User talk:Tony1: Difference between revisions

FACs needing feedback ; view • edit
Five Nights at Freddy's: Help Wanted	Review it now
Roswell incident	Review it now
La Isla Bonita	Review it now

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 03:48, 19 November 2008

Template:Werdnabot

This editor is not an administrator and does not wish to be one.

Real-life workload: 10

1 = no work pressure
5 = middling
> 5 = please don't expect much
10 = frenzied

Please note that I don't normally (1) copy-edit articles, or (2) review articles that are not candidates for promotion to featured status.

Wikipedia:Peer review/WrestleMania XXIV/archive1

Hey, do you have time to look over this article and give it a review? iMatthew 22:43, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Fraid not: 10 at top of this page? Just looking in briefly each night. Tony (talk) 07:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To the musical strains of a Heavenly oratorio…

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/March_1 Greg L (talk) 04:38, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well… that was interesting… Greg L (talk) 05:20, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you’d be fascinated by this complaint Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#More questionable behavior from WT:MOSNUM. Greg L (talk) 06:47, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beta testing needed

I think I have fixed the comma issue (and made the code much more efficient) but I need feedback from beta testers. All you have to do is go to your monobook replace the current script with:

importScript('User:Lightmouse/monobook.js/test_script.js');

The two scripts won't work together. Lightmouse (talk) 15:47, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beta testing complete. Use the normal script. Lightmouse (talk) 15:57, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decade article

In response to your post at the years project, would you like to help out with our 1340s draft? Wrad (talk) 20:28, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would indeed, and have bookmarked it. As you may have seen, my RL work-stress is on 9.5 out of 10. By Friday, it should be downs to something more manageable and I'll take a proper look. Tell me, to what extent does it borrow from 1345? Tony (talk) 11:30, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So far, bits from 1345 are in the Americas and Africa sections, the Reconquista sections, and the Black Plague section. Other sections have dwarfed whatever they borrowed. Wrad (talk) 18:13, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note

Hello, Tony1. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at WP:AN regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic WP:AN#Review. Thank you.MBisanz ^talk 20:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SS Carl D. Bradley and DYK

Noticed your recent contribution. Because of the impending 50th anniversary, I thought this might be a good DYK. I was told (on my talk page) that we are about 5000 bytes away from the cut off -- there already have been some substantial updates. So I'm recruiting help. If you can find the time, it would be appreciated. Happy editing. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 14:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC) Stan[reply]

I'd love to help, but I have to be parsimonious with my Wiki time budget at the moment. End of next week I might be able to do a fly-by on it and suggest things. Tony (talk) 14:23, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review it and lighten up Tony's load. Give me 2-3 days. =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:34, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WT:FAC

Have you abandoned FAC and FAR? There's a discussion here, following on the withdrawal of Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mark Speight/archive2 that you might want to participate in. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warning regarding unlinking of dates

As this practice (and the actual manual of style guideline) are currently in dispute, you should probably back off of unlinking dates until the dispute is resolved. Prior ArbCom cases have looked unfavorably on editors who attempt to force through disputed changes on a massive scale as you (and other editors) are doing. Specifically, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Episodes_and_characters_2/Proposed_decision#Fait_accompli, which I quote:

Editors who are collectively or individually making large numbers of similar edits, and are apprised that those edits are controversial or disputed, are expected to attempt to resolve the dispute through discussion. It is inappropriate to use repetition or volume in order to present opponents with a fait accompli or to exhaust their ability to contest the change. This applies to many editors making a few edits each, as well as a few editors making many edits.
— Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Episodes_and_characters_2/Proposed_decision#Fait_accompli

Continuing this behavior could be considered disruption. Please stop and instead participate in the ongoing discussions at WT:MOSNUM and elsewhere. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:19, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am taking absolutely no notice of this attempt to bully and intimidate me into submission, by someone who is pursuing his own self-indulgent crusade. I will continue to assist editors to comply with WP's style guides. Tony (talk) 11:40, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with unlinking dates, but this kind of change of style needs to happen gradually rather than forced though en masse. We need to give time for people who did not already participate in the discussion to join in, rather than saying it has already been decided. I haven't been watching you edits so I don't know if this applies to you, just a general comment. --Apoc2400 (talk) 14:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your supportive comment. But ... "forced through en masse" is a bit spin-like; I'd say "editors are spared manual compliance with the style guides by supervised automation", and that there's no earthly reason to go slow in this. Does it frighten you? Tony (talk) 15:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I missed the dramaz, but this all is amazingly absurd. Must be delayed effect of the full moon. Gimmetrow 02:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow

Wow tony. After delinking the dates tennis expert and his crew is reverting and linking dates and that person says in the edit summary "There is no consensus to delete existing date links". Iam not sure if that person should be taken to ANI or RFC for simply reverting. If i may ask how long do you think we have keep on delinking the same page over and over and over again?. --SkyWalker (talk) 15:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Better than most of us, Tony knows that the right answer per WP:BRD and WP:3RR is "once, then discuss" after the first revert.LeadSongDog (talk) 15:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the "catchy title" department

... can you peek at Wikipedia:FCDW/WBFAN? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When you get to it, there's a big jumble of numbers in the intro; maybe you can figure a way to make it less like an accounting article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:23, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

August 1, 2003

I was stunned to see the discussion on this closed as "no consensus, default to keep", since very few people suggested an outright keep, and most would have been satisfied with a merge. I honestly don't think the closing administrator paid attention to any of the comments. Regardless of how you felt on this issue-- delete, merge, keep -- I think that everyone's comments showed that a lot of people care about this issue, and "no consensus" was similar to a snub. I've asked for a review, and invite everyone to give their two cents worth at [1]. Best wishes. Mandsford (talk) 23:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who can you recommend as a good layout consultant, especially w.r.t. numerous images?

Tony, I’ve been working on cleaning up the Fighter aircraft article. I’ve identified two major areas that need serious clean-up work – flat lists and images – but I have little experience with the technical in’s-and-out’s of images. Given your experience with FARs, who would you recommend as good folks to ask for advice? Thanks, Askari Mark (Talk) 04:45, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mark, I've asked Sandy for advice on this. Good for me to know too. Tony (talk) 08:01, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Misplaced comment?

MOS-issues make my head spin, but this comment seems out of place? I thought that section was about dashes not dates? Shenme (talk) 06:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

I've blocked you for 12 hours for edit warring on Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). On November 10 you were warned for edit warring and you acknowledged that warning here and here (although those acknowledgments weren't too promising). Unfortunately, you continued today with further reverts. Please review WP:EDITWAR during your block. If you wish to contest it, please place {{unblock|your reason here}} on this page. Slow edit warring is still edit warring.

Given you have never been blocked, your block will only last 12 hours. I trust that you will pursue dispute resolution in the future rather than edit war. Regards, - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:54, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is just about one of the most absurd blocks that I've ever seen, and I've seen some pretty daft blocks. This is an outrageous abuse of power on Rjd0060's part, and I hope he will reflect on whether he is fit to continue as an administrator. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry you feel that way. All three users who felt the need to continue edit warring were blocked. No exception here. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Am I expected to congratulate you because your abuse of power was even-handed? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Question: how is this block absurd? – How do you turn this on (talk) 17:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Do you mean "Why is this block absurd?" If so, see below. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:46, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        No, I mean what I say :-) – How do you turn this on (talk) 17:51, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        In which case I don't know what you mean. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Was there some reason not to simply topic ban?LeadSongDog (talk) 17:22, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, that needs community consensus or an outstanding arbcom sanction, something that I am sure it would not give. This would also need to be more than his first block. I don't think it was an abuse of power, very heavy-handed, but not an abuse of power; it was an edit war and it had been dragging on forever. Personally, I was about to fully protect the page, or asked someone else to, it would have achieved the same goal but without alienating editors. Regards. Woody (talk) 17:31, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Protecting the page would have been the rational thing to do. You call dishing out these blocks "heavy-handed". I stick with "an abuse of power", which will inevitably lead to alienating editors and may well cause more damage than it was intended to prevent. A grave mistake, which is why I question Rjd0060's fitness for the role of administrator. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:44, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Full protection was applied for a week earlier this month. None of the parties attempted to resolve their conflict during the week of protection and resumed the edit war as soon as protection expired. MBisanz ^talk 17:49, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - (ec) Exactly what damage was this so-called edit war causing to the encyclopedia? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:52, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Ideally, the page should be protected until parties can agree not to edit war over it. If people continue to edit war, violating policy, what can you expect? I don't think Rjd was that heavy handed here. – How do you turn this on (talk) 17:51, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I am firmly of the opinion that it was an abuse of power on Rjd0060's part which demonstrates that he does not have the judgement necessary to be an administrator. Your mileage may of course vary, don't much care frankly. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Malleus, have you lost your way? When did you acquire the notion that judgement was necessary to become an administrator? Wake up and smell the roses. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:30, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Yep, I got a bit carried away there Sandy. Won't happen again. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:43, 18 November 2008 (UTC)#[reply]
        Obviously people who pass adminship with over 100 supports and no opposes whatsoever have very poor judgement. – How do you turn this on (talk) 18:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, I certainly do. I'm still trying to figure this one out, though. The tag was changed from disputed to under discussion. Would I dispute that, or would I merely strongly discuss it? --Moni3 (talk) 18:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Well I don't think it matters now, hopefully Tony will do the right thing and stop edit warring. The return of the old boring "admins all have poor judgement and are abusive" meme here is simply distracting the issue at hand though. – How do you turn this on (talk) 19:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Hmm, per Bishonen below, I have to agree with you here, sadly. Though I would disagree with calling it abuse, probably a mistake is more accurate. But as you say, our opinions will differ. – How do you turn this on (talk) 18:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What the...? Tony has made one further edit to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) after MBisanz' warning. That's a war now?? I've taken this to WP:ANI. Bishonen | talk 18:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]

I've unblocked you, Tony1, and Locke Cole as well, per the growing consensus at ANI. I strongly encourage you to pursue dispute resolution and not to revert each other anymore. - Rjd0060 (talk) 18:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I strongly encourage you to do I will leave for others to guess. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:28, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just come into this. I will pursue action against this blocker for breaching tenets of the admin policy. The action is akin to the worst kind of fascism (random, sudden, arbitrary, unreasonable). Tony (talk) 01:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC) PS And unfortunately my RL work does not allow me to take this action for a day or two. I simply have no time. Tony (talk) 02:01, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- FWIW I will be 100% behind you when you do, for exactly the same reason. This kind of admin bullying has got to be nipped in the bud. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it is high time that a centralised noticeboard be created to document and monitor admin abuses of editors. I've been advised that complaining through the "official" channels is a waste of html, because they all band together to support each other. It is also apparent that the removal of adminship requires an act of both houses of parliament. I'm thinking through the design of such a noticeboard, for creation in my userspace. If WP has failed to provide a balanced system of discipline and demotion, it is up to the people (us) to do the best we can to apply pressure through such documentation and monitoring to put an end to bullying and arbitrary, out-of-proportion punishment that is being handed down. Feedback here is welcome; when the plans are more concrete, I will publicise them. Tony (talk) 03:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 172: / Line 172: @@
 *Just come into this. I will pursue action against this blocker for breaching tenets of the admin policy. The action is akin to the worst kind of fascism (random, sudden, arbitrary, unreasonable). [[User:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">'''Tony'''</font >]] [[User talk:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">(talk)</font >]] 01:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC) PS And unfortunately my RL work does not allow me to take this action for a day or two. I simply have no time. [[User:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">'''Tony'''</font >]] [[User talk:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">(talk)</font >]] 02:01, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 **FWIW I will be 100% behind you when you do, for exactly the same reason. This kind of admin bullying has got to be nipped in the bud. --[[User:Malleus Fatuorum|Malleus Fatuorum]] ([[User talk:Malleus Fatuorum|talk]]) 02:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
+*I believe it is high time that a centralised noticeboard be created to document and monitor admin abuses of editors. I've been advised that complaining through the "official" channels is a waste of html, because they all band together to support each other. It is also apparent that the removal of adminship requires an act of both houses of parliament. I'm thinking through the design of such a noticeboard, for creation in my userspace. If WP has failed to provide a balanced system of discipline and demotion, it is up to the people ('''us''') to do the best we can to apply pressure through such documentation and monitoring to put an end to bullying and arbitrary, out-of-proportion punishment that is being handed down. Feedback here is welcome; when the plans are more concrete, I will publicise them. [[User:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">'''Tony'''</font >]] [[User talk:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">(talk)</font >]] 03:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)