User talk:Tony Sidaway/Archive 2006 06 18

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 User Christian result 2 Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ed Poor/Evolution poll 3 Apology 4 Rouge Admin Cabal 5 My sig 6 Signature (again). 7 haha 8 {{refactored}} 9 Re: Image 10 User_Zionist template deletion? 11 Please see this 12 Apartheid outside of South Africa 13 More attacks from banned user Terryeo 14 Um, what please? 15 Personal attack warning 16 Defacing compliant sigs 17 Please try and be civil :) 18 Sig (again) 19 Please review admins comments 20 User:Sweetiepetie 21 My sig 22 Proposal for resolving the sig problem 23 Scent of a personal attack against you 24 Request for Arbitration 25 Admins 26 My sig code 27 Carthage 28 Esperanza Signature

[edit] User Christian result

Hi,

I have restored the text of my decision regarding that template. Whatever your opinion regarding its quality, the DRV close is part of the record, and should remain. Although DRVs are not normally closed with extensive explanatory text, they are sometimes (See DRV for The Game (game)), especially when the DRV is the second or third in a series of DRVs. While the text certainly expresses my opinion, the opinion expressed is my interpretation of consensus, which I take to be the definition of what a close entails. Best wishes, Xoloz 15:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

No problem, but I think you were going a bit too close to sermonizing. I also think that your suggestion that speedy deletion of abusive templates can be equated with disruption was absolutely unacceptable. --Tony Sidaway 17:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

"Sermonizing" is not unheard of in closures of lengthy disputes, and is, of course, in the eye of the beholder anyway. The last bit was just a suggestion, and was labelled as such; however, I do honestly believe that speedying that template as T1 at this point would be disruptive, and I would begin a dialogue on AN/I to that effect if it happened. Thankfully, the German solution appears to have rendered that point moot for now. Best wishes, Xoloz 18:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I was rather upset when Improv speedied that template so soon after the previous DRV and TfD, but Improv certainly isn't the kind of guy I'd describe as prone to disruptive behavior. I agree that the German fix is working for now and I look forward to that progressing to its logical conclusion. --Tony Sidaway 18:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

While I do disagree with Improv's choice also, my suggestion of what should be considered disruptive was intended to apply only prospectively, not retrospectively. Best wishes, Xoloz 18:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ed Poor/Evolution poll

Can you chime in on this issue? As I don't see the harm in having this type of information in userspace but there seems to be quite a few editors who do - it seems (to me) more like the revival of old conflicts with Ed - For me, however, the issue is that it sets bad precedent to delete userspace material that is not clearly violating policy - maybe I should make the info into a userbox - LOL -Trödel 15:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Not really bothered about this. --Tony Sidaway 00:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Apology

Tony, Thank you for the apology. Chooserr 05:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

np. --Tony Sidaway 12:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I've been a bit busy lately, but I want to add my thanks too, Tony, and also for not taking offence at my comments. Cheers. AnnH ♫ 07:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rouge Admin Cabal

You really should add yourself to Category:Rouge admins :-) User Talk:JzG 19:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I thought self noms were not done, that you had to be nomed by someone else. I've been waiting for someone to add me but I guess I haven't been wild enough. User:Lar 17:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I waited for someone to add me... With Tony though, it would probably be gasoline on flames. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

You guys can all adopt me as a patron saint if you like! :) --Tony Sidaway 18:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

As you wish. The face is Saint Dominic; I'm not good enough to pull your face out of a 1/4 profile snapshot. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My sig

Yeah, I already changed it. I thought that it might have been too long, but I left it until Clyde told me. Thank you! (But I want to leave the RPOTD in there.) the_ed17 17:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Replied. --Tony Sidaway 18:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Is this any better? The only thing left is the picture of the day. the_ed17 20:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Much better. Not that bad. --Tony Sidaway 20:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Signature (again).

I don't expect you to listen or consider other people's points of view (and what I'm doing is probably amounting to bashing my head against a brick wall), but kindly leave my signature alone.

What you are doing amounts to imposing your opinion/will on the entire site. (Damn what anyone else thinks about the matter, you'll continue doing what you want, regardless)

My signature does not in any way violate WP:SIG, it's not long, it doesn't contain images, external links etc. I don't care if you don't like it, that doesn't give you the right to change it (on pages other than your talk). What matters here is that it does not violate policy. You have no reason to change it. Leave it alone. — Nathan ^(talk) 23:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh don't be such a silly sausage. "Imposing my will" indeed! --Tony Sidaway 00:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Please don't inflame things any worse than they have to be on AN/I. I was hoping to guide this wholly lame drama back to the RFC where it can't get in the way. - A Man In Black 01:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Fine, have fun. --Tony Sidaway 01:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Er, actually, I don't think it was you doing it, and I edit conflicted removing my comment. Someone's fiddling with Chnwnwnwnwnwwhatever's sig there, and I thought it was you, incorrectly. - A Man In Black 01:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC) No, I was wrong the second time, it was you (it was just that Freakofnature was reverting Chckwnwnwwn's reverts). But, hey, you'd say you'd stop, so no issue any more. - A Man In Black 01:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Well I won't get into an edit war about it. But I'll always do my best to improve the readability and editability of discussion areas of the wiki. --Tony Sidaway 01:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's not so much the edit war as decreasing the readability and editability of AN by prolonging a useless flame war on it. Unfortunately, everyone else seems to be keeping it alive on their own. :/ - A Man In Black 03:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

At FreplySpang's suggestion, I moved the whole discussion to the talk page of the RfC, but somebody else moved it back. --Tony Sidaway 03:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, for a moment it looked like we might actually be able to contain the discussion to the RFC. FreplySpang 04:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] haha

First off, Then what you do is vandalism too, think about it. Second I stopped caring when I found no one will ever do anything about you, I stopped caring when you don't seem to care that about half of wikipedias editors very much dislike what you are doing and you don't give a crap about them, and I stopped caring when I found out you bully people for fun.ILovePlankton 03:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

No, it isn't vandalism. "Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to reduce the quality of the encyclopedia."

Your act was the deliberate removal of a comment by another person. My acts are the removal of unnecessary, unsightly and intrusive formatting while retaining the comments, thus improving the editing environment. --Tony Sidaway 03:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] {{refactored}}

I created the {{refactored}} template. Feel free to change it. It currently produces this result: NoSeptember (talk) —The preceding signature was simplified .

Yuk! No thanks. Who cares what has been done to a signature? It's the comment that matters. --Tony Sidaway 04:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not surprised that you don't care for it, but others obviously do care about their sigs. I wonder how they would react to the use of this template, it sort of announces to the world: I had a fancy signature, but someone thought it was too fancy. ;-) NoSeptember 04:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

My guess is they'd hate it worse than the little bespoke jobbies I've been knocking up. Thanks for trying. --Tony Sidaway

It's already been adopted by one user :-) NoSeptember 05:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I have added a param for nicknames so now it can be {{refactored|Example User|Example}} if their names should have a nickname. --GeorgeMoney ^T·C 05:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Just to add my two cents, I prefer this to simple refactoring, and almost don't mind it. Because it does say that that is not my original signature, which is what my original qualm was. Chcknwnm (talk) Chuck —The preceding signature was simplified .

05:41, 9 June 2006

No timestamp! :( --Tony Sidaway 05:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Just add 5 ~'s, but that is only for someone using it as their sig. If refactoring someone else's sig, just be careful not to erase the date already there. NoSeptember 05:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Eah, I guess it only works after someone signs, and then someone else refactors. Should work though. Chuck^(척뉴넘) 05:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

And now the optional time parameter has been added. Gee, these guys are smart. NoSeptember 05:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Image

Hey, regarding the image. I wrote where I got it from but tagged it wrong, it shouldn't be tagged as copyrighted. I'll look to find which tag belongs there and change it. Thanks for the message. Chcknwnm (talk) —The preceding signature was simplified . 05:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay. --Tony Sidaway 11:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User_Zionist template deletion?

Just curious, but why was that template deleted? Did I miss a vote on the issue perhaps? Thanks. --Michaelk 09:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

It was speedy deleted under speedy deletion criterion T1. --Tony Sidaway 11:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please see this

Please see this patently absurd 3RR report - I'm being accused of a 3rr for readding an original research tag that didn't exist in the "version being reverted to" or the first three reverts. I added it after my 3rd reversion, it was illicilty removed (tags aren't supposed to be removed to the best of my knowledge) and then readded by me. Homey 12:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

This is why I always avoid edit warring. --Tony Sidaway 12:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Apartheid outside of South Africa

Please also see Apartheid outside of South Africa. Editors have cut and paste the entire Israeli apartheid (epithet) article despite the fact that a tag calling for the latter article to be merged into the former article has achieved on consensus on either Talk:Apartheid outside of South Africa or Talk:Israeli apartheid (epithet)Homey 13:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Not much I personally could do to resolve this without risking getting too involved to be able to continue my oversight of Zeq and other editors on this issue. I note that it's been listed for deletion, so that should bring some external views to bear on the matter. --Tony Sidaway 14:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More attacks from banned user Terryeo

Terryeo is again wikilawyering and making personal attacks: Talk:Patter_drill#Some_out-points_presently_in_the_article He is attempting to get a guildeline enforced as a policy. He also has been attempting to redefine the work "published" so that he can weasel in his POV. --Fahrenheit451 19:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm aware of the background on this (scientology documents not officially published by the church but leaked in court cases and the like) and I'm watching closely. --Tony Sidaway 19:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Um, what please?

What? You call me a troll because I vocally criticise a Wikipedia policy that I very deeply consider flawed and harmful to the project? I feel very much insulted right now. I don't do this to get attention or whatever the current definition of a troll is. This very policy that I am talking about has been invoked again and again and again in the most ridiculous cases against - in my opinion - completely legitimate and worthy edits. And I must say - while a lot of negative things could be said about the individuals that invoked the policy in those cases, ultimately they are right: The policy formulation does not leave room for any interpretation. In many ways. Ahem.

Therefore, (also, for being of a smartass) I must reject your request and ask you to stay away from my user talk page for a bit. You won't change my opinion about the policy, or my decision to lobby to have it removed. I don't like to have cluttered up talk pages either - it'd be so much easier if people just listened to me instead of arguing all the time. But that's just not happening, sadly. Dabljuh 22:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Well maybe you're going about it the wrong way? Just a thought. --Tony Sidaway 22:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm open for all suggestions. Should I bribe Jimbo or something? Dabljuh 22:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Worth a try! --Tony Sidaway 23:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I will bribe him with the most valuable commodity on the internet: Loads of horse porn! He will be delighted. Dabljuh 23:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attack warning

Hello Tony :). While you obviously did not mean to, it seems that you may have accidentily let a personal attack slip out. Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. (I am referring to this comment in which you called a fellow editor "antisocial"). Where 17:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I could be convinced that referring to people with large and intrusive signatures as antisocial is a personal attack. For now, I'll let it stand. Could you explain? --Tony Sidaway 17:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me for mixing in here, but I think I may be able to explain: If you say the act is antisocial, that is about the act. If you say that the person is antisocial, that can easily be seen as a personal attack. It may not seem like a big deal, but aiming at the act rather than at the person is a rather essential part of conflict handling. -- Olve 17:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I think I twigged. See this edit in which I change the wording to focus on the antisocial nature of the acts rather than attaching the epithet to the people who repeatedly indulge in it. --Tony Sidaway 17:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Excellent. Thanks! :) Where 17:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I don't know how Tony feels about this, but I personally feel that {{npa}} or {{civil}} templates should not be used for established editors. They're useful for new users (or IPs) who may not know the rules, but they're not meant to be given out as punishment for naughtiness. When someone has been here for a while and can be assumed to know the policy, sending him a temple which informs him that "continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption" is a bit of an insult. Wouldn't it have been better just to have said that you didn't think he should have called other editors "antisocial"? AnnH ♫ 17:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not a huge deal, but in general I think warning templates are little use for anything outside the basic test1, 2, 3, etc. I seldom use even those any more. --Tony Sidaway 18:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I got three {{civil}} templates from Alienus two days ago for calling this vandalism. :-) AnnH ♫ 18:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

AnnH has a pretty good point. Sorry about that, Tony! Where ^(talk) 02:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Defacing compliant sigs

[tripe (repeatedly inserted) deleted]

(removed template). No it is not vandalism, a POINT violation at worst. Block for that if you want to, but please at least do not call it "vandalism".Voice-of-All 03:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

It is absolutely not a violation of WP:POINT. There is no good reason to block. --Tony Sidaway 03:37, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, "disruption" is better word for it (at worst).Voice-of-All 03:46, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please try and be civil :)

Hello again Tony. I noticed that your edit summary here. Could be construed as uncivil. Although it should be a big deal, human nature (sadly) is such that people can get very upset when people are uncivil to them (with some people more so then others). As such, as you have saw with the recent block, people tend to react strongly to comments that they percieve to be uncivil. Obviously, you did not do it purposefully or maliciously, but I think that things could probably go more smoothly in the future if you attempt to be a more civil in the future. Where 04:46, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Tony,

If I'd my way, in addition to abolishing all non-encylopedic userboxes and creative signatures, I'd also prohibit removal of messages from user talk pages, except those messages (e.g. vandalism) we'd be equally justified in removing from article talk pages. The common denominator is clear: users don't own their space.

While I fully support what you're doing, and can only imagine what it'd be like to take the amount of flak you deal with on a daily basis, I will say that the editors who remove legitimate comments are, in nearly all cases, those whom I respect the least. You're an exception here, but you really shouldn't be. Removing legitimate comments looks defensive, lending criticisms an aura of suppressed truth they might not otherwise have earned, and is incivil. If a comment doesn't deserve a response, just let it stand without one. If your page gets too long, archive it. This should be policy for all users. But for now, it's just my advice.Timothy Usher 04:59, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

We're going to have to differ on that one. Once I've read a very silly comment on my talk page, and remove it, nobody should try to put it back. In the case of steamingly stupid comments, such as Radiokirk's suggestion, the same applies. Tony Sidaway 05:26, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, true, there does come a point. However - and maybe this is unforgivably vicious of me - but I find it the best revenge to allow someone's totally stupid comment to sit there unanswered, as evidence of its signer's stupidity - as it's said, you know a man by his enemies. But I won't press this any further at this point; you've enough bullshit to deal with without dealing with mine.Timothy Usher 05:35, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. "Delicious revenge". But why should I? I'm not interested in revenge, only in removing stupid crap. --Tony Sidaway 05:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

But publically calling it "crap" in the edit summary makes people upset (as detailed above) and probably violates WP:CIVIL, no? Where 05:54, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I beg to differ. If some editors persist in pushing bizarre and stupid arguments, it is not a bad idea to describe their arguments as "crap". It would be bad for the encyclopedia to entertain rubbish on the same footing as commonsense. --Tony Sidaway 07:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sig (again)

I may be grasping at straws at this point because you've been less than receptive to a calm discussion about my signature. If I remove the superscript, will you leave it (and me) alone? Please comment on my talk and be clear on what you don't like. I'm sick of this back-and-forth nonsense. Exactly what don't you like about my signature. Stop beating around the bush and let's hear it. Since this is all about what you don't like, you have the power to end this. Thank you. --nathanrdotcom 06:35, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

See above. I confess myself truly baffled. What is it you want of me? I'm perfectly happy. --Tony Sidaway 07:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please review admins comments

at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Zeq_article_bans Tnx, Zeq 18:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Tony, Out of emanse respect I have given you time to review, refelct on your action and read what others have said.

I would like to draw your attention to the WP:Probation policy:

• In order to enforce probation it is necessary to attract the attention of a administrator with enough interst and energy to investigate the matter and assume the risk of acting.

Patience is counseled.

• Striking out at users on probation is strongly discouraged.

I am aksing have you not lost your interst and energy to investigate this issue ?

Probation at Wikipedia is a formal, procedural warning against a Wikipedia editor, generally regarding specific conduct on a group of articles. It generally follows an Arbitration Committee finding that a particular user has edited one or more articles in a disruptive or objectionable way (e.g., by Wikipedia:edit warring).

A user placed on probation by the Arbitration Committee is permitted to continue to edit in the subject areas in which they are on probation. If they edit an article in those subject areas in a disruptive or objectionable way, however, any administrator who is not involved in the conflict may ban them from editing the article. The banned user may continue to edit the talk page, making suggestions as to content and discussing content. A ban may be imposed only for good cause which shall be documented in a section set aside for that purpose in the arbitration case. Banning without good cause or in bad faith shall be grounds for censure, restriction, or removal of administrative access.

I am asking if you have convinced my self that I was disruptive and did you documented why you think my editing (unlike others who edited in same article) has been a reason for a ban. I strongly suugest again that you consider that all other admins who commented on the case did not think as you and many simply reafused to take the request action by Homey. Zeq 09:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

You promised me and other:

I see your point. I'll examine the situation and may review the ban in that particular case. --Tony Sidaway 15:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

That you will re-examine. Tnx. Zeq 20:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I've re-examined. There is absolutely no dissent among admins that you have been placed on probation, and that since then your editing has shown some improvement but has been generally well below that expected of a Wikipedian. I announced the bans in eight places and have taken comments from all of them. I am not currently continuing with the review of the bans. They remain. Please stop badgering me about them. You will not persuade me that I was wrong; indeed your activities of the past few days only cement a feeling in my mind that you going to be a long term problem editor. --Tony Sidaway 20:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your time of rexamining the issue. Your characterzation of me as "below that expected of a Wikipedian" and "long term problem editor" shows you have extrapolated more from this issue that is warrnted. The result is that you have banned me from several articles at once, included one in which I have been a major poitive contributor to get it to be NPOV. You have banned me from this article on the ground of 1 (one) single edit - which according to all reviwers was a jutified edit (and they have told you so). If you are still unable to change your mind I can only guess it has something to do with a political issue since all the articles you banned me from (starting with nakba day) were on one subject. Zeq 09:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

PS Tony, the person that seems to be on a "self distruct" course here is not me. Getting to so many fights with people over user box (I can also think of your false accuastion to me about one such user box that I did not even placed) and signatures show beyong any doubt that you look for "form realted" over substance and calm. I don't want to know about you non-wiki life but such behaviour in general is not healthy to anyone, especially the people who preform these types of prefernces in their life. Zeq 09:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

PS 2 I have just been sent this: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Tony_Sidaway#Tony_Sidaway_on_administrative_1RR with the suggestion that since several admin have been made aware of the same complaint against me[1], User_talk:Fred_Bauder#Zeq.27s_probation_violation while they refused to act on it your action in that issue may be a violation of the ArbCom case. I am looking into this. Zeq 09:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Sweetiepetie

Hi. I see you've blocked User:Sweetiepetie as a sockpuppet of User:JamieAdams. I've looked at JamieAdams' talk history and the behaviour seems very out of character for Sweetiepetitie. I've never seen the latter be so provocative. I don't have the technical knowledge to explain the IP address, but I do notice that he/she has had problems with AOL proxies recently.

Anyhow, as far as I know, Sweetiepetie has done nothing to warrant being permablocked -- I've had the user's Userpage on my watchlist for a while now too, and follow the project he's mainly involved in. I'm going to unblock the user, awaiting your response with more information. The JPS 13:14, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Please take this to User:Mackensen, who performed the sock checks and told me that this editor was a sock of User:JamieAdams. --Tony Sidaway 14:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My sig

Hmmm...you removed my sig, so I just made it a bit shorter now. If that is not good enough, then it will get hard for me to take you seriously, since sigs that mall are hardly a distraction. Voice of All 03:29, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I just made it shorter, so it only links to talk (which is the only place people usually go anyway).Voice of All 03:32, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Whatever. Why does it have to be so obscenely large in the first place? --Tony Sidaway 03:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Because HTML markup is retartedly long, it takes <span style='color: ColorName'> just to get in one color, and then you have to close it. But remember it is a signature, not a name, do you sign real life things like "Tony Sideway" in perfect TNR font?Voice of All 03:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I've no idea what "TNR" might be. Yes, of course I write my name as clearly as possible, if that's what you mean. --Tony Sidaway 01:17, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for disruption of Wikipedia. Please note that page blanking, addition of random text or spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, and repeated and blatant violation of WP:NPOV are considered vandalism. If you wish to make useful contributions, you may come back after the block expires. RadioKirk 03:47, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

• 03:57, 10 June 2006 Improv unblocked Tony Sidaway (contribs) (Remove unwarranted block)

Kirk, do please stop playing silly buggers. --Tony Sidaway 03:49, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Another demonstration of your inability or unwillingness .... RadioKirk 04:46, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Do stop being a silly sausage, Kirk. --Tony Sidaway 05:23, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that's about what I expected. If it ain't your opinion, it must've come from a "silly sausage". Tell me, mate, if an Rfc involvong 100 equally respected users ended with 51% of the people supporting you and 49% not, what's your reaction to the 49%? RadioKirk 05:42, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

RadioKirk, I'd be interested to hear how you arrived at your statistics, as the impression I get from the RfC is nearly 2:1 support for Sidaway. In any case, shouldn't you be posting it there?Timothy Usher 05:45, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

"if"="hypothetical question" RadioKirk 06:04, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Note: "235" chars used merely to say if. El_C 06:11, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, there was ="hypothetical question," but I misread it as part of the sig chars in the diff — see how confusing it becomes? El_C 06:21, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Only if you only read diffs ;) RadioKirk 06:27, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal for resolving the sig problem

Hello again Tony.

I understand your concern that large sigs can get annoying in the edit box. However, simply changing the sigs causes problems, I would like to propose an alternate solution. I have written a script for monobook.js that contracts the signatures of people who have enabled their signatures to be contracted to a barebones version when viewing them in the edit box and saves them normally when done. Nathan said that he was willing to alter his sig so that it could be contracted with this script. I hope this will satisfy you. --Where 08:47, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you're going about this in completely the wrong way. We should all simply trim our signatures to a reasonable length, and feel free to refactor discussions that contain an unnecessarily large amount of rubbish. --Tony Sidaway 08:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps. However, given Nathan's large amount of support on the RFC, it is clear that there is a lack of consensus to make everyone trim their signatures. It is also clear at this point that people will not trim their signatures volentarily. In addition, this issue is taking up too much time from writing an encyclopedia (and I get the impression that the situation might even be escalated :( ). The script above will make it seem, however, that anyone who adds the requisite comments has the type of signature you desire in the edit box; thus, I was hoping it could solve this problem before it mushrooms into something larger. However, if you think a different approach should be taken, I'd happily consider helping; I just want this all to end, if you know what I mean. Where 16:32, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you should reconsider the belief that Nathan has a "large amount of support". There is certainly no requirement for "making everyone trim their signatures"; that's simply a straw man.

Your script is not a solution to anything; the muddle will still be present in the edit box, which is where tha massive volume of some signatures causes a problem.

There is massive suport for the current de facto policy, by which anyone may refactor a discussion page to reduce clutter. If Nathan wants to drop his misconceived, failed RfC and stop his campaign, then he will find that he has more time to edit articles. --Tony Sidaway 18:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you are misunderstanding me as to what the script does. Please see this image of a screenshot of a test page and this image of a screenshot of editing that same test page.

I'm sorry if I misunderstood your argument; it was not my intent to make a straw man argument. While there is massive support for what you are doing, there is far from a consensus in favor for what you are doing. Where 19:45, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

That's pretty, but it does nothing to remove the clutter from the page. There is a massive consensus that Wikipedia is a wiki and that clutter can be removed. The recent doomed attempt to change policy to disallow this has failed abysmally. --Tony Sidaway 01:12, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scent of a personal attack against you

See Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Trigger Happy for what has the scent of a personal attack directed against you by User:THE KING. Regards, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:18, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh it's not a big deal. I think I had some hassle from THE_KING (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log), a known problem editor, earlier this week and he's sore about the fact that I didn't waste a lot of time on him.. --Tony Sidaway 02:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Arbitration

You have been listed as an involved party at a request for arbitration. Please go to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#User:Tony_Sidaway to make a statement. Thanks, Chcknwnm (Chuck) 05:06, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Responded. --Tony Sidaway 12:19, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Admins

Hi Tony. I was just sounding of against admins as a bunch, and certainly not you. Someone made a connection with you, and said that I should go to arbcom about you, and I made a joke about you being on arbcom, which most would get. There is always one or two that don't even know what a joke is... Personally, I cannot see why you keep getting mentioned all the time, as you are just, well, normal, and like a bit of banter. On serious topics, you always give a very good and concise answer. I also think you do a good job as the clerk. Bottom line is that some folks (often males aged around 15-17) take themselves way too seriously. Wallie 12:06, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

No worries. I think it's important that people avoid saying stuff like "clerks hand down decisions". We don't, we just do the paperwork. A newcomer reading your comments might get a completely false impression about me. --Tony Sidaway 12:18, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My sig code

Hi Tony,

I noticed you were refactoring sig files on Talk:Ejaculation which made me think perhaps mine could do with a change (I hadn't changed it in since my early "immature" wiki days. Thus I I have done so with an emphasis on brevity. Esperanza request a green "e" and that's really the only thing that adds length - otherwise its essentially my name and a link to my user & talk pages. It's code previously read:

- '''''[[User:Stollery|Gl]][[User:Stollery/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]][[User:Stollery|<font color="red">n</font>]]''''' ''<small>^{[[User_talk:Stollery|T]]}_{[[Special:Contributions/Stollery|C]]} [[User:Stollery|(Stollery)]]</small>''

Now reads as follows:

- [[User:Stollery|Glen]] [[User_talk:Stollery|Stoll<font color="green">e</font>ry]]

What are your thoughts (honesty is appreciated over tactfulness in this regard). Thanks in advance, - Glen Stollery 10:32, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

It's much better, but what's with the green e? Some kind of "secret handshake"? --Tony Sidaway 10:36, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Does feel a bit like the Freemasons! See Wikipedia:Esperanza/So_you've_joined_Esperanza... - originally mine linked thru to User:Stollery/e but decided to drop the link (and in saying that even the e is close to the chopping block as well). Appreciate the feedback. :) - Glen Stollery 14:57, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

The way I see it, if someone is interested in your Esperanza membership they'll find out about it on the Esperanza page or on your user page. The recommendation to use a signifying mark in the signature seems to me like an attempt to advertise Esperanza as an end in itself, and I don't think that is right. --Tony Sidaway 15:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Carthage

This is nothing much?

Once I have finished with work i'll be converting this page completly and then shielding it from the anti-carthaginian baised that has devolped here. First I have already gotten a pro response from the AD's about my idea. In other words iam going to settle this by converting this article into a short tid bits of Carthaginian info much like the quick run through article about Rome. In other words kids Myth's and legends such as sacrafice will have seperate articles all to themselves ^^. I already set up a triad of my student body of at least 17 members with reg accounts to support this move when such oppostion from biased members such as veny peep there little heads out this article will be ready for it. I already have most of the page written all I have to do is complete it and make a few corrections then ill replace the article. This will end the senseless yammering here and put an end to most of the arguments. but then I could see how members who have an axe to grind could contend other wise.Kara Umi 14:52, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I would urge you to read the talk page archives as well. - Vedexent (talk • contribs) 15:18, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

This is misguided, perhaps (use of meat puppets) but certainly not grounds for protecting an article that, when all is said and done, isn't the subject of major edit warring or vandalism. --Tony Sidaway 15:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. You've seen (I presume, if you read the archive) the last edit war this individual perpetrated, and his current rhetoric. If that isn't enough, I'll wait a couple of days until after the edit war is in full swing and reiterate the request then. - Vedexent (talk • contribs) 15:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the best thing to do here is watch for policy violations (incivility, personal attacks, edit warring and so on) and report them on WP:ANI. Action will be taken if he disrupts Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 16:10, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Esperanza Signature

I have recently joined Esperanza, and they tell me I have to put a green e somewhere in my signature. I also understand that you want the Users to stick with their original signature. So what do you suggest I do? Is it OK if I have a green e in Wallie? Thank you. Wallie 15:40, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

There is certainly no requirement to do so, and I have never even considered doing so. The key to Esperanza is to carefully choose which of their projects you have an interest in, and ignore the rest, just like any Wikipedia project you may join. NoSeptember 16:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that you discuss it with other Esperanzians and reach a decision. There is no intrinsic reason why you shouldn't have a green "e", and I'm not the "master of the signature" on Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 16:09, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

O good. Thanks, both. Wallie 17:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC)