User talk:Tony Sidaway/Archive 2006 08 23

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Contents

[edit] Padmé Amidala

I thought I'd ask your opinions on the use of unlicenced content in Padmé Amidala which is currently a featured article candidate. When I saw it nominated some days ago I commented that I thought it had too many unlicenced images and later I removed two of them. I know you don't think highly of featured articles anyhow but I'd be interested in your opinion on the fair use issues involved. We can probably talk principles from now until Ragnarök without understanding each other but a single example can often clear things up :) So, do you think there is a place for unlicenced images in an article like Padmé Amidala? What kind of images (if any) would you like to see used in the article? (The article also has extensive unlicenced quotes from various publications but I'll assume you're fine with that unless you tell me different.) Regards, Haukur 15:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The article is ridiculously long and is peppered with unnecessary pictures. I like the section showing the Mongolian and Russian derivations of the costume (without delving into its verifiability) The quotes that I saw looked perfectly fine, but I think it's a bit inappropriate to delve into the psychology of this space opera character. War and Peace it ain't. --Tony Sidaway 16:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you! I liked that section too. Haukur 16:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] An appeal...

May I suggest that it is possible to carry out a discussion without the constant use of belittling terms like "bollocks", "utterly meaningless question", "meaningless, pointless", "frankly stupid", "nonsense", "ignorance", et cetera? I believe it lowers the level of discourse. Thank you. KWH 00:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

May I suggest that you take my comments seriously and stop quibbling about wording? --Tony Sidaway 00:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I'll second this comment, and remind you (again) that the arbitration committee has formaly asked you to be civil. And yes, your stock response is that they reminded me too, but I'm not the one being asked to moderate my incivil language. - Aaron Brenneman 01:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm asking you now to moderate your constant, corrosive, uncivil behavior. Happy? --Tony Sidaway 02:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Provide a diff that points to an edit that's "corrosive" and I'll consider redacting. I am able to admit when I'm wrong. - Aaron Brenneman 03:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I've already tried to tackle you about your repetition and amplification of Karmafist's repugnant and baseless personal attacks on Kelly Martin. --03:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
The fact that you appear to have difficulty parsing Kelly Martin's words "I created it for one express purpose: to see if El C would jerk his knee and attempt to punish me for creating it." does not amount to incivility on my part. To be frank, for me to call this a pseudo-attack page is a statement of fact, and your attribution to me of the "purest malice" is the only incivlity in this exhange.
Aaron Brenneman 05:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
You continue to twist the knife into the wound. Pure, unadulterated malice. Disgusting. --Tony Sidaway 13:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
When last I asked for an alternative explanation of what this statement meant you said "It means only what it says." If your only demonstration of my incivility is personal attacks (by you on me) and sophism it makes it hard for me to take you seriously. In all honesty, can you look back over the discussion of Kelly's statement and say that you've contributed meaningfully? You claim it's a "personal attack" to present a cogent summary of her statement, but are unwilling to provide your version. You make repeated comments on my malicious character, while at the same time saying that I am the one who is being incivil. Leaving any history behind, is it possible for you to communicate clearly and concisely on this, because I actually will try to listen.
brenneman {L} 15:36, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't believe I have taken your comments anything but seriously. I don't believe it is petty quibbling to ask personally that if you can't show kindness, at least vent your aggression elsewhere. I cannot see how yourself or others are edified by that choice of wording. KWH 01:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Aggression? Please, please stop being so silly. --Tony Sidaway 02:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't think there's anything humorous in it. My intent is sincere. Please don't be dismissive. KWH 03:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you included "bollocks" in that list. Not commenting on discussion. --mboverload@ 02:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Speaking rhetorically, would one use it with one's grandmother/priest/any reasonably respected figure, outside of the context of talking about a Sex Pistols album? KWH 03:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not your grandmother or priest. I do apologise if some of my language has appeared inappropriate to you. I think it was appropriate to the context, but I don't go out of my way to offend and I'll try to show consideration. --Tony Sidaway 14:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks so much for your gracious apology! Thanks also for your future consideration of my suggestion. Be excellent, KWH 18:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Barbara Schwarz article - why did you place sysop only protection on it?

Tony could you explain for me please? I see no content disputes of any kind in the history. What policy am I ignorant of? Know you are on a break so understand reply may be some time away which is fine. - GIen 23:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

It had been labelled as protected, but for some reason the protection wasn't implemented. I just rectified the omission. If you want it unprotected, please ask on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. --Tony Sidaway 23:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Barbara Schwarz article - why did you place sysop only protection on it?

Tony could you explain for me please? I see no content disputes of any kind in the history. What policy am I ignorant of? Know you are on a break so understand reply may be some time away which is fine. - GIen 23:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

It had been labelled as protected, but for some reason the protection wasn't implemented. I just rectified the omission. If you want it unprotected, please ask on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. --Tony Sidaway 23:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alienus sockpuppets

I believe that Alienus has returned in the form of the anon IP addresses 24.44.189.175 and 67.90.197.194. Both of these IP's are editing pages frequented by Alienus, and both are stalking me, reverting my edits and calling them vandalism (without discussion). Other users, such as User:Yossarian, have made these observations. LaszloWalrus 07:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Looks like a straightforward case to me:[1], [2]. Though I’ve some sympathy for Al...well, he can do better than that.Timothy Usher 07:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for semi-protecting the Objectivism and homosexuality article. Would you mind doing the same to some of the other articles Alienus has been vandalizing? Thanks. LaszloWalrus 07:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for protecting those articles. LaszloWalrus 08:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "When in doubt, delete"

Tony, do you happen to know the URL, or the month and subject name, for the wikien list conversation wherein "when in doubt, delete" was discussed as the correct approach to take to questionable Wikipedia:Fair use claims? I cannot even remember if it was in 2005 or early this year. Jkelly 20:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

No idea, sorry. --Tony Sidaway 21:35, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Arbitration

Seeing as how the arbitration didn't sail, it seems restarting the conversation on AN/I to come to a conclusion would be best. It doesn't really matter if he sees it as enforceable, community consensus for a one account limit can be enforced. The checkuser that was run and another one that should be redone can be used to inform a small group what the new account is. My feeling is that we should respect his wishes that the identity be kept secret unless he tries to run for a position or violates anything in WP:SOCK. At least a few bcrats should be among those that know the identity. - Taxman Talk 13:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, his identity needs to be more publicly known. His behavior at WP:FPC is inexcusable and there is no reason to believe that he won't repeat these actions in secret as another user unless we are able to prevent that. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 16:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
We would be able to prevent that if we enforced a one account limitation. Essentially the terms would be: no funny business of any variety or there is no secret. - Taxman Talk 17:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
He was in favor of arbitration himself, and certainly didn't seem to have a problem with his new identity being known (though he wanted a secrecy agreement). Now I suppose it's up to him to voluntarily make himself known to a bureaucrat or checkuser. --Tony Sidaway 16:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure that's acceptable, he may just choose not to reveal the new account to anyone, which just opens up the possibility of problems. I'll bring back the thread from the archives so we can reach a resolution. - Taxman Talk 17:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] St. Christopher's Arbitration

I gather you are clerking the St. Christopher's Medical School arbitration. I am not an involved party in the underlying dispute but have been involved in reverting some of the related, and seriously disturbing, vandalism/attacks/trolling by User:ParalelUni who I see has been invited to post evidence. As you may be aware, this user (and his increasing number of sockpuppets and IP's) are under an indefinite/permanent community ban based upon his grotesque attacks on User:JzG (I can forward diffs if you need them but you are probably up on this). Ordinarily, I would assume that an otherwise-blocked user is allowed to post to arb pages in a case he is concerned with, but based on the nature of the material ParalelUni has posted to date, this would be a serious mistake in this instance. I wonder if there is ArbComm precedent for such a situation.

A second question is whether it is worth posting evidence of ParalelUni's incivility and disgusting behavior on the evidence page. The recent ArbComm precedent appears to be that the committee's and community's time should not be expended on dealing with users whom the community has already banned, e.g., the Ste4k and GeneralTojo cases. On the other hand, in cases such as Tommstein, the ArbComm has voted to ratify and confirm a community ban (perhaps the difference is that a broader case was before the ArbComm anyway, or perhaps ArbComm was less busy then than now). I would not want to pointlessly feed a troll, but I also would not want to allow the case to proceed without identifying a major cause of the dispute. Any guidance you could offer would be appreciated.

Finally, it occurs to me that if ParalelUni is out of the equation, perhaps the underlying dispute would diminish or become suitable for mediation. In this regard, at least some of the arbitrators voted to accept the case before ParalelUni's ban arose. Would the best course of action be to raise this question on the talk page?

I understand that you are clerking this case and you might have to respond with an "I can't comment, use your best judgment" response, but if you are in a position to offer any thoughts they would be appreciated. As indicated, I have no involvement whatsoever in the underlying dispute, but have been appalled by what I have read from ParalelUni in recent weeks, and don't want to see a potentially unnecessary ArbComm case become a platform for more of the same, especially since arbitration cases now last for months. Regards, Newyorkbrad 14:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm about the only active clerk so if the case needs any further clerical work either I or the arbitrators will probably perform it (if some other editor doesn't beat us to it). Use your discretion in deciding whether to post evidence on the evidence page. You may instead, if you prefer, forward evidence in private email to me or an active arbitrator; it will be made available to be considered by all involved arbitrators via their private mailing list. Suggestions and proposals are always welcome either in the workshop or the talk pages of the case. --Tony Sidaway 14:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your quick reply. I do see that other users have already begun into evidence the same materials I was being cautious about, so I will follow up if necessary on the Evidence or Workshop page. Regards, Newyorkbrad 20:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Tony, I've noticed you've placed a ArbCom notice on User talk:ParalelUni, but I'd just like to point out that he's currently under {indef}. --Netsnipe 16:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. ParalelUni can submit evidence by email (I'll inform him of this) or a temporary injunction could be proposed to enable him to be unblocked for the purpose of arbitration. --Tony Sidaway 16:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
My apologies for forgetting about your stance on fancy signatures. Unfortunately, I'll probably do it again by accident the next time around. -- Netsnipe 16:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
No need to apologise. It's easy enough to clean up any clutter. --Tony Sidaway 16:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Withdrawing arbcom request

I withdrew my arbitration request, hoping that was a procedurally kosher thing to do. Was that okay? Haukur 18:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

In the circumstances, probably okay. If someone wants it back they'll revert. --Tony Sidaway 18:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] My apology

Hello Tony. I apologize for my last remark. It was not constructive. However, I feel you also owe me an apology. You called my good faith RfC "absurd". I think that was uncalled for. If my statement that your actions are absurd was a personal attack, then your statement calling my action "absurd" was likewise a personal attack. Let's remove them both, shall we? Again, I apologize for my statement and I appreciate your message on my talk page. Johntex\talk 20:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood my meaning. I've rephrased. --Tony Sidaway 20:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, you did use the word "absurd", so I am disappointed you apparently think the full burden of the misunderstanding is on me. Never-the-less, I have made my apology and I'm prepared to move on whether or not you decide to make one. Johntex\talk 20:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
If you misunderstood me, it's because I didn't make my meaning clear. That wasn't your fault. --Tony Sidaway 20:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "When in doubt, delete"

Tony, do you happen to know the URL, or the month and subject name, for the wikien list conversation wherein "when in doubt, delete" was discussed as the correct approach to take to questionable Wikipedia:Fair use claims? I cannot even remember if it was in 2005 or early this year. Jkelly 20:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

No idea, sorry. --Tony Sidaway 21:35, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Arbitration

Seeing as how the arbitration didn't sail, it seems restarting the conversation on AN/I to come to a conclusion would be best. It doesn't really matter if he sees it as enforceable, community consensus for a one account limit can be enforced. The checkuser that was run and another one that should be redone can be used to inform a small group what the new account is. My feeling is that we should respect his wishes that the identity be kept secret unless he tries to run for a position or violates anything in WP:SOCK. At least a few bcrats should be among those that know the identity. - Taxman Talk 13:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, his identity needs to be more publicly known. His behavior at WP:FPC is inexcusable and there is no reason to believe that he won't repeat these actions in secret as another user unless we are able to prevent that. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 16:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
We would be able to prevent that if we enforced a one account limitation. Essentially the terms would be: no funny business of any variety or there is no secret. - Taxman Talk 17:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
He was in favor of arbitration himself, and certainly didn't seem to have a problem with his new identity being known (though he wanted a secrecy agreement). Now I suppose it's up to him to voluntarily make himself known to a bureaucrat or checkuser. --Tony Sidaway 16:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure that's acceptable, he may just choose not to reveal the new account to anyone, which just opens up the possibility of problems. I'll bring back the thread from the archives so we can reach a resolution. - Taxman Talk 17:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] St. Christopher's Arbitration

I gather you are clerking the St. Christopher's Medical School arbitration. I am not an involved party in the underlying dispute but have been involved in reverting some of the related, and seriously disturbing, vandalism/attacks/trolling by User:ParalelUni who I see has been invited to post evidence. As you may be aware, this user (and his increasing number of sockpuppets and IP's) are under an indefinite/permanent community ban based upon his grotesque attacks on User:JzG (I can forward diffs if you need them but you are probably up on this). Ordinarily, I would assume that an otherwise-blocked user is allowed to post to arb pages in a case he is concerned with, but based on the nature of the material ParalelUni has posted to date, this would be a serious mistake in this instance. I wonder if there is ArbComm precedent for such a situation.

A second question is whether it is worth posting evidence of ParalelUni's incivility and disgusting behavior on the evidence page. The recent ArbComm precedent appears to be that the committee's and community's time should not be expended on dealing with users whom the community has already banned, e.g., the Ste4k and GeneralTojo cases. On the other hand, in cases such as Tommstein, the ArbComm has voted to ratify and confirm a community ban (perhaps the difference is that a broader case was before the ArbComm anyway, or perhaps ArbComm was less busy then than now). I would not want to pointlessly feed a troll, but I also would not want to allow the case to proceed without identifying a major cause of the dispute. Any guidance you could offer would be appreciated.

Finally, it occurs to me that if ParalelUni is out of the equation, perhaps the underlying dispute would diminish or become suitable for mediation. In this regard, at least some of the arbitrators voted to accept the case before ParalelUni's ban arose. Would the best course of action be to raise this question on the talk page?

I understand that you are clerking this case and you might have to respond with an "I can't comment, use your best judgment" response, but if you are in a position to offer any thoughts they would be appreciated. As indicated, I have no involvement whatsoever in the underlying dispute, but have been appalled by what I have read from ParalelUni in recent weeks, and don't want to see a potentially unnecessary ArbComm case become a platform for more of the same, especially since arbitration cases now last for months. Regards, Newyorkbrad 14:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm about the only active clerk so if the case needs any further clerical work either I or the arbitrators will probably perform it (if some other editor doesn't beat us to it). Use your discretion in deciding whether to post evidence on the evidence page. You may instead, if you prefer, forward evidence in private email to me or an active arbitrator; it will be made available to be considered by all involved arbitrators via their private mailing list. Suggestions and proposals are always welcome either in the workshop or the talk pages of the case. --Tony Sidaway 14:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your quick reply. I do see that other users have already begun into evidence the same materials I was being cautious about, so I will follow up if necessary on the Evidence or Workshop page. Regards, Newyorkbrad 20:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Tony, I've noticed you've placed a ArbCom notice on User talk:ParalelUni, but I'd just like to point out that he's currently under {indef}. --Netsnipe 16:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. ParalelUni can submit evidence by email (I'll inform him of this) or a temporary injunction could be proposed to enable him to be unblocked for the purpose of arbitration. --Tony Sidaway 16:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
My apologies for forgetting about your stance on fancy signatures. Unfortunately, I'll probably do it again by accident the next time around. -- Netsnipe 16:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
No need to apologise. It's easy enough to clean up any clutter. --Tony Sidaway 16:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Withdrawing arbcom request

I withdrew my arbitration request, hoping that was a procedurally kosher thing to do. Was that okay? Haukur 18:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

In the circumstances, probably okay. If someone wants it back they'll revert. --Tony Sidaway 18:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] My apology

Hello Tony. I apologize for my last remark. It was not constructive. However, I feel you also owe me an apology. You called my good faith RfC "absurd". I think that was uncalled for. If my statement that your actions are absurd was a personal attack, then your statement calling my action "absurd" was likewise a personal attack. Let's remove them both, shall we? Again, I apologize for my statement and I appreciate your message on my talk page. Johntex\talk 20:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood my meaning. I've rephrased. --Tony Sidaway 20:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, you did use the word "absurd", so I am disappointed you apparently think the full burden of the misunderstanding is on me. Never-the-less, I have made my apology and I'm prepared to move on whether or not you decide to make one. Johntex\talk 20:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
If you misunderstood me, it's because I didn't make my meaning clear. That wasn't your fault. --Tony Sidaway 20:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Internal link on Brian Peppers article

Thanks for the good explanation; I will revert. --Merovingian (T, C, @) 22:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Ready for archiving. --Tony Sidaway 12:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] WP:AN/I

I believe User:SPUI has something to tell you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#.7B.7Bvandal.7CElkman.7D.7D. I think I've officially crossed the line into being a vandal and a bad Wikipedian in general. Go ahead and apply the appropriate block; I've probably earned it. --Elkman (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 22:13, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Ready for archiving. --Tony Sidaway 12:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rfa

Thanks for the notice. Tazmaniacs 12:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Ready for archiving. --Tony Sidaway 12:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Deuterium/Bad edits

It looks more like a hit-list to me, and I don't appriciate being included on yet another one of these. I don't know if you noticed it, but Zeq has also expressed some concerns re being included on that list on the talkpage. -- Karl Meier 17:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Ready for archiving. --Tony Sidaway 12:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eluchil404's RfA

Thank you for taking the time to express an opinion in my recent request for adminship. I have withdrawn my self-nomination because there seemed little prospect for further productive discussion or the formation of a consensus to promote. Many commentators offered constructie critisism that I will use to improve myself as a user. Others suggested that the nomination was premature and that a re-nom in a few months would be more likely to gain consensus. I want to thank you in particular for pointing out specific areas where my contributions were deficient as that shows me where I should work to be a better editor. Eluchil404 19:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Ready for archiving. --Tony Sidaway 12:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mohit for speedy deletion

This article seems a purely imaginative narration by the author. This may look good in a story book, but not in an encyclopedia. BTW, I did a search on google to confirm my suspicions.--Babub→Talk 12:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Ready for archiving. --Tony Sidaway 12:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Three anonymous AOLers wrote on my talkpage.

One claimed to be Sceptre and two congratulated my on not snorting marijuana today. The history speaks for itself:

¡Thanks!

—

— Ŭalabio‽ 00:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Ready for archiving. --Tony Sidaway 12:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BLESS YOU

Thank you for speedy deleting Jim Shapiro. I have been accused of sock-puppetry (I am not my husband and we are not one except in the eyes of the Church, and not even there since we are Jewish.) I have also been accused of calling my family 'consensus', although 11 different independent editors thought this article should be deleted. It is true that several attorneys weighed in on this, other than Gfwesq and me (who are both attorneys), for good reason. WIkipedia is not a vehicle to bash lawyers. I had not even heard of Jim Shapiro until I came across the 'article'. There is good reason why we haven't - this lawyer is 'famous' only in his own local area, and 'Overlawyerd' perhaps, since 'Overlawyered' sole aim is to disparage lawyers and they look for lawyers to criticize. Thank you again. You restored my faith in Wikipedia. jawesq 17:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Ready for archiving. --Tony Sidaway 12:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Babur

Some IP is vandalizing the Babur page. I've reverted his changes two times, already. I do not want to violate the 3RR, so please have a look at the article. Thanks. Tājik 13:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Ready for archiving. --Tony Sidaway 12:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jim Shapiro

A second article James J. Shapiro was made with significant additions. I viewed the DRV on Jim Shapiro as being moot in this context, and unsalted Jim Shapiro for a redirect. I'd value your comments if you feel the new article is inappropriate. Thanks -- Samir धर्म 03:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Ready for archiving. --Tony Sidaway 12:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] On the Table

Hi, me again. I noticed you haven't answered my email, even though I thought it was pretty reasonable. I would like to ask you something, and I swear I won't berate you for your answer, argue with you, or ask for an explanation or reply in any way or complain on any medium; you can delete my comments if I do. What I want to ask is, do you consider me a part of these "ED trolls" you've occassionally referenced or not? Obviously, I'm aware of my own good faith or lack thereof, but since the perception of my edits is seems to count more than anything, it will be helpful in the future to know if my actions are going to be seen as trolling or not, and since you seem at least more rational than other editors I've encountered, your opinion would be appreciated. You can reply here, at my talk page, by email, whatever. Thanks, Karwynn (talk) 15:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Ready for archiving. --Tony Sidaway 12:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User page versions of deleted (or otherwise) articles

Greetings Tony Sidaway, What's your view about main user pages becoming defacto articles? I can understand when a user has a copy of a deleted article (or working copy) say at User:Someuser/deleted (or worrking copy) article but when I see user pages such as User:Supplements I'm hard pressed to not see them as attempts to get around deletion policies. Thanks. Netscott 19:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Ready for archiving. --Tony Sidaway 12:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] More Terryeo stuff

Please take a look at this: Image_talk:Superpowerbldg.jpg --Fahrenheit451 14:04, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Ready for archiving. --Tony Sidaway 12:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Userbox

Hi Tony,

You'll get no argument from me on that one, as keeping the thing red seems almost impossible, but I doubt you'll convince everybody of that... Good luck! Best wishes, Xoloz 15:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Ready for archiving. --Tony Sidaway 12:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Note

Please see this edit. Please don't expect a response while I am on a break. If you need a sysop, see this list. --Tony Sidaway 18:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Ready for archiving. --Tony Sidaway 12:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User logs

Hi Tony, could you please have a look at this breach of the copyright policy User Expatkiwi logs. -- Szvest 16:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Ready for archiving. --Tony Sidaway 12:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:fact

Hi! Based on your contributions to the TfD for template:fact, I thought you might be interested in a proposal I have made to change the recommended use of {{fact}} prescribed in WP:Cite. dryguy 22:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Ready for archiving. --Tony Sidaway 12:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Iloveminun

Just to let you know, the arbitration at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Iloveminun has closed. Check the link for details. -- Drini 03:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Ready for archiving. --Tony Sidaway 12:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Moby Dick

Just to let you know, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Moby Dick case was just closed. You may want to check the link for the details. -- Drini 22:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Ready for archiving. --Tony Sidaway 12:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recusal

You're a man of integrity, Tony. Haukur 12:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Ready for archiving. --Tony Sidaway 12:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trolling

[4] It's getting old. Take it up with an RfC or RfAR if you feel strongly about it. Otherwise, stop with the name-calling. Karwynn (talk) 21:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

No, we'll just gather evidence and take action if necessary. If you're not here to cause problems, we'll have nothing and Wikipedia will have another active editor. If you make more problems, your past behavior will be taken into consideration. --Tony Sidaway 22:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
But you've already got enough evidence to call me a troll right? Unless you're superceding "assume good faith", and you wouldn't do that. So why not either stop calling me a troll or take it to RfAr? Karwynn (talk) 22:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't have blocked you if you hadn't trolled over that attack on MONGO. --Tony Sidaway 22:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Sure, why not. What about now? You didn't say in that comment that I have trolled, you said I am a troll. If I'm still a troll, take it to ArbCom please so we can get this cleared up. Karwynn (talk) 23:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
This is weak stuff. Just stay out of trouble and you'll be okay. --Tony Sidaway 23:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, by all means stay out of trouble (like this, for instance). -- User:RyanFreisling @ 23:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
That looks pretty disruptive and the link on his userpage in which he finds vandalism to article space funny is bothersome as well.--MONGO 23:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, laughing at vandalism is pretty disruptive and should not be allowed. --Karwynn (talk) 16:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] E.D. again

Talk:Encyclopedia Dramatica is active. Netscott 03:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Looks like Nandesuka got to the ball before me! :) --Tony Sidaway 10:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Speaking of Encyclopedia Dramatica you might like to have a look at Wikipedia:Embrace weasel words (notice the E.D. link at the bottom). (→Netscott) 10:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] WP:TEA from MrDolomite

First off, my apologies for my edit in response to your edit of my comment. I clearly did so to make a WP:POINT, and to express that we should have taken this to our talk pages instead of the RfC. My orginal comment was an immediate pop culture reference train of thought as I read the thread. I'm a fan of A Few Good Men, as shown on my wikiquote user page. It was intended as an example to you specifically, and to the group as a whole (myself included), how the RfC has, and continues to be an example of how not to discuss issues. I'm having visions of all of us ending up using such sibling backseat logic as "Did not," "Did so," "I'm telling," "Stop touching me," and "You're on my side." Anyway, I have replaced the three edits above with this final one, which I hope conveys a disagreement between editors in better tone. I appreciate that you did not add to or re-remove the 3rd edit. That definitely would have fed my inner troll and not resulted in any productive discussions of the case at hand. So, in the spirit of assuming good faith and as an apology, I give you this WP:TEA. — MrDolomite | Talk 16:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Whatever. --Tony Sidaway 22:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
See, I knew you wouldn't be a WP:DOCK about my comment, but instead, take it in the [[[WP:AGF]] it was intended. — MrDolomite | Talk 01:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Inexperienced editors

Can I ask what you consider you to be a threshold at which someone is no longer an inexperienced editor? rootology (T) 19:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

There isn't a hard threshold, but if for instance you look at the first ten editors endorsing Aeon's outside view you see:
  1. Aeon1006 (talk • contribs) Very few edits before April.
  2. MrDolomite (talk • contribs) No edits before March. Few edits overall.
  3. Remember (talk • contribs) Very few edits before March.
  4. Mecu (talk • contribs) No edits before June.
  5. Attic_Owl (talk • contribs) No edits before three weeks ago. Blocked as a sock of Karmafist.
  6. Dknights411 (talk • contribs) Obviously an experienced editor.
  7. Herostratus (talk • contribs) Obviously an experienced editor. Administrator.
  8. Z4ns4tsu (talk • contribs) No edits before March.
  9. Kwh (talk • contribs) Obviously an experienced editor.
  10. Masonpatriot (talk • contribs) Obviously an experienced editor.
So six out of the ten are very new. One is apparently a sock puppet and has been blocked. Just one of them seems to be an administrator (but I didn't check that too closely). This contrasts strongly with those who endorsed Kelly's response. --Tony Sidaway 19:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. Curious: would you consider me experienced, with my 2,800 odd? rootology (T) 19:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Nearly all very recent edits indeed. --Tony Sidaway 20:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Check out

this. rootology (T) 22:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Already responded. :) --Tony Sidaway 22:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Sorry Tony, didn't intend spam

I didn't intend that to be spam. I remembered your name from when the article-which-I-won't-link was very active and thought you might be interested in what appears to be the denoument of that story. My apologies for inadvertently spamming. — Saxifrage ✎ 21:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I just make a habit of ignoring solicitations. --Tony Sidaway 22:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Internal link on Brian Peppers article

Thanks for the good explanation; I will revert. --Merovingian (T, C, @) 22:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Ready for archiving. --Tony Sidaway 12:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] WP:AN/I

I believe User:SPUI has something to tell you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#.7B.7Bvandal.7CElkman.7D.7D. I think I've officially crossed the line into being a vandal and a bad Wikipedian in general. Go ahead and apply the appropriate block; I've probably earned it. --Elkman (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 22:13, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Ready for archiving. --Tony Sidaway 12:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rfa

Thanks for the notice. Tazmaniacs 12:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Ready for archiving. --Tony Sidaway 12:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Deuterium/Bad edits

It looks more like a hit-list to me, and I don't appriciate being included on yet another one of these. I don't know if you noticed it, but Zeq has also expressed some concerns re being included on that list on the talkpage. -- Karl Meier 17:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Ready for archiving. --Tony Sidaway 12:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eluchil404's RfA

Thank you for taking the time to express an opinion in my recent request for adminship. I have withdrawn my self-nomination because there seemed little prospect for further productive discussion or the formation of a consensus to promote. Many commentators offered constructie critisism that I will use to improve myself as a user. Others suggested that the nomination was premature and that a re-nom in a few months would be more likely to gain consensus. I want to thank you in particular for pointing out specific areas where my contributions were deficient as that shows me where I should work to be a better editor. Eluchil404 19:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Ready for archiving. --Tony Sidaway 12:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mohit for speedy deletion

This article seems a purely imaginative narration by the author. This may look good in a story book, but not in an encyclopedia. BTW, I did a search on google to confirm my suspicions.--Babub→Talk 12:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Ready for archiving. --Tony Sidaway 12:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Three anonymous AOLers wrote on my talkpage.

One claimed to be Sceptre and two congratulated my on not snorting marijuana today. The history speaks for itself:

¡Thanks!

—

— Ŭalabio‽ 00:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Ready for archiving. --Tony Sidaway 12:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BLESS YOU

Thank you for speedy deleting Jim Shapiro. I have been accused of sock-puppetry (I am not my husband and we are not one except in the eyes of the Church, and not even there since we are Jewish.) I have also been accused of calling my family 'consensus', although 11 different independent editors thought this article should be deleted. It is true that several attorneys weighed in on this, other than Gfwesq and me (who are both attorneys), for good reason. WIkipedia is not a vehicle to bash lawyers. I had not even heard of Jim Shapiro until I came across the 'article'. There is good reason why we haven't - this lawyer is 'famous' only in his own local area, and 'Overlawyerd' perhaps, since 'Overlawyered' sole aim is to disparage lawyers and they look for lawyers to criticize. Thank you again. You restored my faith in Wikipedia. jawesq 17:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Ready for archiving. --Tony Sidaway 12:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Babur

Some IP is vandalizing the Babur page. I've reverted his changes two times, already. I do not want to violate the 3RR, so please have a look at the article. Thanks. Tājik 13:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Ready for archiving. --Tony Sidaway 12:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jim Shapiro

A second article James J. Shapiro was made with significant additions. I viewed the DRV on Jim Shapiro as being moot in this context, and unsalted Jim Shapiro for a redirect. I'd value your comments if you feel the new article is inappropriate. Thanks -- Samir धर्म 03:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Ready for archiving. --Tony Sidaway 12:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] On the Table

Hi, me again. I noticed you haven't answered my email, even though I thought it was pretty reasonable. I would like to ask you something, and I swear I won't berate you for your answer, argue with you, or ask for an explanation or reply in any way or complain on any medium; you can delete my comments if I do. What I want to ask is, do you consider me a part of these "ED trolls" you've occassionally referenced or not? Obviously, I'm aware of my own good faith or lack thereof, but since the perception of my edits is seems to count more than anything, it will be helpful in the future to know if my actions are going to be seen as trolling or not, and since you seem at least more rational than other editors I've encountered, your opinion would be appreciated. You can reply here, at my talk page, by email, whatever. Thanks, Karwynn (talk) 15:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Ready for archiving. --Tony Sidaway 12:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User page versions of deleted (or otherwise) articles

Greetings Tony Sidaway, What's your view about main user pages becoming defacto articles? I can understand when a user has a copy of a deleted article (or working copy) say at User:Someuser/deleted (or worrking copy) article but when I see user pages such as User:Supplements I'm hard pressed to not see them as attempts to get around deletion policies. Thanks. Netscott 19:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Ready for archiving. --Tony Sidaway 12:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] More Terryeo stuff

Please take a look at this: Image_talk:Superpowerbldg.jpg --Fahrenheit451 14:04, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Ready for archiving. --Tony Sidaway 12:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Userbox

Hi Tony,

You'll get no argument from me on that one, as keeping the thing red seems almost impossible, but I doubt you'll convince everybody of that... Good luck! Best wishes, Xoloz 15:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Ready for archiving. --Tony Sidaway 12:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Note

Please see this edit. Please don't expect a response while I am on a break. If you need a sysop, see this list. --Tony Sidaway 18:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Ready for archiving. --Tony Sidaway 12:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User logs

Hi Tony, could you please have a look at this breach of the copyright policy User Expatkiwi logs. -- Szvest 16:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Ready for archiving. --Tony Sidaway 12:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:fact

Hi! Based on your contributions to the TfD for template:fact, I thought you might be interested in a proposal I have made to change the recommended use of {{fact}} prescribed in WP:Cite. dryguy 22:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Ready for archiving. --Tony Sidaway 12:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Iloveminun

Just to let you know, the arbitration at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Iloveminun has closed. Check the link for details. -- Drini 03:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Ready for archiving. --Tony Sidaway 12:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Moby Dick

Just to let you know, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Moby Dick case was just closed. You may want to check the link for the details. -- Drini 22:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Ready for archiving. --Tony Sidaway 12:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recusal

You're a man of integrity, Tony. Haukur 12:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Ready for archiving. --Tony Sidaway 12:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trolling

[6] It's getting old. Take it up with an RfC or RfAR if you feel strongly about it. Otherwise, stop with the name-calling. Karwynn (talk) 21:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

No, we'll just gather evidence and take action if necessary. If you're not here to cause problems, we'll have nothing and Wikipedia will have another active editor. If you make more problems, your past behavior will be taken into consideration. --Tony Sidaway 22:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
But you've already got enough evidence to call me a troll right? Unless you're superceding "assume good faith", and you wouldn't do that. So why not either stop calling me a troll or take it to RfAr? Karwynn (talk) 22:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't have blocked you if you hadn't trolled over that attack on MONGO. --Tony Sidaway 22:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Sure, why not. What about now? You didn't say in that comment that I have trolled, you said I am a troll. If I'm still a troll, take it to ArbCom please so we can get this cleared up. Karwynn (talk) 23:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
This is weak stuff. Just stay out of trouble and you'll be okay. --Tony Sidaway 23:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, by all means stay out of trouble (like this, for instance). -- User:RyanFreisling @ 23:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
That looks pretty disruptive and the link on his userpage in which he finds vandalism to article space funny is bothersome as well.--MONGO 23:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, laughing at vandalism is pretty disruptive and should not be allowed. --Karwynn (talk) 16:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] E.D. again

Talk:Encyclopedia Dramatica is active. Netscott 03:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Looks like Nandesuka got to the ball before me! :) --Tony Sidaway 10:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Speaking of Encyclopedia Dramatica you might like to have a look at Wikipedia:Embrace weasel words (notice the E.D. link at the bottom). (→Netscott) 10:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] WP:TEA from MrDolomite

First off, my apologies for my edit in response to your edit of my comment. I clearly did so to make a WP:POINT, and to express that we should have taken this to our talk pages instead of the RfC. My orginal comment was an immediate pop culture reference train of thought as I read the thread. I'm a fan of A Few Good Men, as shown on my wikiquote user page. It was intended as an example to you specifically, and to the group as a whole (myself included), how the RfC has, and continues to be an example of how not to discuss issues. I'm having visions of all of us ending up using such sibling backseat logic as "Did not," "Did so," "I'm telling," "Stop touching me," and "You're on my side." Anyway, I have replaced the three edits above with this final one, which I hope conveys a disagreement between editors in better tone. I appreciate that you did not add to or re-remove the 3rd edit. That definitely would have fed my inner troll and not resulted in any productive discussions of the case at hand. So, in the spirit of assuming good faith and as an apology, I give you this WP:TEA. — MrDolomite | Talk 16:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Whatever. --Tony Sidaway 22:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
See, I knew you wouldn't be a WP:DOCK about my comment, but instead, take it in the [[[WP:AGF]] it was intended. — MrDolomite | Talk 01:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Inexperienced editors

Can I ask what you consider you to be a threshold at which someone is no longer an inexperienced editor? rootology (T) 19:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

There isn't a hard threshold, but if for instance you look at the first ten editors endorsing Aeon's outside view you see:
  1. Aeon1006 (talk • contribs) Very few edits before April.
  2. MrDolomite (talk • contribs) No edits before March. Few edits overall.
  3. Remember (talk • contribs) Very few edits before March.
  4. Mecu (talk • contribs) No edits before June.
  5. Attic_Owl (talk • contribs) No edits before three weeks ago. Blocked as a sock of Karmafist.
  6. Dknights411 (talk • contribs) Obviously an experienced editor.
  7. Herostratus (talk • contribs) Obviously an experienced editor. Administrator.
  8. Z4ns4tsu (talk • contribs) No edits before March.
  9. Kwh (talk • contribs) Obviously an experienced editor.
  10. Masonpatriot (talk • contribs) Obviously an experienced editor.
So six out of the ten are very new. One is apparently a sock puppet and has been blocked. Just one of them seems to be an administrator (but I didn't check that too closely). This contrasts strongly with those who endorsed Kelly's response. --Tony Sidaway 19:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. Curious: would you consider me experienced, with my 2,800 odd? rootology (T) 19:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Nearly all very recent edits indeed. --Tony Sidaway 20:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Check out

this. rootology (T) 22:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Already responded. :) --Tony Sidaway 22:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Sorry Tony, didn't intend spam

I didn't intend that to be spam. I remembered your name from when the article-which-I-won't-link was very active and thought you might be interested in what appears to be the denoument of that story. My apologies for inadvertently spamming. — Saxifrage ✎ 21:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I just make a habit of ignoring solicitations. --Tony Sidaway 22:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/o/n/User_talk%7ETony_Sidaway_Archive_2006_08_23_20c0.html"