User talk:Tony Sidaway

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm probably going to be busy for a bit. Try email but don't expect a prompt response. 25 Oct 2006

Contents 1 key punch 2 Socks 3 Arbcom is and ts 4 Locus Beli for Falun Gong arbitration 5 Ian Paisley‎ 6 300 7 Armed Blowfish's signature 8 Refactoring other people's messages 9 Please unprotect User:Facto/Userboxes/Conservative 10 WP:JUPE 11 Links to and promoting attack sites 12 Please stop reverting me in Wikipedia space 13 The Shakespeare Code 14 Bananas 15 Requesting help 16 About Template:Filmimage

[edit] key punch

I noticed you added "and automatic generation of card sequence numbers in columns 73-80" to the program card functions in key punch. But wasn't it the case that only the 129 could do this (and the 129 didn't use program cards, but had the equivalent electronic memory)? I mostly used 029s and I don't remember that feature. (Also, presumably it could be in any columns.) -R. S. Shaw 03:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Please remove the reference. I probably misremembered. Of the punches I occasionally used at university in the late 1970s, the IBM punches were the more sophisticated but I don't recall a model number. I seem to recall a program card feature, suggesting an 029 punch. I think I made use of a sequence feature but on reflection I don't think it had to do with the program card. It is possible that another punch provided this feature. I held a temporary job that gave me access various models of punches, and when producing longer card decks I would use sequencing in order to guard against accidental scrambling of the card decks. --Tony Sidaway 13:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. (I now notice the article actually lists the codes - no seq number.) -R. S. Shaw 03:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Socks

Hi. I know you were involved with the arbcom case on Rovoam. This user is back to Wikipedia, vandalizing certain pages, such as these [1] [2] and there are a couple of suspicious accounts, which make edits similar to that banned user. Could please help investigate the issue? Please the evidence here: [3] [4] I might be wrong, but I suspect that User:Zurbagan and User:Pulu-Pughi are socks of that banned user. Thank you. Regards, Grandmaster 07:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

If there's a strong suspicion that he's Rovoam, I suggest that you put it to the community at Wikipedia:Community noticeboard. Rovoam's problem behavior included extensive sock puppeting, impersonation, and targeting another editor for personal attacks. Unless he has changed his behavior to be acceptable, a community ban may be in order. --Tony Sidaway 13:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the only way to check is to get the suspicious accounts checkusered, but checkuser was denied on the grounds that there's no evidence of community ban of Rovoam. Please see: [5] Was there any specific community ban of this user? And also, if it is not possible to establish whether or not those new accounts belong to Rovoam, it is really urgent to check if the accounts appearing one after another to edit the same article about Ziya Bunyadov belong to the same person. For some reason this is also rejected. Sorry to bother you with this, but I would appreciate your advice. Rovoam's behavior has not changed, he recently vandalised the userpage of Codex Sinaiticus. Grandmaster 15:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why the precondition for a checkuser is here being presented as a community ban. Rovoam was a very disruptive editor whose behavior was handled by arbitration and administrator action. The concept of a community ban, insofar as it existed in early 2005 when this occurred, was probably far less well developed than it is now, so its relevance to this case is questionable. I'll ask a checkuser if he can explain why this checkuser request is being refused. --Tony Sidaway 15:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Examining User:Zurbagan's edits, it's clear that he's up to no good and he should probably be blocked indefinitely. The extremely provocative behavior is strongly reminiscent of Rovoam. User:Pulu-Pughi's edits are apparently in good faith, and I see no grounds for a checkuser there unless, in future edits, he should engage in destructive editing. --Tony Sidaway 17:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I have a reason to suspect that Zurbagan (talk • contribs) and Pulu-Pughi (talk • contribs) are the same person. If you look at the history of Ziya Bunyadov article, you’ll see that it was created by MarkHessen (talk • contribs) and Վաչագան (talk • contribs), who both are proven socks of Robert599 (talk • contribs). Zurbagan appeared 2 days after the above 3 accounts were blocked, and made his very first edit to Ziya Bunyadov article. After a while another account, User:Pulu-Pughi appeared and made his very first edit to the same page about Ziya Bunyadov. It is very strange when new users make their very first edits to the same article, considering that it is quite an obscure one. I suspect that those accounts are socks of Robert599, and I also suspect that Robert599 himself is a sock of User:Rovoam. This disruptive edit [6] is indeed highly reminiscent to Rovoam, and was reverted by the admin. Whether it’s Rovoam or not, this still requires an investigation, however the checkuser request was denied. I would appreciate your help with investigation of this matter. Grandmaster 19:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm working on this. The key to dealing with Rovoam, I have found, is not checkuser but careful observation and analysis. He unmasks himself sooner or later. If it's him, we'll soon know and can then deal with him decisively. If it isn't him, then we will have benefited from the process of observation and deduction. --Tony Sidaway 19:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, he indeed will show who he is sooner or later. He can use different IPs, but he does not change his behavior. But it would still be good to know if Zurbagan and Pulu-Pughi are the same person or not, in case that it is not Rovoam. Checkuser is the only way to find out. Grandmaster 20:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, I think that the community ban on Rovoam should be formalized according to the current Wikipedia policies. I don’t know how it could be done, but it needs to be done to prevent checkuser requests being rejected on the grounds we discussed above, since Rovoam is unlikely to stop his disruptive activity here. Grandmaster 06:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arbcom is and ts

WP:RFAR#Betacommand: Shouldn't every named party have their own section? That's why I made them one, but you seem to have deleted them. Was I wrong? --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

No, I just think it's tidier if we let people create their own sections. --Tony Sidaway 19:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Locus Beli for Falun Gong arbitration

you posted this, I think--let me know if I am mistaken:

"The dispute is over editing of articles related to the controversial Chinese movement, Falun Gong, including but not limited to the articles whose current titles are Falun Gong, Suppression of Falun Gong, Li Hongzhi, Criticism and controversies about Falun Gong, Teachings of Falun Gong, The Epoch Times, Theoretical and epistemological studies on Falun Gong. The overwhelming body of evidence submitted relates to edits on these articles, their talk pages, and the talk pages of the participants."

without making too much fuss about it, I would just like to kindly point out that one of the constant points of contention in these articles are definitions and how they are used. Here, Falun Gong is described as a "controversial Chinese movement"--I don't know who came up with that definition. If it is yours, I don't want to attack it, but just say that at least I disagree with it. In particular, if this is to be used as a kind of official arbitration assessment criteria, or whatever it is, I object to this definition. Some would have Falun Gong described as a dangerous, homophobic mind control cult, while others would call it a traditional Chinese cultivation practice, zillions of other definitions. So who decides? The above definition certainly isn't neutral in any case. Besides this, I think the definition can just be taken out in this case, because we all know or have our own ideas about what Falun Gong is. Maybe you did not even consider this would be an issue. Anyway, if that is your definition I would request you just have it read "The dispute is over editing of articles related to Falun Gong..." and leave it at that. There will be no agreement on a universal and legitimate definition. What we need to do in the articles is neutrally present the various definitions found in reliable sources, but since there is obviously no scope for that here, I think it would be best just to not make a definition. What do you reckon? I won't be able to respond for a while probably, but this is just my request/suggestion.--Asdfg12345 18:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

That seems reasonable, so I've removed the word "controversial." --Tony Sidaway 19:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I need to apologise though, because now I think I am making a fuss... :( --Asdfg12345 21:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ian Paisley‎

Good work there. Jkelly 02:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 300

I think the protection of the 300 article is probably a little too quick. There was a brief spat earlier this evening about whether to include a particular section that is under discussion. There were some opportunistic edits. However there isn't really much in the way of an edit war, and the subject is being discussed on the talk page. Would you please unprotect? --Tony Sidaway 23:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I'll unprotect the article in the hopes that the worsening situations stops getting worse. -- Tariqabjotu 23:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at the article now; would you agree things have not calmed down? -- Tariqabjotu 17:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

No, it hasn't. I was wrong. --Tony Sidaway 17:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Armed Blowfish's signature

Hello! Based on the fact that you refactored my signature from Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) to Armedblowfish on Wikipedia:Administrator's Noticeboard, [7] I am assuming that you really don't like it. I would appreciate knowing why.

Before you respond, I would like to tell you why I like my signature the way it is:

• As a mediator, some users, many of which may be new to Wikipedia, may wish to contact me, publicly or privately. New users might not be familiar with user talk pages, and, more likely, the email link. For those who are familiar with those features, the links serve as a welcome to contact me, and reduces the amount of clicking they have to do. This could be particularly helpful for dial-up users, for whom the extra clicks could mean considerable extra time.
• I prefer to spell out "talk" and "mail" to make the words AltaVista friendly, for contributors who do not know English well. Also see this essay about acronyms on Wikipedia.
• I know my signature is long, but in order to avoid creating an extra scroll bar in the edit box it is broken up with spaces. It is also underneath the 200 character limit recommended by signature guideline, at 116 characters if I counted correctly.
• As for showing "Armed Blowfish" as opposed to "Armedblowfish", Wikipedia:Changing usernames recommends changing one's signature rather than using up server resources.

Sorry if I am wasting space on your talk page, but you seem to feel strongly on the issue.

Thanks for listening, Armed Blowfish 00:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

You're entitled to have a signature, but sometimes when I edit a talk page I find that it's a forest of rubbish unrelated to the discussion, and I take the opportunity to remove the rubbish. Usually this is becase I cannot see the words of the discussion I'm replying to. All the signature needs to do is identify you and point to your userspace. If there is more that people should know, adding it to your userpage is far more efficient than appending it to every single comment you may make in any context on every singly talk page you ever edit. --Tony Sidaway 00:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Come to think of it, I'm not sure I even need a user page. How would you feel about a signature like this: Armed Blowfish (mail) ? That would bring it down to less than one line in the edit box, at least at my screen width. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 00:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

They're both very large signatures, in my opinion. --01:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry it took me so long to reply. Perhaps I will shorten it some more if another person complains. In any case, thanks for giving me inspiration on what to do with my mess of a user page.  : ) Armed Blowfish 02:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Refactoring other people's messages

Please don't do this [8] unless you have a really good reason. Thanks. The Behnam 01:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Rest assured that I always have an excellent reason. --Tony Sidaway 01:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Later: looking back at that edit I've got to say that I've no idea how that understrike crept into it. Possibly my finger strayed over some icon at the top of the edit box. I thought you were referring to something else entirely. --Tony Sidaway

[edit] Please unprotect User:Facto/Userboxes/Conservative

Or at least add

<noinclude>[[Category:Political user templates|Conservative]]</noinclude>

to it. By the way, how was the category used for vote stacking? Blast_san 03.04.07 0019 (UTC)

I can't unprotect it. --Tony Sidaway 01:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:JUPE

Jupe comes from the IRC term Jupe (IRC), older Internet jargon for a name that is administratively unavailble. xaosflux 12:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Links to and promoting attack sites

Hello, per Wikipedia:Harassment#Types_of_harassment/posting of personal information, links to Wikipedia Review are disallowed. It is an attack site that cannot be linked to, advertised, or promoted, supported by previous ArbCom decisions. I've removed this link and promotion of a hostile site that attacks and attempts to out the IRL identities of Wikipedians from your old user page at User:Tony Sidaway/old userpage, per this:

"Posting information on, or implying how to find, or simply posting the address of a website which publishes such information is also harassment, regardless of whether the posted link is live or just a bare URL. This is because it places the other person at unjustified and uninvited risk of harm in "the real world" or other media. This applies whether or not the person whose personal information is being revealed is a Wikipedia editor.""

Thanks for your understanding. -DennyColt 17:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I'd forgotten about that link. It certainly wasn't intended as promotion of the many attacks on that site. --Tony Sidaway 22:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please stop reverting me in Wikipedia space

Please don't revert any more of my posts in Wikipedia space.[9] [10] If posts are at all widely perceived as "opinionated and unhelpful" or "personal attacks", then somebody who is neutral on the issues debated—as you are not in this case—can probably be trusted to remove them. Thank you. Bishonen | talk 11:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC).

• Tony, really there was no point in this edit. There were no grave personal attack, just a general slightly sarcastic chat. Bish is not a troll and you are not her mentor or a close friend (who sometimes allowed to edit talk comments a little bit). Alex Bakharev 12:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

• I concur, especially as other comments were removed as well. Remember that WP:RPA failed strikingly, and, had it succeeded, it would in no way have applied. Removing the comments of others is a form of blanking/vandalism and can be treated that way. Geogre 15:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

• Agree that these reverts were needlessly aggressive. Friday (talk) 15:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll regretfully disagree with you. That was a very grave personal attack, compounded by multiple responses, and has absolutely no place on Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 19:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

"Very grave personal attack"? A slight exaggeration don't you think? David D. (Talk) 19:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

No. Even on its own. That it's part of a sustained campaign of denigration makes it far worse. This is not how Wikipedians behave. --Tony Sidaway 19:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I try not to follow this stuff in detail. David D. (Talk) 19:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Me too. Attacks like this are best denied all response. --Tony Sidaway 19:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

You may not remove the comments of others. If you believe that there has been a personal attack, you are free to be affronted, and even to "deny them," but that does not give you license to remove them. None at all. Removing the edits of others is a form of vandalism, and this can result in a block. Geogre 01:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

As usual your knowledge of Wikipedia policy is somewhat lacking. --Tony Sidaway 10:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Come on guys. There are some differences of opinion, OK, that happens. But can we try to work through them instead of slagging each other off? Yes Tony, that was a PA, but it was a pretty mild one. Either way, did it removing it raise or lower the temperature? Likewise Geogre, while I wouldn't have removed the comment myself, Tony does have the right to do so, and wise or not, it wasn't vandalism. And Tony, rather than attacking Geogre, what about pointing to the actual policy page you're relying on. This doesn't need to be personal. How about a nice cup of WP:TEA all round? (Plus a chocolate easter egg for good measure.) Regards, Ben Aveling 17:00, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Ben, thanks for giving me the opportunity to state the obvious: yes, in the circumstances it seems that removing the personal attack raised the temperature rather than lower it. There's no way I can improve matters here and I'll just have to leave them to it. --Tony Sidaway 02:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

May I suggest that when refactoring or removing comments you consider to be rude, you provide a link in the history to the original? See a conversation I had about this here. [11] Thanks, Armed Blowfish 03:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

That would defeat the purpose of removing the attack, which is to mitigate the damage it causes. The edit is still in the history, but it would definitely not be a good idea to draw attention to it by leaving a link. Ideally, nobody should be aware that the comment ever existed, for personal attacks do not belong on Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 03:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

People don't have to click on the links. If it is really something that bad, you could oversight it away and ban the user if he or she tries to re-add it. But in the more common borderline cases, what should happen when we can't agree on whether something is a personal attack or not? — Armed Blowfish 03:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Then the person who disagrees reverts. No problem. It's a wiki. --Tony Sidaway 04:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Shakespeare Code

Hi Tony. I reverted the edit on resemblances between Tooth & Claw. Rationale: The 3 parallels are stated clearly: the cod cliche companion dialogue & Doctor's response to it; Sir Doctor of TARDIS; and the Queens identifying the Doctor as an enemy. Each of these can be verified. Vivamancer 10:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, we crossed over. I've just placed a fairly long note on your talk page. Cheers. --Tony Sidaway 10:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Just noticed it! We must've been typing at the same time. I'd argue that the disputed paragraph isn't an interpretation or speculation. It's a statement of observation that TSC resembles T&C, citing 3 specific & verifiable examples. Interpretation of any further or deeper significance of that is up to the reader. (Mind you, it does make me wonder if the Doctor's knighthood is valid centuries before it's conferred by Victoria.) Cheers likewise Vivamancer 10:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Having said all that, & looked at the page again, Tony, I agree that the Section heading is 'References' rather than 'Resemblances'. The parallels & matched cited still stand up as specific & verifiable, though, rather than speculations or Orig R. (Phew. I need a cup of tea after this early morning pernicketing.) Cheers encore, 10:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC) (as was said in one of the Virgin New Adventures: "You're being pedantic!" "No, I'm being pernickety. NOW, I'm being pedantic!"

Re your point "On reflection it may qualify as a reference, but I'd prefer to see a comment from the production team as to their intentions" - I agree!

My personal (& highly-speculative-at-this-stage-of-the-series) theory (so shoot this down as you wish!) is that Queen Elizabeth's hostility to the Doctor at the end of TSC might foreshadows trouble later in this series, rather than an Elizabethan adventure in series 4.

This might make her violent reaction to the Doctor like Queen Vic's monologue about setting up the Torchwood Institute. QV's speech foreshadowed ongoing allusions to Torchwood throughout ser 2, its importance in the climax, and the spin-off. (n.b. The Face of Boe's prophecy in New Earth, though, does show that RTD sometimes foreshadows beyond the end of a series, though, so I may be wrong here).

RTD does, however, have that clear modus operandi of dropping in motifs through each series: Bad Wolf in ser 1; Torchwood in ser 2. This series' looks like it'll be Mr Saxon (already referred to in Torchwood). My bet is that Saxon is the Doctor's brother (hence the throwaway remark in Smith & Jones that he 'had a brother once'). I also suspect that Saxon will be The Master. In the Pertwee era, it was going to be revealed that the Master was the Doctor's brother, but Degaldo's death shelved the idea. It may be that The Master/Saxon is reponsible for Queen Bess's hostility. A wobbly house of cards at this stage, but watch this space... ;) Cheers Vivamancer 11:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I certainly think this is intended to foreshadow something. I'd put money on a Saxon connection, and probably a Torchwood one, too. The pattern of hostile queens is intended to make you think of Torchwood. But of course that could just be a cheeky blind. --Tony Sidaway 11:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bananas

In The Empty Child, the Doctor says: "I like bananas; bananas are good!" in a serious situation - ie he was going off at a tangent. Later in that episode, he says "Don't drop the banana." "Why not?" "Good source of potassium!". Then, in The Girl in the Fireplace, he says, while pretending to be drunk, "Always take a banana to a party: bananas are good!". It's a running theme, similar to Saxon - well, not really!--Rambutan (talk) 06:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the problem is that bananas are so ridiculously yummy. He isn't the only person with this opinion. --Tony Sidaway 06:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Give me a break! "Bananas are riduculously yummy" is original research! The Doctor's remarks are distinctive. Just stop ruining Doctor Who articles. I've read your talkpage, and it seems you do a lot of this stuff. You're not the only one who knows about WP policy, and knowledge doesn't automatically make you right. OK?--Rambutan (talk) 07:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

"Bananas are ridiculously yummy", while expressing my opinion, is intended as a lighthearted remark. Why are you taking this all so seriously? --Tony Sidaway 08:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Because I find you absolutely infuriating. You have not only deluded yourself that you know everything about Wikipedia policy, you also think you're the only person who knows anything about it. Can you never accept that you're wrong?--Rambutan (talk) 08:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't claim either to know everything about Wikipedia policy, or that there exists or could exist any person who does, or that if such a person did exist there could only possibly be one, or for that matter that there could not possibly be only one, or that there would not necessarily be only one, or that there would not necessarily be more than one. Your statement is simply incorrect. The basis of your grievance is a chimera.

You ask "Can you never accept that you're wrong?" and yet on your talk page not two hours ago I wrote that I could have a blind spot about bananas [12]. Have you forgotten this? --Tony Sidaway 08:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

You said that and then continued arguing your point here. Like when you said "He isn't the only person with this opinion". Forgotten that?--Rambutan (talk) 08:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

No. I said "Yes, the problem is that bananas are so ridiculously yummy. He isn't the only person with this opinion." This was by way of explaining my blind spot. I'm sorry if you thought I was still arguing to remove the reference to the banana obsession of the time traveller. --Tony Sidaway 08:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requesting help

Tony, I noticed that in the past you blocked User:Gump for vandalism. He is now at it again, in the Rob Bell article. He has broken the 3 reverts rule several times over in the past 24 hours and he is spamming the article with irellevant passages. There are several users involved in this edit war and he is refusing to participate in discussions and collaborate on the article in a constructive manner. I really don't know where to turn to for help; perhaps you could take a look at this issue and provide some guidance as to where to go. User:Gump has also reverted my changes to his talkpage and earlier today requested his userpage to be deleted in an effort to remove evidence to his rule-breaking. Could you please help, or at least advise me on what to do about this? --Virgil Vaduva 15:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Well looking at the block, that was a long time ago, but I'll investigate and get back to you on your talk page. --Tony Sidaway 18:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] About Template:Filmimage

About your edit in the above template: I have posted a comment with a problem it creates to our project's needs. I am not aware of the exact reason it has changed, but it is now asking for the wrong thing. Please help us solve this problem. Hoverfish Talk 20:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)