User talk:Tony Sidaway/Archive 2006 07 01

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< User talk:Tony Sidaway

You have new messages (last change).

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

[edit] User Page Changes

Per the numerous comments regarding potential proselytization on my user page, I have decided to remove entirely the section regarding the steps in my conversion to Islam. I welcome additional comments on what you believe may be construed as proselytization. Thanks in advance. joturn e r 23:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Ready for archive. --Tony Sidaway 03:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SOrry I just noticed something

You know what user:Grandmaster was delete my work saying citations were needed but all the sections claiming Azaris are Turks needed citations for a very long period of time now and he never bothered to give verfications is this not double standards? Take a look at the article. This is outrageous I just realized it. 72.57.230.179

Additionally Baku never tried to help me or tlk to me as he claims. This is totally false 72.57.230.179

Once again for the music here is all the proof collected [[1]] in case you find it hard to follow from the talk page. 72.57.230.179

Thanks for putting all these messages here. I'm not sure I can help if your point is simply that he is wrong and you are right. I am not an adjudicator, and it would be wrong for me to use my administrator powers to side with anyone on a question of fact. In wikipedia we work by discussion and consensus, within some requirements such as verifiability, neutral point of view and so on. If you can work within that framework to convince other editors that your content is valuable and well referenced, then you shouldn't have any problems contributing to articles. --Tony Sidaway 00:55, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Ready for archive. --Tony Sidaway 03:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

For your swift and decisive action on this matter. I have to ask though, what sort of procedure does the mailing list initiate? He posted a much longer rant on this and it is one that I can readily challenge, but its deceptions have garnered a perception of impropriety on the part of at least one person who replied to him. I'm not signed up to the mailing list, and I don't wish to receive mail. I simply don't want his lies unchallenged and he get unblocked simply because of sympathy by any potentially mislead administrator. What can be done? --TJive 16:58, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

He won't be unblocked. --Tony Sidaway 17:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I hope that you're right. He's been a pain for far too long. --TJive 17:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

To clarify, any decision to unblock at this stage would almost certainly involve discussion by administrators on the wiki. The reason the complainants are asked to take it to wikien-l is that, being blocked, they don't have access to the wiki. I'm adamant that we should never permit a blocked editor to call the shots. --Tony Sidaway 18:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

FYI, he has put up the unblock template again, saying that everything had been resolved. 144.131.110.42 (talk • contribs) appears to be another sock, editing the same political and gamer articles.Blnguyen | rant-line 04:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Irishpunktom

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Irishpunktom. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Irishpunktom/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Irishpunktom/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Johnleemk | Talk 10:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

That's allright with me. Actually, I just added myself and made a comment on it. -- Karl Meier 18:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another personal attack by Terryeo

Please take a look at this: Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources#Is_an_opinion_on_a_personal_website_a_.22published.22_opinion.3F --Fahrenheit451 20:27, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I've responded, but I'm sorry not in the way you expected. See this and this. --Tony Sidaway 21:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

You have never warned me before and Terryeo has been banned from editing Scientology articles.--Fahrenheit451 21:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe this IS a personal attack: "User:Fahrenheit451 uses personal opinion, "published" on personal websites freely."--Fahrenheit451 22:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not a personal attack. He's belittling your source by using the term "published" in inverted commas. That isn't a nice way of putting it, but the discussion is after all on Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources so the question of reliability is relevant. --Tony Sidaway 22:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

He is making false statement about my editing. You are changing the subject to reliability when we are talking about personal attacks. I will not ask you for assistance again as you have failed to recognize a personal attack when one has been made. --Fahrenheit451 22:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Complaint made against you

I have made a complaint against you at WP:ANI if you wish to comment on it. --Fahrenheit451 22:50, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

STOP! Sidaway HAMMERTIME! --mboverload @ 00:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Userbox

Shouldn't Userbox just redirect to Wikipedia:Userboxes. I agree it still should remain Protected but I did not go to the article to write it. I entered Userbox in the search and pressed go and expected to go to Wikipedia:Userboxes. I fixed the problem by adding a WP to make it WP:Userbox but why make the extra step. Or could you add a soft redirect on top of the page... --Yskyflyer 23:50, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Also Why did Freakofnurture Protect the talk page? I can't request the edit on the talk page because it is protected. Since when is it acceptable to protect the talk page?--Yskyflyer 23:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm probably the last person you could expect to agree to that. It's been discussed to death and the answer is a resounding "no". --Tony Sidaway 00:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding the Conservative Notice Board DRV

Please don't close that discussion again; WP:SNOW is for uncontroversial cases, and part of the actions under review are your own. - A Man In Black 01:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

No, I didn't delete that noticeboard. The deletion of a page avowedly created for the purpose of pushing a point of view, and actioned by spamming of people with known political points of view is not (believe it or not) controversial. That goes to the heart of our policy. --Tony Sidaway 02:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

You deleted the followup Politics noticeboard.

I strongly feel that closing that DRV early (especially citing WP:SNOW!) is needlessly inflammatory, especially given that it's a messy situation. - A Man In Black 02:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I deleted a recreation, yes, of course! It isn't a messy situation. This is absolutely cut-and-dried, and by pretending that it can ever be restored we're hurting Wikipedia's credibility. --Tony Sidaway 02:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Technically, you deleted a recreation of a speedy. That's not a G4. Moreover, what's more important, you deleted it because you didn't think it was appropriate for Wikipedia and to hell with the rules. I approve of this, but it does result in headaches and drama

I'd like to see it stay dead, but I'd also like to see the drama die with it. I think a full term of DRV, with a huge chunk of the Wikipedia community (including many respected contributors) all show up and say, "Yes, kill this and salt the earth," that leads to less headaches in the long run than yet another controversial early close that can come off as "We're doing this because I say so" instead of "We're doing this because the Wikipedia community won't put up with this crap."

I'm not a huge fan of process, but this process allows a valve for the drama while keeping the messageboard dead while it vents. - A Man In Black 02:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

~~I'm rather offended that you're revert warring over this instead of showing the courtesy of continuing this conversation. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)~~

Please forgive me. I mistook an old tab for a new one. - A Man In Black 02:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Tony, do you think a generic "Politics notice board" is just as bad an idea as a "Conservative notice board", or what? I'm puzzled, because I thought that was the obviously correct solution. (Shows what any of us get for assuming what's obvious to them is obvious to others...) -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The board I deleted was exactly the same page under a different name. As for a politics noticeboard, do we want a gathering point for the very people who are causing our worst bias problems? No thank you. If Neutral point of view is to mean anything, we must wipe crap like this out as soon as it appears, and bury the remains in quicklime. --Tony Sidaway 04:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

If NPOV is to mean anything, why not demonstrate what it means by fixing the notice board instead of killing it? How does that policy call for the application of salt? I really don't see that. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing to fix. The thing was created as a deliberate attempt to inject bias into our political articles. It was not created out of any need for a political board, and attempts to rescuscitate it are misguided at best, deeply suspect at worst. --Tony Sidaway 04:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Since the politics board is currently deleted. Ordinary editors have no ability to verify your claim that the board is "exactly the same" as the conservative notice board. In fact, I noticed significant changes before it was deleted. --Facto 04:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, you can always ask an admin that you trust to verify that for you. I looked at it, and it looked substantively the same to me. Nandesuka 04:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for proving that they were not exactly the same. Also, I might add the project was a work in progress by an admin. --Facto 04:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

No, precisely the same "articles with disputes" was listed. The same two deletion debates. The same deletion review. The same "Recent articles" list (containing, puzzlingly, our rather old article about Ann Coulter). The userbox had been removed. The membership and "See also" had been removed. That's about it, I think. --Tony Sidaway 04:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Articles can always be added or deleted from the list. As I said, the project was a work in progress. Perhaps you should ask CBDunkerson why he blanked the membership list but not the other lists. Thanks. --Facto 04:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, since you're going to be difficult about this, I will elaborate: the page looked exactly the same to me, except the word "conservative" had been search-and-replaced with the word "politics." Which I will point out is exactly what Tony said. Nandesuka 04:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia_talk:Politics_notice_board for my response. --Facto 04:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Y_not

Hi,

You blocked Y_not (talk • contribs) before. Now he is again doing the same kind of blind reverts with possible automated script. I have also reported the matter on ANI. Thanks, -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 10:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Not a job for me, I'm afraid. I've tried to enlist the help of some people who can use bots for this kind of job. --Tony Sidaway 18:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Sprotected

Any thoughts on the recent debate and changes to Template:Sprotected? Haukur 15:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I like the idea, but it needs some more work because the padlock is not visible in the skin I use (Cologneblue). --Tony Sidaway 18:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Signatures

Hi there Tony, I just noticed that you have been removing my signature and replacing it with the default in our current discussion on ANI. This is the same thing that you did to Alienus yesterday. Could you please let me know why you are doing this? Does something about my signature bother you? It is fairly simple and doesn't take up much room. If it's all the same to you, I would prefer that you kindly stop. Thank you. Romarin 21:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Your signature contains a lot of clutter. I like to tidy up pages and leave them easier for all of us to edit. Don't worry, it doesn't affect your ability to sign edits as you wish. The signature remains in the history of the page with your edit. --Tony Sidaway 21:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Rom's signature isn't particularly cluttered. It's small: smaller even than "Tony Sidaway". It has no images, much less large ones. The text is uniformly blue but for one green character, so it's not hard on the eyes. It can be clicked on to go to the user page and even has a small "(talk)" link that goes directly to the talk page. In short, it's a perfectly good signature, and I don't see any good reason for changing it. Then again, you also changed my signature in a way that made it longer, so perhaps I'm not understanding your motivations.

My humble suggestion is that, except perhaps in extreme cases, it is best to leave people's signatures alone. Otherwise, you might annoy or offend them, and I'm sure you wouldn't want to do that, right? Al 22:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Al - in the best spirit possible, I suggest that this isn't a battle you want to choose right now. The point in editing signatures is not how the look on the display, but how they look in the edit window, so colors really do create clutter. Seriously, though, don't choose this issue to take a stand on right now. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Well I thank Al for standing up for me on this one. It is a very nice thing for a buddy to do. I understand the point, though it almost seems like more trouble to go through to change a sig than the sig causes in the first place. But I guess it's just one of those things that I'm going to leave alone because it's not important enough to argue about. All in all, I don't suppose it will kill me to have my sig taken away on ANI. However, I hope that you will leave it alone in other instances. Thank you. Romarin 22:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I certainly wasn't questioning Al's good intentions, nor yours, nor Tony's. We're all buddies here. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely, we're all buddies. Please don't take editing of the signature as a personal attacks. It's just a way to make the editing environment nicer. --Tony Sidaway 23:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest then, as buddies, that if asked to stop refactoring someone's signature it is politeness to do so. Barring the obvious exception of one's own talk page. - Aaron Brenneman 00:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not touching anybody's signature really. I'm only temporarily changing the way it looks on the page. If you go back into the edit history you'll see that your signature remains, pristine, untouched, in the diff that you committed to Wikipedia by typing it into the box that says "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it" . So that's all right and we can still remain buddies, because buddies don't argue over trivia. --Tony Sidaway 00:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that some people consider their signatures part of their talk page comment, and one is not really supposed to change others' comments (or how their comment appears) without permission, and especially not actively against the wishes of the person to which the comment is attributed. Even if one doesn't agree whether it is part of their comment or not, complying with a request to not change their signature seems reasonable to me. Please don't change signatures if others don't want you to. Thanks; happy editing, --AySz88 (talk} 00:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Imagine for a moment I got a new hat in garish colours. It distracted you when we talked a bit, what with the parrot and all. So you ask me to take it off. I explain that it's my new hat and I really like it and I would, indeed, like to keep it on. Seeing as how we are sitting in an aviary, and there are swarms of parrots around and all, it is a trivial thing. So you, buddy, say, "Ok, I'll take it off for you," and do so.

Please understand that although you make think this is acceptable, other people do not feel the same way. I understand that in the past you've commented that you're "perfectly happy," suggesting that you don't care about the effect your actions have. I'd ask that you reconsider this.

Aaron Brenneman 00:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I remain perfectly happy. I'm convinced that those who express concern simply don't understand the nature of the wiki editing environment and the importance of keeping it uncluttered. Of course nobody requires permission to remove unnecessary clutter from a discussion page--indeed we should consider it our duty to help one another out in this by avoiding the production of unnecessary clutter un the first place, and doing our best to reduce such clutter when and where we encounter it. Wikis are good for this kind of thing. --Tony Sidaway 00:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

So, to be perfectly clear, you will continue to refactor outside your own talk page the signatures of those editors who have asked you not to, despite understanding that they find this incivil? What will you do with any civility warnings or templates placed by these editors? - Aaron Brenneman 00:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

To be perfectly clear, I think those editors really need to stop fussing over trivia.
Tony Sidaway 00:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Even if you're right about that Tony, it's a question whether, given that they're fussing over trivia, being dismissive of their concerns is actually helpful. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Could you please explain why you feel that the removal of such "clutter" is more helpful than following the wishes of those contributors who would rather you not edit their signatures? (It's true that you don't have to follow the wishes of the contributors, but IMO ignoring them is not a nice thing to do.) --AySz88 (talk) 00:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Even from a purely pragmatic point of view, we're using more characters discussing it than are saved by doing it, so it is not an effective strategy even if you don't care how rude people perceive it to be. - Aaron Brenneman 00:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

You could always stop discussing it. --Tony Sidaway 01:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

That seems to leave out the possibility of compromise. - Aaron Brenneman 01:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

It would be a way in which you could achieve your avowed aim of economizing on discussion. --Tony Sidaway 01:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I thought that it was your aim to remove clutter from wikipedia? Perhaps you're not counting the macro-level clutter generated by this, but it's the same thing, isn't it? How much editor time / disc space / black photon juice was used up in the "clutter" of TS:RFC3c? - Aaron Brenneman 01:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

What I'm talking about when I say "clutter" is formatting like xxx]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=xxx'''{L}''' ]

I certainly don't regard discussion as clutter. --Tony Sidaway 01:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Could you comment on editing AfD templates

I know you were involved in the discussion at Template talk:afd about the section for nominator instructions. Could comment on my talk page or to 9cds (talk • contribs) about his putting back the nominator only section of the afd template on Greg Mathew. Thanks, Ansell 00:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not important on a single AfD nomination. The thing to concentrate on, I think, is the removal of this unnecessary section from the source of the template itself. --Tony Sidaway 00:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is this not unblock request abuse?

Yet another template from PatCheng in the same day. Is this not abuse, and is there a remedy? --TJive 02:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's easy. I just protected the talk page. --Tony Sidaway 02:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unblock.

Lethe, why did you unblock without consulting the blocking administrator? --Tony Sidaway 19:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I thought the arguments at ANI were very convincing that the block was inappropriate, with no serious objections to unblocking. I made an estimation of consensus. I thought, best to just do it. But now that you've called me on it, I feel a bit sheepish; perhaps I should have posted an intent to unblock and waited for objections. Now I have committed a violation of WP:BLOCK, something I have recently criticized others for. -User:Lethe 19:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

You went over the heads of four administrators, all of whom supported the block. How did you persuade yourself that the consensus was to unblock? --Tony Sidaway 19:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I certainly did not realize that I was going over the heads of four admins. Just one, I thought. Anyway, as for how I persuaded myself, it was quite easy for me. I looked at the cited diffs like this one, which you claimed as evidence of incivility. I saw no sign of incivility whatsoever. This was in accord with the conversation on AN/I. The unblock followed. -lethe ^{talk +} 20:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I think because it was somewhat of a WP:DICK violation. HighwayCello 20:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, you could have miscounted the number of admins who supported the block, we could also have a difference of opinion on civility. But what about the repetition of sterile edit warring with his old sparring partner? Does your difference of opinion on civility merit ignoring this edit warring completely? --Tony Sidaway 20:13, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Nothing in this so-called "edit war" violated anything in WP:BLOCK, as far as I could tell. It was therefore an out-of-policy blocking. But I should have asked you exactly what policy (disruption perhaps?) the block was based on before I reverted you. -Lethe 20:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

That's simply incorrect. Both editors were engaged in a puerile and disruptive test of endurance, shouting at one another in edit summaries. Four administrators agreed that the block was justified. This block was well within policy and amply supported. --Tony Sidaway 21:58, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I did two unblocks today, see the discussion here. Can you proffer your opinion about that unblocking as well please? -Lethe 20:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the blocking but I'm happy to see that on that occasion you appear to have secured support for the unblock. --Tony Sidaway 21:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

It occurred to me that I owe you an apology, which I have so far not given you. What I did was hypocritical on my part, and disrespectful to you. I don't usually agree with you, but that is no reason for me not to respect you, and I am positive that you do have the best interests of the project in heart, as well as quite a bit more experience as an administrator than me. So I apologize. I will try to learn a lesson from this. -Lethe 11:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

No worries. --Tony Sidaway 12:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] first time workshop

Tony -

This is my first arbcom case. I started on the workshop page. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pudgenet/Workshop. Can you let me know if I'm doing it right? jbolden1517 02:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Those are a good start. I'd suggest that you add at least two things to each proposal:

a reference to an item on the evidence page (preferably a wikilink) for each proposed finding of fact.
Under "comments by parties" some kind of comment indicating at the very least that you are the author of the proposal, and possibly some argumentation to support the proposal.

Thanks for getting the ball rolling. Excellent job! --Tony Sidaway 03:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I was about to add the links to the evidence section when I noticed how out of control the workshop has become as a result of the content dispute. This article was disciplinary, Pudgenet is unable to control his emotions on discussions related to Perl. In earlier month this took the form of very hostile personal attacks. Lately it has become more serious and converted into sustained personal attacks as part of a campaign of harassment against Barry and attempted intimidation against other editors who have attempted to intervene to prevent further harassment. I'm not sure how to handle this since the weak content claims are muddying the waters on the real complaint. Can you delete? We are picking up extra testimony and these long debates back and forth about content. I never would have signed on to an RFA about content, when I closed my mediation I never even had a finding of fact on the content issues. jbolden1517 01:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I may not be around much during the next week. Perhaps another clerk may be able to handle the problem? Or else go to one of the arbitrators and ask if they can help to deal with the clutter. --Tony Sidaway 01:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moved from above

When refactoring to the "plain" versions on ANx it might be a good idea to still pipe in any characters from their display name. Most people will know them as their commonly displayed name, so it introduces an extra layer of confusion to change that.Aaron Brenneman 04:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

And I know that you refused before to supply an edit summary when you <snip> a signature, but could I ask again that you do so? Because some of these have been harmful, they deserve a note. Just put + Sig or something. - Aaron Brenneman 06:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I have moved this from above rather than asking again. - Aaron Brenneman (undated)

When I edit a discussion page, it can be safely assumed that I will make a reasonable effort to remove the worst of the clutter, so an extra note in the summary would be superfluous. On piping to what you term a "display name", I regard that as a particularly harmful practise and I don't propose to support it. I may sometimes append the preferred display name after the user page link, but remember that I'm not providing this as a service to you, but to others who will have to edit the discussion afterwards. The signature should be used to provide the username and timestamp; further text is (again) superfluous. --Tony Sidaway 00:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd like you to tag your signature refactors so that others can check your editing, as it appears a bit error prone. I've mentioned before that the refactor page directs you to supply a meaningful edit summary. I've mentioned that your refactors have at times been harmful (breaking formatting, deleting other user's comments, etc.) Can I say how little it would cost you to put "+sig", and add in a "Please Tony?"
The display name is what the vast majority of wikipedians will know a contributor by. Unless a random user has had a reason to check, she will connect my comments to "brenneman." If in changing the format to facilitate your ease of editing you make it display "Aaron Brenneman" then you create a discontinuity. This makes it harder for people who don't edit and/or read a discussion just like you do. Aaron Brenneman 01:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

If you think my refactoring is error prone, please notify me and I'll do what I can to ensure that the errors don't happen again. If you see me editing a discussion page, as I've already said, you can assume that I'll do my best as a good Wikipedian to remove any clutter. As always any help you can give in correcting any errors in my editing or that of others is welcome.

On use of so-called "display names", I've already given my response. --Tony Sidaway 01:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

It occurs to me that you could solve your problems with your "display name" by signing yourself brenneman and redirecting the user page of your doppelganger account appropriately. --Tony Sidaway 01:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adding "liberation" to Words to avoid

I am thinking about your suggestions to add the word "liberation" to Words to avoid. I have, however, a problem with it. I do not think that "liberate" should be generally avoided in WP articles. I insist on using it in the proper context according to its definition in the dictionary. If a country was set free from a foreign control or from an oppressive regime then it was liberated (like France and other Westeuropean countries at the end of WWII). Then I have no doubds that prisoners of Concentration Camps were liberated by Soviet (American, British etc.) troops.

But I am against using it in the cases when one oppressive regime was replaced by another not much less oppressive or one foreign control was replaced by another one.

More obvious example: if somebody says that the tar is white, should we add the word "white" to Words to avoid?

In any case, I would be very thankfull for your suggestions, how this dispute can be resolved. An assistence from an experienced wikipedians would be very helpfull.--AndriyK 09:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I suppose, perhaps, that the solution is to give the context in which the word should be avoided--for instance, where the army of a non-democratic government or occupying power invades a country. However this may be a matter of one's point of view. Neutral point of view and use of appropriate language are tricky. --Tony Sidaway 09:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I filled the proposal for Words to avoid. Please find it here. I would be thankfull for your commennts, suggestions and corrections.--AndriyK 15:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Good work. Looks like you've attracted some constructive comments there and it shouldn't be too hard to parlay it to a useful entry on that style guide. Thanks for making the effort. --Tony Sidaway 00:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Being a war refugee myself, I can't see why we should tolerate people making political statements that are divisive and inflammatory, being them pro or against or whatever. This is an encyclopedia not a battleground. They'd attack me for "censoring" or "violating freedom of speech", but I know it's the right thing to do. Once all divisive userboxes are gone, people may look at each other as what we truly are, human beings. Best wishes, TheCooler

How are undifferentiated editors suddenly going to be viewed as human beings? (I am not saying that the "divisive and inflammatory" clause is not a good thing. I just got lost trying to get to your conclusion). Ansell 00:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

You think there's no differentiation except for that provided by whatever "side" you take in various polarizing disputes? Really? -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] George W. Bush semi-protection

Hi, Tony. About five hours ago I removed semi-protection from the George W. Bush article. I'm now evaluating the results and wondering if semi-protection should be reinstated. I see that you've done a lot of work like this and I was wondering if you'd be willing to help me make the call. Here's a list of anonymous edits that have occurred after I lifted the semi-protection:

[2] Mostly good, cut out bloat
[3] Relatively harmless vandalism
[4] Damaging vandalism
[5] Vandalism or a very misguided edit
[6] Vandalism
[7] Apparently a good faith but misguided edit
[8] Another misguided but probably well-intentioned edit
[9] A good edit. What does "mega-southern" even mean?

By my count those are two good edits and six bad ones. Does this suggest that the article should remain open for a while longer or should we semi-protect it again now? I'd appreciate your opinion. Haukur 16:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

That's a surprisingly small number of bad edits. I'm sorry I wasn't available earlier to give a more timely reply. I stopped regular unprotection a few months ago because I had other things to spend my time on, but I think this result is very positive and suggests that we should perhaps try unprotecting the article for a day at a time every week or so. --Tony Sidaway 18:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Your reply is timely enough. In any case I agree with you, these seem like fairly good results so let's see if we can keep the article unprotected a while longer. Haukur 18:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recent Ombudsman case

Could you please see discussion at [10] and bring to attention of ArbCom? Heathhunnicutt 00:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Done. --Tony Sidaway 10:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Guidelines

Hi. What's your take on people refusing to comply with guidelines on the grounds that they are not policies? Exploding Boy 01:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Guidelines aren't policies because they need to be interpreted with intelligence, so it's sometimes quite sensible to ignore a guideline. But, just as in civil tort actions, if you cause damage by deliberately ignoring a guideline you are held accountable.

For instance, someone wanting to make a case against some procedure which he believes to be damaging may contemplate demonstrating that following the procedure can lead to absurd and damaging results. To do so would be a breach of our guideline Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Suppose he decides to go ahead anyway. If real harm is done then he can't just shrug and say "it's only a guideline." --Tony Sidaway 02:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

All of which I agree with. On the other hand, it leaves Wikipedia somewhat powerless to enforce guidelines in any standard way. I'm specifically talking about the guidelines on signatures, by the way, which some users refuse to comply with for various reasons, the first one cited usually being "it's not a policy." Exploding Boy 02:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not as simple as that at all. Users who don't have a good reason for refusing to follow the signature guideline may be acting disruptively. The classic case was Nathanrdotcom's enormous 730-character signature with three images (and cherries on top!) If they persist, the disruption can be stopped using the usual techniques. The guidelines do have teeth, but they have to be interpreted with great care. --Tony Sidaway 02:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not simple. It's all frustratingly vague, and I'm getting tired of the emotional responses of those who are overly attached to their guidline-violating signatures. Exploding Boy 03:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Tony, I have two good comments and one bad one. I promised I would not get involved or comment here but really..it has to be said sometime.

As usual for me, the bad first:

Yes my signature was excessive but as you know, if it was explained to me, I would have changed it. It wasn't properly explained to me until Chuck let me know about images after the fact. It's all fine and good to say 'it's not acceptable' but why isn't it acceptable - that's what I wanted to know). All this nastiness could've been avoided with a polite request and explanation. I've said this before and I will say it again - blocks shouldn't be used as punishment because you don't like something. We will never agree on this :\ We will probably continue to have disagreements and arguments (as much as I'd really rather not) because of this point - and it's really regrettable that the situation escalated the way it did. Despite appearances to the contrary, I don't like to fight with you. I don't like negativity (even though some may call me attention seeking/conflict seeking, it's really not true at all, I just look that way). Although it may look that way, I'm not at all having a dig at you - it's just constructive criticism - things could've been a lot more pleasant, but they weren't. Things were said by a lot of people - me included - that were just excessive and unnecessary. Nobody is without fault. This is really an unconstructive thing to do, to keep rehashing the past about my signature. Even with AGF, it looks like you're constantly having a go at me because of the past. Now Tony, I can't turn back time and change the past. Nobody can. I would really, really appreciate it if you'd please stop bringing up the signature issue and (though I perceive it this way) throwing it in my face whenever it suits you. I might not be assuming good faith but that's really what it looks like to me. The really constructive thing to do is for both of us to be quiet about it, put it behind us and move on. Please ask yourself what can be gained by constantly rehashing the issue over and over. I would appreciate it if you'd consider what I've said, Tony. Happy editing.

Good thing: Your signature refactor opt-out list thing is amazing. I wouldn't have expected that coming from you (please read that as a compliment).

Also, I direct your attention to Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Tony_Sidaway_3#Close_this_RfC. —nathanrdotcom 08:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand the phrase "stop bringing up the signature issue and (though I perceive it this way) throwing it in my face whenever it suits you." It sounds to me as if you're saying I've been interacting with you and others and, in doing so, have gratuitously referred to your signature. If I have done this, my apologies, but honestly I cannot even recall us having anything to do with one another a couple of weeks.

You falsely accuse me of using blocks as "punishment". This goes to the heart of the problem. The one occasion when I've blocked you, it was for persistently flaunting a stupidly large signature(730 characters). This was overloading every page you edited with the equivalent of a quite large paragraph, for every single signed edit you made. You were asked politely to deal with it and your response was ridiculous--you asked for one administrator to be blocked and the other warned, just for asking you nicely to do something about your horrible signature. Punishment didn't enter into it. In view of your behavior, blocking was the only way to stop you making an utter mess of Wikipedia.

You have clearly learned nothing from this incident. --Tony Sidaway 12:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FYI

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nagle&oldid=60191873#Do_you_know_that_is_not_true_or_someone_mislead_you_.3F

Zeq 16:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The context to the above is that Zeq (talk • contribs) is displeased with me for ignoring his comments related to Israeli Apartheid, which he is banned from editing but which he continues to try to influence. He has initiated a Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#user:Nagle arbitration case. I am not requesting any action at this time. --John Nagle 20:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:User LDS

Personally, I think all the userboxen ought to be deleted; however, this box was deleted by User:Doc glasgow a couple weeks before he/she left, and it hasn't been restored. There are quite a few users who use this box, and I think to continue to allow all the other boxes available at Wikipedia:Userboxes/Religion and delete this one without an identifiable difference between them as far as expressing a belief, etc is unreasonable. Could you restore? thx Trödel 13:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

PS - If you prefer - could you restore it to User:Trödel/LDS - I will then subst it in for all the users who have it transcluded - and then speedy delete the page - not sure what the current policy is on the userboxen - seems even more of a mess than in feb/mar when I was keeping up with it. Trödel 13:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Userboxes of this kind have no place on Wikipedia. Please do not ask me to restore unsuitable content. --Tony Sidaway 19:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

As I said in my request - I think they should all go away - I am willing to take an m:eventualist attitude about the status (cross fingers - hopefully this is the beginning of deleting all templates of this type) so I respect your decision. However, not showing bias also means not allowing selectively choosen templates of this type to be deleted while retaining others; therefore if there is no progress towards, what I agree is the proper result, deleting them all - I may request undeletion again some time later. Trödel 03:44, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I may support eventualism, but I don't see how, by eventualism or any other -ism, I can advance the cause of destroying userboxes by 'restoring them. Let them die. --04:04, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Tony, what about WP:GUS? --71.36.251.182 01:17, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

The German solution, as Jimbo has made plain over some months, in no way legitimizes biased userboxes. --Tony Sidaway 02:48, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] From Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_review

00:06, 24 June 2006 Tony Sidaway

Please note that I've edited your "opt out" page so please avoid refactoring my signature in the future. I'd like to point out that another editor who edited that page also had their signatures refactored by your edit. Sorry, two other editors. Anyway, I was sure you'd want this brought to your attention. - Aaron Brenneman 12:01, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I probably refactored it because it was making the page very cluttered--which you can readily see if you look at the diff you have just cited. --Tony Sidaway 12:55, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/o/n/User_talk%7ETony_Sidaway_Archive_2006_07_01_aa22.html"