User talk:Tony Sidaway/Archive 2006 07 27

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 OrphanBot policy 2 Question 3 Email Encoder 4 Persistent vandal 5 Small favor to ask 6 Re:Perreiro‎ 7 Wikipedia talk:Sign your posts on talk pages 8 Over-protective 9 regarding curse 10 Joseph Patrick Moore 11 Re: Edit warring on Jesus 12 ED and Mongo? 13 btw 14 Tower Colliery 15 Quick comment 16 Editing other users' comments in WP:AE 17 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Chiang Kai-shek 18 Alright pal, listen up! 19 Question re:Blu Aardvark (again) 20 List of Ontario provincial highways 21 threded talk 22 Your evidence 23 William H. Kennedy page 24 Removal of comments 25 Macedonism 26 IP war of Ecuadorian-Peruvian War 27 Zeq and the evidence page

[edit] OrphanBot policy

User:Micoolio101/Supporters in the death of OrphanBot was submitted to deletion review. FYI because you were involved in this deletion, 217.251.173.136 13:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. --Tony Sidaway 23:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question

May you comment on this, or forward it to someone who can? Regarding Continuing Edits Despite RFA. Sincerely, SSS108 ^talk-email 19:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

PJacobi has correctly answered the question. If you think that someone is causing ongoing damage you should propose a temporary injunction (on the workshop page) and if the arbitrators agree they will adopt it. Once it is passed, then the parties named in the injunction are subject to immediate sanction (blocking, usually) should they disobey it. In practice this kind of action is reserved for very serious and obvious damage. --Tony Sidaway 23:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Email Encoder

Hi. I noticed that you posted your email address in whole on your talk page, which generally is a bad idea because Wikipedia is a Google magnet, plus spammers run bots to harvest email addresses. I took the liberty of "encoding" it [1] with character references so that your address still looks the same but will be harder too pick up. Alternatively, I would also suggest putting something like email[at]something.org to avoid the bots and the spam. Hbdragon88 05:59, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Please stop mangling other people's email addresses. It is not good practice to obfuscate email addresses, which is why I always disply mine in full. So that people who need to use it can do so easily. --Tony Sidaway 13:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Geez...look, okay, I only did it to one address - yours - and it was done only via the underlying code. The actual address itself is still just as visible as it was before, so anybody who wanted to copy your email address oculd still do so as easily. Nobody likes to obfuscate email addresses, I agree, but nobodfy likes spam, either. Hbdragon88 19:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't receive spam. --Tony Sidaway 19:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Persistent vandal

I know this is not the place to report vandalism, but no admin seems to be paying attention to the Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism page. I just selected a random admin's talk page. This persistent vandal keeps reintroducing the same material onto Roy Masters. I have reverted his vandalism multiple times, but he keeps switching IPs. I'd like to get a semi-protect on the article. Thanks. --Super-Magician 19:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks like Redvers beat me to it. --Tony Sidaway 19:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Yup. Thanks though. Only thing is, I am almost certain that this vandal will come back and continue doing the same thing. If you check the history, you'll see he's been up and at it for 2 months! --Super-Magician 19:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

In cases like this it's normal to try unprotection at regular intervals until it's clear that the vandal has given up. --Tony Sidaway 19:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

All right, that makes sense. --Super-Magician 19:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Small favor to ask

Tony Sidaway, would you kindly refrain from refactoring my signatures in the manner you did here? That is not appreciated. I respect your talk page and don't leave such a signature here please respect me and do not repeat such behavior outside of pages specifically tagged as permitting such (as WP:ANI and WP:AN). Thanks. Netscott 19:11, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

At least one copy of your full signature is already present on that page. I regularly trim unnecessarily large signatures so as to keep discussions uncluttered and easy to edit. --Tony Sidaway 19:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes I am aware of that and I'm am politely requesting that in asmuch as I respect you and your talk page you respect me in a similar fashion. To me your refactoring of my signatures is very disrespectful. This is particularly evident to me when I peruse your talk page and see a number of examples of others' signatures you've not altered. My request is not too much to ask. Netscott 19:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not editing a private space that belongs to you. Wikipedia is public. If you want a private homepage that will not be edited by others, there are many free providers on the net. I respect your right to have a signature and append it to your edits. You don't have a right of prior veto over reasonable edits by other editors. --Tony Sidaway 19:41, 16 July 2006

When you make such statement you are talking in a way that is sooner in accord with "disrupting wikipedia to make a point". As well you're condescending me by telling me something that I already know. Your statement of your inclination to alter my signature goes against etiquette and is borderline uncivil. Such statements incline other editors (like myself) to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point by actually going around and altering your own signatures. Which is just ridiculous, we're here to work on a project together not be inclined to fight eachother over something ridiculous as signatures. My signature is subtle (I made it that way purposely with the whole refactoring sigs discussion in mind). My signature is not disruptive when used in talk page discussions.

Again, kindly respect me and refrain from altering my signaturesm as I now type out manually in respect of you my signature here. Netscott 19:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not disrupting Wikipedia, and I'm certainly not attempting to make any point. If you already know that you don't own discussion pages, that's good. If you think you can improve Wikipedia discussions by editing my signature, have at it with my blessing. If you aren't inclined to fight with me, I'm happy.

My current practice with signature clutter is to remove it where I encounter it, except when an editor has said he doesn't like that or has edited my opt out list I make an effort to leave at least one copy of the signature unaltered, with all links etc, on the discussion page. This fulfils the editor's wish to apply a pretty decoration to the discussion page, without cluttering the discussion with excessive redundancy. --Tony Sidaway 02:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

In my original message I said "manner". What that was particularly referring to was refactoring of a signature on a user's talk page. To a certain extent I do concede that on project/article talk pages I can understand your logic of refactoring signatures but not at all on user talk pages. If the user that I'm addressing has a problem with "clutter" as you call it they'll likely inform me or otherwise specify their dislike of such signatures on their user or talk page as you've done yourself. Hopefully with this explanation you will better understand why I have brought this to your attention. Thank you for taking the time to explain your logic. Netscott 02:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

That's a reasonable request. I'll see if I can remember not to refactor on user talk pages, unless there is an especially large amount of clutter. --Tony Sidaway 02:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Perreiro‎

Thanks for blocking him. I was pretty sure it was GT's sock but he did not reach test4, so he was not yet reported :) --Grafikm_fr 19:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I spoke too fast he's back [2] --Grafikm_fr 19:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Semiprotected. --Tony Sidaway 20:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia talk:Sign your posts on talk pages

Tony -
Please ease up on the repitition that you're contributing to this ongoing discussion. Clearly your feelings on this are extermely strong, but it might be nice if others could comment without being badgered. Of the last two thousand odd words on the page, over half have been yours. To put this into context, you seem terribly distressed by "clutter" on wikipedia. Multiple statements of pure opinon are also "clutter and redundancy." Extend to others the same level of courtesy that you expect with regard to concise editing, and stop repeating yourself at length. Let other people talk.
Aaron Brenneman 00:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if I've been repeating myself. I'll try not to. Having said that, I don't think I'm engaging in any significant redundancy on that page. --Tony Sidaway 00:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Over-protective

Thanks for un-protecting Democracy Now!. I need to find a better mechanism to keep up with those so I don't forget about them. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

No worries. --Tony Sidaway 02:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] regarding curse

(→Unprotecting - This article has been protected for ages and ages, and there has been no discussion for weeks and weeks.)

The discussion has not been abandoned. Simply no further replies. Ste4k 22:17, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

If an edit war resumes, I'll take further action. --Tony Sidaway 22:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Ste4k 01:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Joseph Patrick Moore

Just curious, how was the concensus to keep when over 75% of votes were to delete this article? I am placing this article under deletion review. OSU80 01:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

AfD isn't a vote. This chap's article only needs a bit of cleanup. --Tony Sidaway 01:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, so the concensus was delete. Isn't it blantantly obvious that this is soapboxing? Why would the company's executive producer be begging for the article to stay? It is pure promotion, you being such an avid contributor surely should be able to see this? OSU80 01:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

No the consensus was not to delete. The consensus was that this is vanity but that alone isn't a reason to delete an article. Please read WP:VANITY. --Tony Sidaway 02:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I've read it before. I'm refering to WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox. OSU80 02:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that you read that one, too. Carefully, this time. --Tony Sidaway 02:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Edit warring on Jesus

I haven't broken WP:3RR nor violated any policy. However, as I stated on Talk:Jesus, I do not with to engage in an edit-war. I simply wish that he and others would respect the long-standing layout for the article UNTIL something new can be agreed on. He and others wish to force their opinion and then discuss it, which is not operating under any fragment of good faith. By the way, you forgot to sign your comment. —Aiden 04:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I think we've found a compromise that should solve the dispute. —Aiden 05:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ED and Mongo?

How interested in getting knee deep in this crap are you? I feel an affinity for MONGO, thought we've butted heads before. I expect the reason he changed a section header on his talk page is because he'd prefer people not go to that site that we're talking about. Another editor, who I have also previously butted heads with, is multiply reverting back the name of the site onto his talk page. I'm happy to go seek other help, and I don't know how busy you are, but I feel bad for MONGO, and I certainly don't think the name of that cite should be on his talk page. Looking for either advice or assistance here - your call. Thanks. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

He changed the heading by calling the editor who showed it to him a troll. I reverted the personal attack. This previous "butting of heads" is when Hipocrite left me a bad faith "WP:NOT a politics chatboard" because I voted in a straw poll he didn't approve ofhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Karwynn&diff=59442571&oldid=59314750]. He is now ignoring my comments and continuing to leave warning messages,[3] rather than discuss the matter as I tried to do in his talk page. See? THe "Reverts" in question were his blanking of talk page content; even if he feels MONGO doesn't want it there, it's considered vandalism

Deleting the comments of other users from article Talk pages, or deleting entire sections thereof, is generally considered vandalism.

So what am I asking? nothing really. I'm not asking for intervention at this point, but I thought you might like the full context. Thanks, Psycho Master (Karwynn) 18:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I've taken the action I thought was necessary. --Tony Sidaway 18:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

MONGO's talkpage is an "article Talk page"? How... unique. Your one-hour block was very lenient, Tony. Bishonen | talk 18:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC).

A bat across the nose for being naughty. --Tony Sidaway 19:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Tony, I don't care to have any mention of that website on my talk page. Karwynn obviously knew I removed it and I definitely consider him restoring part of the comments I removed as harassment.--MONGO 19:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

What about putting the ED article up for deletion? A site perpetrating personal attacks against Wikipedia editors doesn't really seem like something Wikipedia should be linking to. Besides they likely don't pass Wikipedia:Notability (web). Netscott 12:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree...problem it, it has been through two or three attempts to delete it. I may redirect it later on, or make it so insignificant, it won't be a troll magnet as it is now. I'll wait until they remove their nonsense from the mainpage and we then lift the protection. Then the article will be fixed once and for all. They think they will win, but policy is on the side of wikipedia.--MONGO 12:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] btw

Thanks for pointing out the political compass... I am stealing your exact wording from your page. Hope you don't mind. If so, let me know and I will cite you as a reference. :) Ste4k 01:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

No worries. About the time FourthAve started accusing me of being in the pay of Karl Rove, I thought it might be a good idea to disclose my political bias, but I only just got around to it. --Tony Sidaway 12:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tower Colliery

Mr Steadman has taken it upon himself to mentor me and it seems to be working out smashingly. I make an edit and he helps me by reverting it or amending it, always with a nice little comment. However, we are slightly at odds over the Tower Colliery article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tower_Colliery. I'm not sure about Mr Steadman's point about the link. For all I know he has a valid point and I don't want to jeapordize our new relationship. I'm not asking for any intervention or telling tales, I just need somebody to tell me why the link might be 'unwiki'. Cheers.Neuropean 21:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The reason is simple this does not link to anything about Tower Colliery but to an advert for Free Net Names - which you added then re-added when it was removed - such spam has no place on Wikipedia- as I have already explained. Perhaps Tony could mentor you to stop your copyright violations, spam links, editing of other people's talk comments and talk pages and, of course, your celebration of warnings you have recieved. For Tony's info - I have already put this up for an RFI. Robertsteadman 21:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

No, seriously, Rob, when I click on the link, it takes me to the official website. I'm not joking.Neuropean 21:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Please don;t call me Rob. It opens to an advert for Free Net Names - it is spam. Please do not add spam to wikipedia. Robertsteadman 21:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Rob, I have pasted what I see on the article's talk page. I don't understand why you cannot see itNeuropean 21:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I suspect you have a version of the page in your cahe somehow - the website seems to have gone and that is why I get the advert instead. Clear your cache and see if you stil get the same. Robertsteadman 21:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi guys, I looked at it and I'm sorry to say that it does just go to an ad when I try it. This could be a technical problem of some kind, and I suggest that you contact the site owner to see if they have configured it wrong. There is clearly a link for site owners and admins to click and log in, so I think they probably just haven't quite got it working properly yet. --Tony Sidaway 22:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

There we go then, all sorted and no need for all this fuss and another paragraph added to one of my regualr RFIs. Thank you Tony.Neuropean 22:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The new link added is totally diffeent one. Thanks for getting rid of the spam. I'll await the apology..... Robertsteadman 16:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Please don't be rude. You obviously both saw different things and came to me to resolve the issue. Neither of you was particularly civil, but Neuropean accepted my adjudication with good grace. I suggest that you both work on trying to be nicer to one another. --Tony Sidaway 17:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Its hard to be nice to someone who is stalking you and has been a very unproductive editor out to make a point, push POVs, etc. but, hey..... Robertsteadman 18:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quick comment

I have replied to your warning on my page, please check it out because I'm still in the dark about my WP:NPA violation and would like to see my error. Thanks, Karwynn (talk) 18:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

On a semi-related note, thank you for unprotecting the ED article. Karwynn (talk) 18:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Editing other users' comments in WP:AE

Excuse me, Tony, I believe I've not edited any other user comments in the WP:AE, you can tell me where I've done that if I'm wrong. I believe you haven't realized it's SqueakBox who changes the title of the subsection (User:SqueakBox) to (User:SqueakBox and User:Zapatancas). It makes no sense to change the title of a section I've entered to complain about squeakBox adding the name of other user. Hagiographer 07:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Tony, I would like to know if you, the administrators, are going to do something about SqueakBox's insults and about his sock puppet User:Skanking or I'll have to bear forever his abuse. Thank you. Hagiographer 07:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Another question. How do you expect people to know SqueakBox is under personal attacks parole if it's not posted in his user page? Hagiographer 07:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

He seems to have settled down for now. I have to admit that I, and perhaps other editors, were somewhat blindsided by his sock accusations, and didn't really address behavior issues. If he makes further attacks do please report them to me, and avoid responding directly, and I promise to take appropriate action. --Tony Sidaway 12:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Tony. I promise that I will avoid any unnecessary problem with SqueakBox. Hagiographer 07:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

How is that? With edits like this? All I want is to be left alone in peace to get on with making wikipedia a better place and these users (Hagiographer and Zapatancas) seem determined to not allow me to do so. If Hagiographer actually leaves me alone there will be no problem but calling me an outright liar isnt the way to go about it nor is to say he will ignore my opinions. If this user isnt Zapatancas how come he hates me so much. Nobody else does. All I want is to be left in [peacee. I know you have the interest of wikipedia at heart so please can you support me in justy being a normal editor witrhout being harrassed, SqueakBox 00:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Chiang Kai-shek

Hi Tony Sidaway, regarding User:Chiang Kai-shek, I am not willing to participate in the case against him. — Nrtm81 22:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC) trimmed: Tony Sidaway 22:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

You're not listed as a participant in the case. --Tony Sidaway 22:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The filing of the arbitration against Chiang Kai-shek stemmed from my actions. Ideogram got involved as a mediator then dragged into the portal dispute mess. As a result of that, he has now filed the arbitration against Chiang Kai-shek. Both are currently accusing each other of pushing a political POV. The only serious violation was the comment left on Ideogram's user page. — Nrtm81 23:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alright pal, listen up!

I've been spending way too many hours lately wandering around AfD, RFI, ANI, etc, etc, (places my cardiologist tells me to avoid) and I keep seeing your name pop up over and over again, like I have for the last couple years I've been editing, and everywhere you post there seems to be controversy, negativity, and fallout! I just want to say one thing to you, dammit:

Thanks.

I don't know exactly why you attract so much controversy, but the fact that you continue to do SO much work here in spite of it is really remarkable. Personally, I find you often ascerbic and under-wordy, but that really only makes me wonder if you aren't just a sockpuppet of a certain User:Larry_Sanger (and I hope you take that as the compliment its intended to be).

I would say to you one thing, Tony, on a serious note, the same I would have said to Sanger had I been around in those days: from reading your comments, I think you'd spend far less words defending yourself if you spend a few more explaining yourself in the first place. I don't think I've ever disagreed with your reasoning to any serious degree, but often I wonder why you didn't make the point at the time of editing, instead of in defense, later. In any case, and like Larry's writings, your deep appreciation of the subtleties of extant policy is always enjoyable to me. Thanks, again, for all your work. (PS, I have no barnstars or the like for you, I prefer simple text.) Eaglizard 09:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I think the above is intended as a mixture of thanks and advice. I wish we could always tell when our behavior is likely to be highly controversial. Many of the bust-ups I'm involved in are over things that seem quite minor to me, whereas I can sometimes take very bold actions and nobody utters a squeak. This doesn't mean that I shouldn't take your advice to heart, however. I think it's excellent advice and I'll make an effort to improve. --Tony Sidaway 16:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question re:Blu Aardvark (again)

If you have time could you answer a question about this case. I saw this on AN/I. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Blu Aardvark (again) Looking at the sanctions in the arb case, I do not see a provision for extending the ban for this type of continued disruption. Does an automatic extention occur with every ban or does it need to be spelled out in the sanctions of an individual case? FloNight talk 13:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

In principle the one year ban could be reset (as an enforcement matter) from the moment he breaches it. I chose not to do so when he had been abusing his talk page, because it was possible that he didn't realise he wasn't supposed to use it while banned. But now that he has been trying to edit on WP:ANI I'm going to reset so that it runs from today. --Tony Sidaway 14:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for following up. FloNight talk 15:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Ontario provincial highways

I actually did take it to the talk page and listed it on RFC. Bridesmill agreed with me and I had a civil debate with him over a minor point. Bridesmill also made a minor change to the article related to it, after which William reverted to his preferred - and incorrect (I can say this definitely, especially after reading the law he cited to support his position) - term. --SPUI (T - C) 15:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with that. It's what you did next that bothers me. Don't edit war. --Tony Sidaway 15:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

When the question is so clear, what else is there to do? Find another editor to certify an RFC and take it through that dog and pony show? --SPUI (T - C) 15:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Not at this stage. Be patient. Don't be drawn out into edit warring. There are two probations hanging over you on this particular issue. If people agree with you then they should happily revert William Allen Simpson for you. Then you won't be editing disruptively. --Tony Sidaway 15:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately it doesn't work that way - most people don't care enough about this obscure topic to do the reading and get involved. Those that do often wish to be a "good editor" and not do any reverting. --SPUI (T - C) 15:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

That attitude is precisely why you've got two probations. --Tony Sidaway 15:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for not answering my question. --SPUI (T - C) 15:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I already did. You asked "What else is there to do?" and I responded "Be patient. Don't be drawn out into edit warring." Discuss. The world won't come to an end just because you stop edit warring. --Tony Sidaway 15:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

While it's sitting at the incorrect state other people will make good faith changes, making fixing it up afterwards a lot harder. For instance, on [4], I didn't notice until five days after he did it, and there are a bunch of other edits in there. --SPUI (T - C) 15:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you want the article to be protected? I think that is a reasonable argument for protection. --Tony Sidaway 16:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd rather it be available for editing by all - and protection on William's version would be much worse than an edit war. --SPUI (T - C) 16:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] threded talk

there is much threaded talk in the evidence. Zeq 16:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll take a look. --Tony Sidaway 16:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I've examined it all and see no threaded debate on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Israeli apartheid/Evidence. --Tony Sidaway 17:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Slim removed it but Homey may put it again. Zeq 17:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC) - mistake.

If he does that, either you or SlimVirgin can come to me and I'll fix it and have a friendly chat with Homey. --Tony Sidaway 18:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[5] - maybe it is time to have a friendly chat. Zeq 18:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

That is not a threaded comment. However, the comment you added to my section on Peer Review is a threaded comment. [6]. I have removed it. Homey 18:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Homey is right. However I'd rather you both came to me rather than risk an edit war on the evidence page. --Tony Sidaway 18:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your evidence

In your decision to ban me you stated that I was trying to NPOV Homey's POV pushing. (maybe your words were different) and later said that if he was under probation you would ban him as well ebcause of similar behaviour to mine. I think you should add your evidence to the discussion. Best, Zeq 17:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I said that. I'm clerking the case so I'd rather not involve myself adding evidence. If you want to add what I said to evidence, please do so. --Tony Sidaway 18:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] William H. Kennedy page

Just to let you know I'm diving into the middle of this mess, on the talk page, and gonna try to see if I can bring the two users together to work on the page. I do not really see the second editor as a vandal as such, but he is definitely a major anti-Kennedy POV pusher. If I can get Suture, the anit-Kennedy editor to cooperate on the talk page, do you have a problem with my removing the semi-protection from the page? I'm mostly convinced that it's all one person doing the ani-Kenedy POV pushing, so if I can get him working towards a more constructive end.... - TexasAndroid 19:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd rather keep semiprotection on for a few days. If you want to try to talk this fellow round, feel free. --Tony Sidaway 19:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of comments

SlimVirgin has just removed comments by me from the Workshop page[7]. No explanation given. Rather than restoring them myself I am bringing the matter to you. Homey 19:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll ask her why she used her rollback button there. --Tony Sidaway 19:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

See Slim's explanation and apology below. --Tony Sidaway 20:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Macedonism

Please protect Macedonism again. The article is currently under MEDCAB's mediation. The other side does not provide any useful sources nor reasons for its edits in the talk page, and it isn't involved in any discussion whatsoever. So could you please either protect the page... the latest edits were not "discussed" at the talk page, so given the fact that no input has been given at the talk page's efforts to come to a compromise version, and entire sourced sections are being deleted, they can also be considered simple vandalism. Regards. --FlavrSavr 19:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Please apply at WP:RFPP if you think it needs to be protected. --Tony Sidaway 19:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure they were discussed, and reason for erased passages were given, unlike your sides removals, which are totally unexplained. The passage of section 6 of support [8] is removed as explained in talk because it is irrelevant to the claim. The other edits which your sides removes are actual improvement to the article and no reason for their deletion is given. --FunkyFly 01:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Considering the behaviour that got the article protected in the first place has just started up again, and the mediation is in progress I think it better that the article be protected for the duration. At least until both sides can come to an amicable agreement on the talk page as to a compromise version. Further to this I have protected the page. - FrancisTyers · 01:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, admirable for you to protect it in the same version. Btw mediation has been dormant for more than a week. --FunkyFly 01:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] IP war of Ecuadorian-Peruvian War

Hello there! It's being a while since the last time that I contacted you. Unfortunately, there is a rv war in the article regarding the Ecuadorian-Peruvian War, which involves one of the parties that was accused in my RfA [9]. I do not know if I am allowed to participate in the talk page of any Ecuadorian-Peruvian article, could you clarify that to me? I would gladly appreciate that. Another thing, you stated a couple of months ago that it was possible for me to request the same ban for the other party involved in my RfA. So far, I have seen that he continues to edit in those articles without check and balances, which might compromise the neutrality of the articles in question. Can you explain me the procedures? Thanks, and I will wait for your answer. Messhermit 13:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• I'm now being accused (on mere speculation and most likely based on hate agains my person) of sponsoring Vandalism here in Wikipedia [10]... what should I do? Messhermit 16:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Hello Messhermit. Nobody hates you (or at least I don't). I have only requested an investigation on the matter of the series of vandal attacks on the article from several IP addresses (two of them from Miami). The wording of your first post to Tony, and your request for the article to be blocked due to an "edit war" made me wonder what is really going on, and to think about the possibility that you may be involved. That's all. If my suspicions turn out to be wrong, I promise you will have my apologies. Sorry for the inconvenience. Andrés C. 17:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Wow that was quick. I wonder, according to this individual every single edition made in Miami is my responsibility... not only that, most likely any single edition that he dislike would be "my fault". Still, even if I'm nowhere editing next to him, apparently I'm constantly checked by this individual. Tony Sidaway, where can I take this problem so this does not bother you anymore? Messhermit 18:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zeq and the evidence page

Zeq is editing other people's evidence on the page[11]Homey 11:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Once in a while I get to correct other people's gramer......people do it to me all the time:-) Zeq 11:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

That's okay, but just be careful in sticky situations like this, in case somebody gets the wrong idea. Please avoid edits like that on pages pertaining directly to the arbitration, specifically the main arbitration page, the evidence page, the workshop page, the proposed decision page, and any of the talk pages associated with those pages, and any talk page of a clerk or arbitrator, participant or anyone else submitting evidence. This isn't an order or a directive (even if I wanted to give one to you, I don't have the authority) just an attempt to give good advice. --Tony Sidaway 16:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)