits to the Children of Bodom and Melodic Death Metal articles (Which is also admin warned by Snowflake), blanking the Death Metal references in favour of Black Metal, with a revert war seemingly starting that is nothing to do with me. This is what i keep getting caught up in, and which is why the page needs protecting. Sorry to keep asking for help, but the WP:HMM has put a lot of work into that article it saddens me deeply to see revert wars slowly detoriate the quality of the work of so many good wikipedians. Ley Shade 06:59, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My case.

I am frankly afraid of you. I've seen the edit-revert-block war you have with at least one other admin. Your integrity as an admin has been called into question. I'm afraid you've already decided to ban me for a year. I think you will so block when you read this far. It would be into your interest to recuse yourself from this case. Sean Black, Dbachmann are fine by me, or one chosen by the two of them is fine.

It's only in the last 7-10 days that I've discovered there is zero privacy on wikipedia, i.e., I've learned how to snoop into anyone's edit list or mail.

An adequate response means an immense amount of copy-paste.

The present case was a cabal, two friends or sockpuppets thereof who worked in tandem to avoid the 3R rule. No one here gives a damn about Jim Nussle, but I insisted on mentioning the lurid details of his divorce and the politically-charged details of the homewrecker's employment history. Jesus Christ, or whatever his username is, insisted on removing it, and leaving mail elsewhere thanking the other for support.

I would have been happy to have neutrally spoken of the topic, but the cabal objected. The 3R bit came to a head, and I objected, mainly in mail, to this abuse. Then Jesus Christ asked for this obscure procedure.

I got blocked, and once unblocked (by you, I think), I then got offensive emails from everyone and sent them to hell; I did not want to see this s--- at the top of my pages. No, I do not understand highWikipedia procedure.

Enough. It's going to take me at least a week (I can write; give me a month to anihilate Jesus Christ and his cabal) to assemble the evidence. I personally don't think Jesus Christ is guilty of sockpuppetry, but it's in my interest to investigate him for it, and this will take some time.

As for sockpuppets, no. The only case where you get an IP address is where wikipedia has timed me out and I didn't notice.

I still find the Julien Dubuque Bridge bits hallucinatory. I framed a debate. See Black Hawk Bridge. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by FourthAve (talk • contribs) 07:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't be afraid of me. I don't block unless the person in question needs to be blocked. I blocked you three times in early and mid-March when you were vandalizing Jim Nussle and attacking lots of people. If you don't do that there is no need to block you. --Tony Sidaway 19:40, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Arbitration, Administrative divisions, Tobias Conradi

Pardon me, I'm still learning the resolution process. My understanding was that once RfCs had been processed, and Mediation had been refused, the only recourse is Arbitration. Moreover, that Arbitration is the only binding dispute resolution for which enforcement can be requested.

Are you saying that I've merely mislabelled the request?
Or are you saying that under the current process, as long as a sufficiently large gang of miscreants is cooperating and not misbehaving too badly, any content is permitted, no matter how badly the material deviates from standard practices in the rest of the world?

--William Allen Simpson 02:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I've no serious grasp of the merits of your claim, but as a clerk I feel it's necessary to suggest that the difference of opinion may be best explored using normal discussion. I could be wrong, and I'm aware of that, so I've expressed my assessment in very tentative terms. --Tony Sidaway 02:42, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Nor do I expect the merits to be decided in a request. In legal terms, I'm asking about the standards of review, ripeness, and standing.

Only inter-personal RfCs and Mediation appeals?
Abuse of process appeals?

Certainly, I can reframe as covering any inter-personal misbehaviour. But a lack of process and policy review would explain why many experts are unwilling to participate in Wikipedia, and the continuing references to cabals and gangs.

--William Allen Simpson 02:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I think there may be two problems here. Firstly, the interpersonal dispute, secondly the content problems. Normally the Arbitration Committee tries to steer clear of content issues, leaving them to the community to decide if at all possible. I do understand the reticence of experts to participate--unfortunately Wikiedia has a strong anti-elitist community and this often makes it hard to make progress. --Tony Sidaway 03:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I have recast as an inter-personal issue. Of course, the disruption of proper content is my primary concern, but there are plenty of ancillary issues. I've just discovered that Conradi has been banned at de. Had my RfC been taken more seriously 4 months ago, this whole problem could have been nipped in the bud.

--William Allen Simpson 15:42, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. The section is very large. Would it be possible to trim it back to essentials of the case? If the case is accepted, you will have plenty of time and opportunity to present all pertinent evidence. Arbitrators are much, much more likely to take the time to read a section under 500 words. --Tony Sidaway 20:01, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Muhamed

Hi, I notice that three arbitrators have considered your application and voted to reject, because Muhamed hasn't edited English Wikipedia for over a month. Would you mind if I closed this request without prejudice? If he ever returns to English Wikipedia and his behavior continues to present a problem, you will be able to re-open the request at any time. --Tony Sidaway 22:14, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Thats possible but I was really hoping for some sort of general ruling that discourages such behaviour.

I know it is common sense, so I do not believe it is too hard to make it a policy. But if you feel that isn't possible feel free to close it.

--Cat out 23:00, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

As I suggested, I'll close it for now and if he comes back you can open it again. --Tony Sidaway 00:59, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A comment, I don't mean to bother you

Hello Tony Sideways, I appriciate the good work you did to present my arbitration in a clean, easy to understand manner. There is one point, however, I would beg your attention about. My understanding of NPOV, it states; "Editors understand the stated word differently contains elements of the sympathetic point of view approach which has been considered and rejected by Wikipedia policy makers." Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Terryeo/Proposed_decision#Terryeo.27s_interpretation_of_NPOV. And that is true, my statement does contain elements of that point. But I'm not trying to communicate an advocacy, I'm trying to present that the information which comprises these subjects, while not easily presented, can be presented. I am trying to say that it is not an advocacy to present a subject in a manner that an average reader might understand the subject. But it would be a counter-advocacy to mis-present the subject so an average reader could not understand it. I appreciate that you have cleanly presented almost all of the issue as I meant it and appriciate that I am no part of the process going on. In particular your inclusion of Xenu.net has already resulted in cleaner statements at WP:RS which will mean better use of secondary sources of information. But there are advocacy editors whom brought the request, whom advocate against the subjects being actually presented. The subjects are difficult enough to understand, but when every other sentence must include a counter-advocacy, the information which comprises the subject simply can't be presented for the reader to understand. Examples are, in their first paragraphs, Thetan presents its information while Dianetics does not. I hope I'm not offending or misconstruing what the arbitration committee understands they are voting on. I simply don't know where else to turn toward clear introductions of these subjects. I'll understand if no action is taken. You all have been pretty tolerant of the upsets my editing has caused.Terryeo 07:14, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I have forwarded this to all of the arbitrators. --Tony Sidaway 19:58, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Terryeo 06:36, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deathrocker

Concerning Deathrocker's arbcom case. The user is now claiming that Myself/Idont and Admin Sceptre are assuming bad faith in our statements on the ArbCom case.

On the talk page, he is also Wikilawyering claiming the whole Case is against policy, and claiming Sceptre is abusing his admin powers by filing the case, a claim that during his one month block he extended to five other admins that refused to unblock him, and several more on the ANI board.

He his also making claims that im making inflamatory claims and lying in my arbcom statement, but in the numerous times ive asked him to provide diffs he has refused. He's also persisting in making uncivil comments about my Parole, and telling me that i have to assume good faith or i will be banned, something which he seems to be gloating on.

In honesty it feels a lot like he is trying to bait me into making a personal attack or being incivil, as he seems to have a firm belief that i myself should not be allowed to comment on the Arbcom case at all.

Mainly i just dont know how to react or what to do, as ive tried apologising if i came across uncivil [4] and asked him to not make personal attacks [5], and both times he has ignored this and persisted in making inflamtory remarks. I am at a point of wanting to tell him to go F**k Himself, but i already told him that i have no like of him, but i will try to treat all my fellow Wikipedian's with respect [6].

Do you have any suggestions on how to deal with this, because he is really trying my patience. Ley Shade 09:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Avoid responding. The arbitrators aren't fools and will realise that you are being baited. --Tony Sidaway 11:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I posted on my Statement about what you have said in relation to my discontinuation of contact with Deathrocker and moved his comments from my Statement to his own. Since then he put those parts back, defaced my statement through removing sections i had to then restore, and then sat making personal attacks in my statment calling me 'Childish', 'Pathetic', 'Grasping At Straws'. Christ i have a whole list and then some i just added to my Statement. The user is going out of his way now to push me, and im determined not to respond, but he has vandalised my user page and Sceptres before, and with his defacing of my Statement, the user is causing me untold Wikistress. I plea for assistance in having this user removed from editing my Statement and Userpage. Ley Shade 18:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll investigate his behavior and may make comments on it. --Tony Sidaway 18:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dualabs

Dear TS,
While I realize that an admin does not simply close an AfD based on the votes, but based also on his/her personal assessment, I would like to understand how you arrived at "keep and expand" for this AfD. There were three delete votes and a merge vote from the creator of the article. Did you close this way because of the recent track record of the nominator, to make a WP:POINT? Instead of measuring consensus, you did something er... revolutionary. I would appreciate an explanation, and I hope no offense is taken. I am just trying to understand what took place. Thanks. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 01:58, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

It's my understanding that the role of the AfD closer has changed somewhat over time, to the point where he is in effect summarising the sense of the debate in the light of deletion policy and the best interests of the encyclopedia. The article contains verifiable information and thus it would not be in the interests of Wikipedia to remove that information permanently. In my closing I also considered whether the article should be merged to United States Census, and decided that it probably wasn't appropriate to do so until an honest attempt had been made to expand the article. This decision was in line with the deletion policy, which is that articles on subjects so minor that they don't merit an article should be merged, not deleted. The assertions that the company was not "notable" seem implausible, as I said, because of the company's provenance (former employees of the Census Bureau) and its important role in producing what remain the only sources of census microdata for the 1960 and 1970 census.

You may also notice that after the close I made a small edit to expand the article and provide another reference.

I hope this explains adequately why I closed the debate as I did. If not, please by all means let's discuss it further; I could be persuaded that the close I have just performed was not the best thing for the encyclopedia. --Tony Sidaway 02:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I certainly understand that you had your reasons. Just one more point: what of WP:CORP? That and the fact that the article will certainly never progress beyond a very short stub. I am certainly not going to pursue this further - I'd rather go to more productive things with my wikitime. I appreciate your response. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 03:00, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

WP:CORP is a guideline for deciding whether a company is notable, but clearly this particular company is notable simply because of the nature of its work. I recognise that the article may never expand beyond the current rather brief stub, but the stub contains very useful information so that isn't, in itself, a problem. It may be decided at some point in the future that the information should be merged into United States Census. I could have made that choice in closing, but as the article is only a little over a week old I'd like to give it a chance to grow.

I have discovered the name of the company's President, and the fact that (according to one source) he played an important role in compiling the 1960 census. Another important piece of information, yet to be gathered, is the nature of the compression algorithm used, and any associated patents. Since this company handled data of pivotal importance to modern historians, I feel that the article merits extremely careful handling. --Tony Sidaway 03:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Pardon the third party buttinksi here, but I think this should probably go to WP:DRV. It would have been better for you to argue the points you make here in the Afd to see what other folks thought of them, rather than taking such an activist stand in closure. I do like that you're arguing content-wise why it should be kept, rather than procedure-wise, but I wonder how many other editors would agree with your reasoning. To me, they seem like a historical footnote. They are verifiable, which is more than you can say for many deleted things, but if there's nothing sufficiently important to merge into the census article, I wonder what the point of keeping this is. Unless you're willing to argue that any company that ever does work for a significant corporation is itself a significant corporation, I'm not sure why you say this company is encylopedic. I don't see a good reason to disregard WP:CORP here. Friday (talk) 03:57, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

WP:CORP can never provide a reason for deletion, only a justification for inclusion. Far from being a historical footnote, the DUALabs encrypted data is just about the only source of microdata on the 1960 census, which is an ongoing headache for archivists since some of the compression programs were written in assembler to operate on ancient reel computer tapes using a nonstandard data encoding scheme. --Tony Sidaway 04:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocking of User:Vít Zvánovec

Hi. I know nothing about this user, but they've been emailing me asking me to lift their block. It seems that they're sort-of unclear about what a block is (as distinct from being banned) and genuinely want to discuss the circumstances of it with you, but haven't gotten a response. It may make sense for you to leave a note at User talk:Vít Zvánovec with further explanation about the block. I have neither interest in, nor opinion about, the user or the block, beyond wanting to make sure that the user is clear about what not to do in the future. Jkelly 21:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll check my email. He is also able to write on his talk page. --Tony Sidaway 21:50, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Jkelly 21:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

You have blocked me and it was the last drop which made me to leave Wikipedia altogether. I plan to answer you either by an e-mail either on my blog by larger text sometime. Thanks to you for fastening my final decision. -- Vít Zvánovec 11:04, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Once you had started calling your fellow Wikipedians fascists, I think you had outstayed your welcome. Don't you? --Tony Sidaway 13:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:User Sock Puppet and Template:User Puppet Master DRVU

It looks like you mistakenly removed this debate when closing Template: Unamerican and friends[7]. As such, I relisted it. Did you mean to close it? Kotepho 18:03, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

No, I screwed up. Thanks for fixing it. --Tony Sidaway 01:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/o/n/User_talk%7ETony_Sidaway_Archive_2006_05_20_dada.html"