User talk:Tony Sidaway

user

talk

watchlist

watched

sandbox

user links

deletion

more links

Template:User Tony Sidaway/User

This is my talk page. Click here to leave a new message.

Maoririder

In looking over a lot of stuff, the whole thing about Maoririder all looks like a lot of wasted server time. Where did we come up with the idea that he is mentally retarded or just a kid? There are two possibilities as I see it: A) Maoririder is playing a game of good edit/bad edit on purpose, or B) Maoriride is just a new Wikipedian who is still learning and perhaps isn't trying to be very specific with his stub creations because he doesn't grasp the situation yet. I think that I have to agree with your argument that he is just new, but don't agree with any arguement that he is retarded or autuistic, at least not yet.--MONGO 08:16, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

• From the Evidence page: "The evidence presented against Maoririder thus seeks to misrepresent Maoririder's removal of his admitted personal attack as a craven, cowardly act of concealment. Who is violating community norms here?". I noted that he removed the attack, and then denied ever making one. I don't recall using the words "craven" or "cowardly". I don't think he's either. If you want to slander me, than open up an RfC or RfAr against me. --Scimitar ^parley 14:57, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Or you could just stop blatantly misrepresenting the evidence. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 17:04, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I didn't use the words "craven" or "cowardly". Who's misrepresenting what?--Scimitar ^parley 17:21, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm simply asking where the notion that Maoririder is retarded came from. I see evidence of problematic use and of personal attacks but also see that he is relatively new. He has similar editing style to Gabrielsimon. I'm taking a stand here, just was curious if all the evidence supports the diagnosis...an Rfc is NOT something I have any intention of recording. Without using Tony's talk page for a filibuster, also curious where you got the idea I was claiming that you used the words "craven" or "cowardly" as I haven't called anyone that to my knowledge.--MONGO 20:52, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I've responded on your talk pg. --Scimitar ^parley 21:15, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Scimitar, the presentation of evidence against Maoririder, upon which I was commenting, falsely claimed that he was trying to cover up an attack he had made. It was a de facto accusation of craven, cowardly, despicable behavior, and completely unfounded. Withdraw that false accusation. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 23:44, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

• If you check the page, you'll notice that I editted my contribution well before you asked me to withdraw it. I have my faults, but I hope blind stubbornness isn't one of them.--Scimitar ^parley 14:33, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

stub cleanup

If you're wanting to help Maoririder clean up his stubs, he's got a new batch here: Special:Contributions/Bluejays2006. Best of luck getting a repeat edit from him on them. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 19:08, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

With all due respect, count me out. I'm through with this whole affair. Why I've become the bad guy in all this is beyond me. I didn't file the complaint. I only supported it in hopes the guy would straighten up and fly right. I'm taking a break since, quite frankly, I've become sick of Maoririder trashing me when all I tried to do was to help. I'll probably change my mind once I've cooled off, but for now, I'm taking myself off the project for a bit. I wish you the best in trying to help this user. We did it with SuperDude115; I thought we could do it with Maoririder. Maybe we still can. - Lucky 6.9 00:20, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for Your Apology

File:Missing barnstar.JPG

Have you Seen This Barnstar?

I did lose some sleep last night about this whole thing, i've become something of a Wiki-Addict, and I have never been particularly adept dealing with intrapersonal rivalries, especially those which arose through a misunderstanding. I believed that we might have had different goals regarding Maoririder, but i'm glad it seems that we only have differing opinions on how to reach that goal. Who knows? Eventually I may try to establish a Wikiproject for Disabled Wikipedians out of this effort. Anywho, since it looks like you haven't gotten a Barnstar lately, and your apology is worth one in my book, so I stuck a picture of what it looked like on that milk carton on the side. I'll sure somebody'll find it eventually;-) Karmafist 04:15, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Edit war

I suppose you know by now that after about a week of calm, User:Theathenae has returned with a vengance. He has edit warred many articles (including Arvanites). When I asked him to co-operate on his talk page, he just deleted my message here. If that is not bad faith, I don't know what it is. What should I do? I know that you're probably tired of this dispute by now, but please consider intervening. REX 10:24, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh I was busy with other cases for a bit, but I may have more time now. I'll take a look. But meanwhile, remember that it takes two to edit war. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 10:47, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry to pester you again (If you don't want to hear from me again, I'll understand, just tell me). Theathenae calls my GOOD FAITH and COOPERATION message wiki-stalking and deletes it without answering. Look! What should I do? Edit-war? I have already made another concession (it is an original research one, but necessary since Theathenae won't accept what the sources say). He just won't listen!!! REX 19:15, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Unprotection

Tony, I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't unprotect pages I've protected. If you feel something's been locked for too long, by all means leave a note on my talk page, and I'll see to it. For example, the Open gaming dispute has been going on since January at least, possibly before, between two editors, and they seem to be the only two who edit it. Six days to sort it out is therefore not too long, and I was waiting for one of them to respond to the latest point before unprotecting; I'm also in touch with both by e-mail. I won't re-protect, because I think they're about ready to start editing again, but in future I would really appreciate being allowed to unprotect pages I have protected, unless there's a request for unprotection from someone not involved in the dispute, and I'm not around. I know you don't like protected pages, but it's sometimes better than blocking for 3RR and having people attack each other on talk pages. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:28, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate your feelings, but a personality clash isn't really a good justification for keeping an article protected from all edits. I don't see 3RR as an alternative to page protection--just get the editors to agree not to edit war. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 02:31, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

That had already been tried, to no avail, and it was becoming increasingly bitter, with both parties requesting help: there had already been a RfM, an article RfC, and a rejected RfAr. I therefore checked to see whether anyone else was editing it, and after establishing that no one was, I protected it, put up another article RfC, asked for help on the mailing list from anyone knowledgeable in the area, and engaged in e-mail correspondence with both parties, as well as explaining our policies to the new-ish one. It has gone quite well, and an agreement is close by the looks of it. My point is that often the protecting admin knows the dispute and is better placed to decide when to unprotect. Also, in general I feel that admins shouldn't undo each other's work by unprotecting or unblocking, unless a clear error has been made and/or the original admin isn't available — although that doesn't mean we shouldn't raise issues with other admins when we disagree with them. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:52, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Traditional Catholics

I am unclear as to why you locked the "Traditionalist Catholic" page again. I made the "wholesale edit" (which I didn't know was some breach of etiquette), was told not to, so then just posted the definition agreed upon in the talk pages. But that, too, was reverted and the page locked. I don't understand. Used2BAnonymous 05:41, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Also, the structure used was the one recommended by Pathoschild (the moderator), and worked out among us all. Used2BAnonymous 05:46, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Apologies for the screw-up. I unprotected. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 05:50, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, Mr. Sidaway.. S'all good : ) Used2BAnonymous 06:08, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

More personal attacks by User:Cool Cat

Please see: Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek/mentorship#More personal attacks by User:Cool Cat. — Davenbelle 06:16, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Albert M. Wolters Talk page

Just curious: why wasn't Talk:Albert M. Wolters undeleted in addition to undeleting the article? Is the discussion there now irrelevant? --Tabor 19:41, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually I'd no idea that it had been deleted. I don't think it's normal practice to delete talk pages, except for mischievous pages. I'll undelete it and merge in my comment. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 21:12, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

That's my fault, I deleted the talk page when I deleted the article per AfD. In hindsight it was a mistake - indeed deleting the article was probably a mistake since the AfD consensus was illogical. Tony, I do think we need a mechanism to review bad AfD decisions (like this one) and not just the process. But, for the record, I'm a little uncomfortable with you unilaterally restoring this - are you now the last court of appeal in any process! Doc (?) 21:27, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Doc. I know it's uncomfortable, but IAR is like that. A corollary of IAR is that I'm putting my reputation on the line. If this article is deleted I personally will not undelete again, but I rely on others who think the article is a worthwhile one to undelete it. I am pretty sure we can ensure that way that there is a clear lack of consensus to delete. Deletion policy has this: if in doubt, don't delete. Honestly we should not be deleting good stuff, because it's a stupid thing to do. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 21:50, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

• No, it doesn't. - brenneman^(t)(c) 06:28, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes it does. I've restored the material that, without discussion, you removed from the deletion policy. Don't do that again, it's utterly disgusting and sneaky. Quite beyond belief. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 16:23, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Hm, I trained as a lawyer - so maybe I'm a little over-fond of process - and unsure about arbitrary IAR (although I have used it myself). I think you could at least have waited to see if the VfU process would have come to the right result. Your unilateral action looks highhanded and anti-consensus - if everyone behaved like that we'd be in real trouble. On the other hand, what I don't get is the VfU 'this is about process not content' argument - so will they restore articles that are junk because they were deleted out of process - and refuse to reprieve articles that are good because proces was followed? (That process is in itself deeply flawed). If I was a stronger believer in IAR, I might be tempted to pull an Ed Poor on VfU right now! --Doc (?) 22:22, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

We've got a bureaucracy and as part of that bureaucracy you did something that you would not have done as an individual. Well maybe you don't view that kind of behavior as "high handed". I differ. At some point somebody with a bit of commonsense ought to be able to say "You know what? That decision was totally wack." I take it upon myself to do that, and every time I do it I'm risking my whole reputation. I'll do that only when I think it's worth doing so and I think there's a serious problem with the usual processes. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 23:00, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Maybe it's better to fix the process, than rely on (inevitably arbitrary) royal pardons? --Doc (?) 23:10, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I can't fix the process until I build a substantial head of complaint that, fuck it, good stuff keeps getting deleted and it shouldn't be. --Tony Sidaway^Talk

Hey

I have seen your name a lot lately... so have this Barnstar of Diligence for being so active on Wikipedia.

Take care. File:Smilie.gifMolotov (talk)
23:43, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, but those weird merkin star things really spook me. I've replaced that nasty barn pin thing with a nicer picture. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 00:01, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I like that...could you give me one of those. : ). File:Smilie.gifMolotov (talk)
00:07, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I take that as a 'no'. Take care anyway. File:Smilie.gifMolotov (talk)
00:25, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Hehe! You didn't give me a chance to respond! I don't hand out Hero of the Soviet Union awards lightly, you know. I'll have to consult the Revolutionary Committee, but in principle I see no reason not to award you. Thanks. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 00:48, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Deletion

I have no opinion on the subject of the article. I do not plan on voting on the second AfD. I do believe in process. This was a unanimous vote for deletion, and you decided to just go ahead and undelete it without even waiting to see what the VfU vote was going to be. You have no concern for other admins nor for process, only for whatever you think should be done, and everybody else, and all of Wikipedia with them, can go hang. User:Zoe|^(talk) 01:03, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

My objection to the VFU vote is in my email on wikien-l: to wit, that falsehoods are repeatedly raised as excuses to keep deleted. Summary undeletion is the only way to enforce the principle that content matters more than process. That this is an encyclopedia first, and a community second. Read the article, and stop making patently false claims about my opinion. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 01:07, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Albert_M._Wolters_(second_nomination)

It's vanity and cruft. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 01:47, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

It's people like you that make me frustrated with Wikipedia by circumventing the vfd (which was unamious,) and the ineffective dispute resolution methods. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 01:48, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Answer the question. Have you in fact read the article? --Tony Sidaway^Talk 01:52, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Independent school (UK) protection

Thanks for taking care of this. To be (somewhat) fair to the protecting admin, there wasn't a template placed because AFAIK there isn't one for move-only protection -- until recently, there wasn't really an explicit policy, either. Hopefully this will "bed down" more in time. Alai 03:12, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Sadness

I have decided to post this comment to you, as well as to the debate on Wolters.

Mr. Sidaway, would I be right, in the spirit of WP:IAR, to vandalize your user page because I think you are disruptive, and wished to show you how painful disruption can be? Anarchy is a vicious cycle. If we really ignored all rules, this project would fail. I haven't been here that long, but when I first arrived, I found you to be a good admin of sound judgment, and I liked you. Your recent attacks have been depressing. Make your points (which are often good ones) with logic, not with with disrespect for others. I do hope WP does not become a land of George W. Bush-esque unilateralism. I am sad.

I'll add to you here that I agree the article should be kept, and so voted. I also voted to Keep Deleted at VfU because I knew SteveBish, or myself, could easily expand the article, and achieve reposting quickly through process. Your actions just made things more complicated, made me lose a little faith in you, and did make me very sad. Xoloz 14:40, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

The VFU vote was a travesty because there is a clique there that denies that deletion policy mandates VFU to look at content, and goes to the lengths of removing from the VFU page actual quotes from the deletion policy that show their claims to be false. I have to say I'm depressed myself at your false claim that I closed the second AfD. I did nothing of the sort. I created the second AfD.

The suggestion you make above would fall afoul of WP:POINT. All I did was ignore all rules to achieve the end that would have been achieved, if VFU were not broken to the point where it ignores and misrepresents the undeletion policy. We must never delete good articles, and where AfD does so VFU is supposed to correct the error. When both fail, it's left to people like me to correct the error. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 15:09, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Mr Sidaway, it would fall afoul of WP:POINT if I vandalized you, but if I used IAR as a justification, does WP:POINT matter. As to my apparent incorrect reading of edit history, it matters little; creating the second AfD before VfU was done, in a self-admitted attempt to circumvent it, is just as much a depressing lack of respect for process. I will also add that I find your mentioning of WP:POINT in the context of my rhetorical question to be either odd or disingenious. You must have (or reasonably should have) realized that WP:IAR, as you contrue it in your actions, becomes a dangerous license to do all kinds of mischief.

Lastly, VfU had not failed. The article would probably have been undeleted, and the process worked. All you did by circumventing it was to cause disruption. Further, your observation, it is left to people like me to correct the error strikes me as plainly megalomaniacal. I am saddened further. Xoloz 15:53, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Call me Tony. Everybody else does.

Yes, WP:POINT would matter because you would have caused a fuss to demonstrate a point rather than to achieve a policy objective. That's the opposite of the way IAR works. If you don't understand the difference, and yet I tell you that there is a very real difference, maybe that explains why, on the few occasions I have ever use IAR, I have achieved the objective with little damage to my overall credibility, if any. In short, Xoloz, I recommend that you yourself avoid making use of IAR until and unless you can understand the difference.

Now that I correct you on one fact, you move to misstating another. As I said, I didn't close the new AfD, so now you falsely claim that I started the second AfD in order to circumvent VFU. Wrong, I undeleted the article in an act of circumvention of a corrupt and counter-policy process, that pertaining at present on VFU, which regularly stands and wrings it hands and incorrectly claims it cannot do anything to undelete perfectly good articles, if the process of deletion was formally correct. Actually I only completed the second nomination of the article because someone else had added the tag but failed to complete it. I don't like messy, dangling ends. Do you see a pattern here? You don't understand what's going on so you repeatedly misinterpret and misstate the facts.

You don't understand why I mentioned WP:POINT in relation to your suggestion. I do so simply because your suggestion would unequivocally fall under WP:POINT.

You falsely claim that VFU would probably have undeleted the article. No it wouldn't. VFU has been traduced and regularly denies the undeletion policy. Attempts to appeal to the content of a deleted article are falsely described as inadmissible arguments. Even you admit that you voted Keep deleted for some utterly nonsensical reason. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 16:40, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Mr. Sidaway, although I am an accomplished wordsmith and, as an attorney, a master of obtuse language, your second paragraph makes almost no sense to me whatsoever, except insofar as you seem to enjoy saying that I misstate things. As best I can tell (and this requires, admittedly, some work on my part in inferring what you mean, because your words seem horribly muddled to me) you appear so thoroughly convinced that VfU is flawed such that you are willing to see any act aimed at its sabotage as good, notwithstanding the fact that is unknown how many (if anyone) agrees with you that VfU is broken. So be it.

I will not seek to reason by analogy with you. (I could, for a hypothetical example, conclude that you, as an editor, are broken, and that any attempt to sabotage you would fall under IAR as an objective good... but no matter.) The fact is, I have a great distaste for IAR and (whatever subtleties you may have grasped that I fail to see) I would never invoke it in anything other than a hypothetical example.

From my point of view, it seems that you simply do not understand (or don't care understand) what due process means (I draw this conclusion not as an ad hominem, but based solely on your belief that my VfU vote was "absurd", when I explained it to what I consider very reasonable satisfaction, both to you, and at that forum.) So be it.

I continue baring you no ill-will as a person. I think you are probably a fine friend, and I have seen evidence that you have a sense of humor. I hope not to encounter you in an administrative capacity, for the opacity of your responses (from my POV at least) makes administrative-type discussions between us very, very likely to fail.

That said, I continue to assert that VfU is not broken, and I find no evidence given to suggest that it is. I will oppose most of the positions you take in this regard.

As you advised me that I don't understand your view of IAR (and, on that point, you are probably right), I advise you, in a friendly manner, that you should recognize that many other people have a way of viewing "due process" that is much different than yours. For many, "due process" is the best guarantee of fairness, justice, and (in circumstances much more grave than this) life and limb. When you act on your view of IAR, these people will be upset. It isn't because they misunderstand, it is because they have a different understanding of the good that process achieves. If you wish, you may try to empathize with them and with me; I implore you at least to recognize this difference. From their (and my) point of view, your endorsements of WP:IAR will likely seem highly egocentric; from yours, justified. My reasoning on that VfU was as far absurd as any reason can be, and unless and until you gain some appreciation of this, we will continue to speak different languages of logic.

If we were friends, I would have much more to say to you; and, if (for some bizarre reason), you wish to engage in a serious and somber debate on epistemology and personal conviction, I will gladly do so outside of WP. For WP contexts, though, my observations are complete. Again, my apologies for any perceived slights, injuries or misstatements. I only spoke to you because I hoped to communicate for our mutual benefit, but I am now of the opinion that the value criteria from which we each proceed (and the nature of the language and arguments we each employ) are likely so different as to be irreconcilable. For practical purposes, I hope you use IAR sparingly; my faith in due process is not shaken, and I hope you see the beauty of such methodical deliberation (as I understand it) someday. Best wishes, Xoloz 17:31, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry if my words seem muddled to you. I'll say it in short sentences. You're a lawyer. You think this is a court system with due process and all the paradiddle of real life. It isn't. When the rules get in the way of the encyclopedia, we ditch the rules, not the encyclopedia. Of course IAR is egocentric! You need to be an egomaniac to use it, and a very accomplished one to get away with it. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 18:13, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, I am surprised and pleased that you grasp why you might be considered an egomaniac by some. Perhaps your reasoning processes are not as far off of my earth as I thought. That admission does make your actions more consistent with motives I have seen before. When you use short sentences, your point is better conveyed to me. Whether this particular "ditching" of the rules was a good one, and whether (in the end), you'll "get away with it" is undecided, of course. Wolters will (and should) stay; but, in the process of expediting him, you have given me reason to doubt your administrative competence. Perhaps you win more fans than you alienate with this method. I suppose, also, that the reasonableness of your choices might affect the ratio of the "pissed off" to the admiring. Also affecting this ratio would probably be the behavior of those who share your interpretation of IAR (Snowspinner, Ed Poor, Neutrality, seem such examples to me.) Anyway, best of luck in the marketplace of ideas! I, for one, am absolutely certain that this particular IAR idea will lose. Notwithstanding your own skill as the "get away with" sort, if thing ever catches on at WP with a real idiot (over time, that is all but inevitable), its tryrannical potential will become obvious. Xoloz 19:03, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

That's why only egomaniacs ever use this method. It's like a tightrope walk. The idiots may try it, but they don't get away with it, so it's a self-correcting mechanism. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 19:45, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

There, we almost agree. I'm quite sure it self-corrects to zero because, over time, it is really hard to use IAR without looking like an idiot. You've obviously got skill, and you're still here, but whether you (or anyone) can manage the temptations of unilateral power in the long term... well, best of luck, as I said. Xoloz 19:53, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Robert Steadman - why did you unprotect?

Why did you unprotect Robert Steadman? It has been invaded by very similar vandalism today?

I can't work out how to protect it again.... could you return it to its protected state please?

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vhjh (talk • contribs) 16:45, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry you need to be an administrator actually to do the protection. I've fixed it now. In future, ask in Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. You can also use that page to request unprotection of a protected page.

I unprotected because we're not supposed to protect articles from editing for long. Protecting pages from editing kinda defeats the whole point of having a wiki!

I've looked at the fighting and it looks like it isn't vandalism at all, but a dispute on whether to include links to threads in the TES board where a user called robertsteadman or something similar voices some fairly trenchant political views. I don't think the political views of a composer are out of place in a biographica article, but as source material this is lacking. Anyone can adopt that username, so these aren't really verifiable statements by Steadman the composer. An interview with the composer would be better. But that's just my opinion. I suggest you talk about this cordially with the other editor while the article is protected from editing. I or someone else will be back in a few days to see how things are going. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 18:20, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Your vote, please?

Sir, with your Albert M. Wolters comment in mind, would you please look at the article my wife and I wrote on Michael E. Berumen, which is up for deletion, unfairly in my view. Thanks. icut4u 18:40, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for contacting me. Out of respect for your good faith in asking for my opinion, I won't vote, because I'd probably have to vote to delete. He is a self-published writer. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 18:53, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Long term vandalism/protection cycle

There has to be a better plan in place for long term and automated vandalism targets like Schnorrer, right? SchmuckyTheCat 18:49, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I suppose it might be nice, but I don't think the current process is particularly problematic. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 18:53, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

From an admin POV the amount of "process" to protect it isn't problematic. From an editor POV it is highly problematic for anyone who wants to edit. Maybe it would confuse (or even satisfy) the bot if it was moved to Schnorrer (Yiddish term) and Schnorrer was a dab. (and protected with a talk page explanation if the bot still comes back). Though not quite a valid reason to dab, a protected dab page is less a hindrance to getting edits on the real articles. I'll do the work if you unprotect it. SchmuckyTheCat 19:09, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't like the idea of doing that disambiguation just to deal with a silly bot. Any editor can edit the article when it's unprotected, or propose a change on the talk page when it's protected. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 19:40, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you

I just wanted to say thank you for your support of my admin nomination. I look forward to the time when our Wikipedia paths, blended in amity, cross once again. —Wayward ^Talk 05:42, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

IAR vandal

Hi Tony, in case you were wondering, this was not me. — Davenbelle 10:24, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Dave, actually there are quite a lot of editors that I know it wasn't. I ruffled a lot of feathers recently by undeleting an article that had passed AfD with unanimous votes for deletion. Some troll is just exploiting that. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 10:33, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I noticed the edit to the mentorship page because it's on my watchlist and I commented to you; I then looked at what else that vandal was up to and got the bigger picture. — Davenbelle 10:43, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

This IAR guy seems to have been stalking you, Tony. If you need a hand in future with a similar case, I would be happy to help. For the record, I was not involved; I only saw his edits to one of the Maori arbitration pages.--Scimitar ^parley 17:04, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Not a big deal. It was just somebody letting off a bit of steam. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 17:38, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Howdy

Decided to not be an admin at this time. I'm more effective in other ways. Also, in the unlikely event that you would give me a medal, make sure it isn't one of those damn communist things...I can't think of one reason why I would pollute my userpage (or talkpage) with that crap...remember what Winston Churchill said: Democracy is the worst form of government...except for all the others. (perhaps not an exact quote, but close enough).--MONGO 17:12, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually my preferred award is the Bicycle. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 17:36, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

rajput page

Tony,

I need your help. Muslims have hijacked the hindu rajput history page. I have provided a very detailed bibliography from where the passages have been taken.

Yet these muslims and user Goethean are reverting my edits. I have repeatedly asked them for evidence to back up there claims and they have yet to provide a single piece of evidence. Can we allow such blatant misuse of Wikipedia?

Muslims have repeatedly tried to show how larger then life some there kings were. They hate the fact that most all of there kings won wars in India by treachery.

Lt Col. James Tod was the first to chronicle these facts in Annals and Antiquities of ancient rajasthan and later many other historians have expanded on Tod's work.

All this work is brushed aside with out giving any counter evidence.

Can we get rid of such cluelessness?

Thanks,

Shivraj Singh

IP address 203.101.49.238 (talk · contribs)

Note: See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:203.101.50.154. This anon is using multiple IPs to avoid a 3RR ban. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:47, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Shivraj Singh, would you please consider stopping your edit warring? I think you're being a little unreasonable asking people to accept something as fact just because some Lietenant Colonel wrote about them. History is about evaluating, analyzing and comparing sources, not just copying stuff down out of a book. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 18:02, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Wiki_brah

I see that the RfC against this user was removed with the comment that the user was blocked indefinitely as a sock. I assume that this means as a sock of a banned user. Is that correct? If so, of what banned user? Robert McClenon 18:49, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• The user was Rainbowwarrior1977.--Scimitar ^parley 18:55, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Further thought

Hello again, Mr. Sidaway... ahem, Tony,

On reflection, I thought you might read what I wrote Mr. Splash about Wolters before the VfD was reopened. Here: [1]. You see, I was working to expedite Wolters and other like cases, on my own, without ignoring rules. This is not to condemn your approach, but merely to suggest that even we "lawyers/process people" care that fairness is served, and have our own approach. I do agree that WP is an encyclopedia, and that content ultimately matters most, just as you suggest.

You will see also that you are mentioned there in a not impolite, but distressed way. This was, of course, before I spoke to you directly. I trust you will not take offense.

Also, on looking at your talk, I regret to hear that you have been vandalized. While I support using IAR in hypothetical examples, such actions are contemptible. If I may help in fighting vandals, let me know. Best wishes, Xoloz 21:35, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm aware of your regret-tinged jeremiads, those of Splash and those of Aaron. And of some other stuff that I won't go into.

I don't have a problem with process, but when the process is broken things still have to be done. VFU has been widely adrift of undeletion policy for ages. What I have found most distasteful, if amusing, is your claim and Splash's, both in the face of fait accompli, that the article I rescued would probably have been undeleted via VFU. But you had both voted to keep deleted, for the usual spurious process-following reason, both apparently deliberately ignoring the undeletion policy and proclaiming the primacy of process. Undeletion policy says you should consider whether Wikipedia would be a better place with or without the article. You refused to do so. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 22:12, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

And that justifies you violating consensus? Or, in this case, merely awaiting consensus? What claim do you have that you should act unilaterally and without thought to anyone else? - Tεxτurε 22:15, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Read the diffs more carefully. [2]. -Splash^talk 22:48, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

My only claim to acting in this way is that I can get away with doing so because I'm good at it. IAR is that kind or rule. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 22:45, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Mr. Sidaway, although I voted to keep deleted for reasons of process, you seem to miss entirely the point that my course of action was very likely going to lead to expediated restoration of the content with barely any acrimony, making it (I must say) much superior to yours. Also, while I suppose one loosely call my words to you a jeremiad, my comments to Splash were no such thing. As I say, also, your assertion that this has been "gotten away with" is very, very premature. The result reached was proper, the means that reached it poor. Sooner or later, those who use ends to justify means are hoist by their own petard. I suspect your self-admitted egocentric streak prevents you from understanding the damage this sort of think can do to one's reputation. Good luck, Xoloz 02:19, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't think you quite understand the situation, Xoloz. If VFU followed the undeletion policy, if you even understood it, then we wouldn't have to go through this nonsense. Good articles should be undeleted. That's what the undeletion policy is all about. The bad feeling that arises when I undelete an article that should have been undeleted anyway arises solely among those who don't understand, or who oppose, Wikipedia policy. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 02:26, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, well, if you continue to act as you have here, those who oppose your understanding of WP policy will soon enough come to outnumber those who endorse it, and your own fits of "spirited independence" will be marginalized. I am more or less an outsider to Wikipolitics, you know, the sort reader you probably think should support you; but your actions and the somewhat (I must regretfully say) peevish character of your self-justifications will only alienate outsiders. Of that, I am also sure. You're a bright fellow, but you have acted (in this case, anyway) without circumspection. The more you act in this way, the more neutral observers you will alienate. Xoloz 02:56, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Um, nope. A bit of wishful thinking there I think. You adopted the process argument before I intervened and undeleted Wolters. We've been on opposite ends of the policy debate all along. You think it's about process, I say it's about content--specifically, an encyclopedia. Hardly neutral. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 03:48, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Um, yep. See, although I've always supported process, I formerly felt you to be of sound judgment as an administrator. Before this invocation of IAR (and the character of defense offered for it), I could easily have been swayed to any reform proposal you offered through a deliberative consensus forum. Now, although I'll still listen to you of course, I'll have to regard your judgment with suspicion, and (to be utterly frank), I'll question myself seriously if I happen to agree with you. As I mentioned, I do think this encyclopedia is ultimately about content. So, I might have been an ally. You might be comforted to think my opposition inevitable, but I know it wasn't. I also think this encyclopedia, and any collaborative human effort, is not about rogue behavior and unabashed egocentricism. As a person, as something of an historian, as a professional, I have seen similar actors before, and they fail without exception eventually, as you will if you continue to act unilaterally. I think you're a good-faith actor, so I have sympathy for you, and I have been trying to caution you that your choices are unwise. You have reacted somewhat defensively, so I doubt you've noticed this intent. I wish you well, but discord is likely to follow you until you heed that counsel. Xoloz 04:28, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

re: Screw up

To address personally to you, well, it's probably all been said. I don't think that the course of action you took was the right one, or for the right reasons. It leads to fighting, anger, bad blood and politics. It could have been avoided. It looked likely, though you disagree above, that vfu was going to undelete the article, content arguments or no. If it had done so, there'd have been no hoo-ha. If it hadn't done so, then some action would probably have been required. That way at least provides the possibility that the noise might have been avoided. You could have dealt with the 'closure' of the VfU debate in a few days time yourself and interpreted it; it would either have been an undelete or a close-cut keep deleted with enough wriggle room. That the original undeletion was a copyvio seems (to me) to say that the action was not a considered one, but a knee-jerk response. In fact, of course, that means that no action was required irrespective of the outcome of the VfU (in which I voted to undelete; I didn't do my legwork thoroughly either, but then I didn't undelete it) — a simple rewrite was all that was needed. One step further than that, in hypothetical-land where the original wasn't a copyvio, if it had been rewritten into something resembling the form we currently have, VfU would have had no hesitation in undeleting it. It does so quite regularly for clear rewrites. In this non-copyvio case (where presumably you thought we were), the conflict could have been avoided completely by doing such a rewrite, especially with access to the deleted revisions to give you a leg-up.

So, if I have added anything, it is only that I, personally, would prefer a course of action that, if not conflict free, is one that minimizes the possibility for conflict and minimizes those conflicts that do arise. The course that was followed in this case was not one that achieved that. -Splash^talk 22:06, 18 October 2005 (UTC) (PS: the broader point in the excerpt you quote, about consequences: I think that proper community accountability (not entertaining-but-pointless ArbCommery) is something admins should be subject to. The systems we have at present in this regard are an abject failure, but it's obvious to me that we don't have a means of changing them that has any chance of success.)

That the article was arguably a copyright infringement is, I think, one of the more creative responses I've seen. Admit it, you'd no more idea than I about this, else you'd have mentioned the fact on VFU. In the face of such duplicitous thinking, there really isn't a way to avoid conflict. Good faith may be assumed, but there comes a point where it is impossible to assume. You have falsely claimed that the article would probably have been undeleted, when you yourself as well as Xoloz argued to keep deleted and in doing so traduced the undeletion policy. You have falsely implied that an event of which you yourself had no foreknowledge should have been foreseen by another. Stop digging. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 22:19, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I already admitted that in my message above. I also changed my vote to undelete, largely on content grounds, long before you actually undeleted it. I didn't suggest you should have forseen the outcome, I said you should have waited-to-see and acted then. I just think that things could have been managed with far less bloodshed and arrived at the same end result. I'm glad you turned up in the deletion review discussion, now that you saw I plan to press ahead with it. I figure that the support your original suggestion received in the discussion from whenever it was means that most of the changes can safely be seen to have already been disapproved of. Some of them were good, though. -Splash^talk 22:26, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

You claim that I should have awaited the outcome, and yet you continue to traduce the undeletion policy. You need to be shown every now and again that there is a world outside that doesn't give a toss for your wikipolitics. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 22:47, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

It turns me on...

When you're coy. - brenneman^(t)(c) 23:09, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Hermione1980's RfA

Thank you for your support on my RfA; I really appreciate it! I will do my best to live up to the trust you've shown in me. Thanks, Hermione1980 23:41, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Pull your thumb out

If you

1. Cannot figure out how to follow the redirect and
2. Thus failed to see that I pasted your comments there with a response and
3. Fail to understand that you cannot arbitrarily reverse things worked out by consensus

Then the problem is not me.

You are not the only intelligent, dedicated contributor who has the long term good of Wikipedia in mind. I often do not agree with the outcomes of discussions I participate in. However, as I have some tiny respect for the opinions of someone other than myself, I abide by them.

Tony, you're a bad admin. You're supposed to be here to serve the will of the people, not the other way around.

brenneman^(t)(c) 01:59, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

There you go again. I'm trying to reconcile the stuff on the page you put up with Wikipedia policy. I've been warning you for months that this deletion review thing in its current wording is ultra vires.

You say I'm there to serve the will of the people. Yes, the will of all the people, not just your little clique on VFU that's decided to ignore the deletion policy and the undeletion policy.

That's why I have to go into that mess every now and then and haul out a potential survivor, its heart still beating, while your lot does its best to squeeze the breath of life out of it by misrepresenting the undeletion policy.

I don't expect that the situation will be made much worse by this latest fiasco, but I did think it worthwhile to try to represent to you just how far you have diverged from Wikipedia policy and (consequently) how powerless your forum has become. I mean, if someone can just step in and undelete something right under your nose, and get a huge bloody keep vote on AfD, what's the point, eh? If you can still claim to be representing the will of Wikipedia, after an experience like that, you're even better at lying to yourself than our mutual friend, Mr IgnoreAllRules. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 02:12, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

You know, all your talk about "building a great encyclopedia" is just hot air, isn't it? You're just a petty, vindictive little man grapsing for power in an on-line forum, as posts like the above so clearly demonstrate. - brenneman^(t)(c) 02:46, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and that last sentence of yours doesn't even make sense. Are you referring to the wholly inappropiate and totally inconclusive proxy sniff? The "I'm justified in ignoring all convention and propriety, just like Tony" one? - brenneman^(t)(c) 02:50, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Be serious, Aaron. Are you falsely accusing me of acting in a vindictive manner? Are you falsely accusing a person whom you have not name of abusing the powers with which he has been entrusted?

And, since you seem to suspect that a proxy sniff has been used, would you care to come clean about the identity of the vandal? You are obviously acting as if you know something about the matter; I can only report my suspicion that you know his identity, and ask for you to cooperate in identifying this person. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 03:02, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't suspect anything. Get your hand off it. DG's used his big tool in a manner so far out of bloody line it's funny. Let's clear the air by beginning with that admission, eh? - brenneman^(t)(c) 04:40, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not David's daddy, but I'm sure he wouldn't do anything naughty. Now you've accused him of packet sniffing (!) but at least you've now admitted your guilt to MONGO. Why couldn't you have just come clean to David when he asked? As you said, it didn't exactly take a genius IQ to work out that it was probably you; like MONGO I saw the timing of the edits. The difficulty was in getting you to admit it without actually accusing you, for in fact I never had sufficient evidence to nail you, and nor did David and we cannot go around making accusations without very good evidence. But you were acting, to put it mildly, as guilty as fuck. Thank you for playing. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 10:55, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Questions galore!!

As a (revatively) new recruit to the ranks of wikipedia, I have some questions about getting more involved in the community:

• a) How do make a user talk page like this where people leave comments?

• b) How do I get people to come to my talk page..?

• c) What various "positions" can a guy like me get into?

• d) Why are some articles marked "needs to conform to a higher quality?"

• e) And why are the people who marked them don't explain WHY they need to be brought up to a higher standard..? (See MegaMan EXE article, you'll see what I mean)

• d} How do I get awards (like barnestars, bicycles, etc.)

• e) Do other High schoolers besides myself edit/write for wikipedia..?

In order:

• a: Everybody has one. Just click on "my talk" and there it is. You can edit your signature to point to it. In my signature under Special:Preferences I have:

  Tony Sidaway]][[User talk:Tony Sidaway|<small>^Talk</small>

  And that gives the signature that you see. when I type --~~~~

• b: See above, if you mean giving a people a way to visit the talk page by clicking on <small>^Talk</small>
• c: As an editor you can do just about anything on the wiki right now except be a formal mediator, an administrator or an arbitrator.

  To be a mediator you need to develop mediation skills, learn how we work here, and apply to join the mediation committee. To be an administrator you needs to apply and to be able to convince your fellow editors that you can be entrusted with the extra powers (such as the ability to protect pages from editing, to block editors, and to delete pages). To be an arbitrator you need to be elected. Typically people do a lot of editing for three months before applying to be, or being nominated to be, an administrator.

  You can edit any page. You can join in Recent changes patrol. You can participate in Featured article candidates, discussing which articles are suitable to be chosen for our front page. You can go to village pump and discuss technical and policy issues. You can join in Articles for deletion and discuss whether certain articles should be deleted or kept. Hundreds of other things.

  For other ideas, go to the Wikipedia:Community_Portal and look at the open tasks.

• d: Editors give one another awards for doing cool things, such as writing a good article, being kind, helping to solve a problem, and so on. It's totally informal.
• e: Many high schoolers do so. Even much younger children have been known to produce good work on Wikipedia. At high school level we have administrators and higher. One of our bureaucrats (a senior administrator who is entrusted with the power to make other people administrators) just turned fourteen recently. You won't know somebody's age unless they tell you, or give obvious clues such as referring to their school.

I'll copy this to your talk page, User_talk:84.169.239.104. If by any chance you also have a username, but forgot to log in before asking these questions, just click edit on the User_talk:84.169.239.104 page and copy the text there, then log in and go to your user talk page and paste the stuff there for future reference. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 10:43, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

VFU header block

I have blocked both you and Aaron for three hours for revert warring on this page. I realize this is mostly a matter of principle since both of you can unblock yourself, but I would ask both of you to please consider that revert warring is harmful no matter where or by whom. Please discuss on the talk page and seek consensus on the content of the VFU header. Yours, Radiant_>|< 11:48, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I have unblocked you. See the WP:ANI please. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:59, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, completely out of order, which Radiant! would know if he had actually checked my edits instead of assuming I was engaged in revert warring. Never mind, no harm done. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 12:50, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Western Sahara

Hello, Thank you very much for your interest in WS page. After Anthere unprotected the page I continued the discussion with Arre and Koavf. I've posted my last comment in 14 October, I waited 3 days after but there was no response. I restored a "No Flags" version of the Infobox but Koavf continues to revert the template [3] and refuses any discussion, and there is still no response to my last post. I don't know if this behavior is in concordance with WP principles. Cheers. Daryou 15:17, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

===>Complete falsehood I've discussed this issue at length on the Talk page for Western Sahara, and even off of Wikipedia. Consensus has been reached regarding this information, and Daryou is simply unhappy with the decision of the majority. Justin (koavf) 16:24, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Okay. I'll have a look and see if I can make up what the problem is and if I can help further. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 16:54, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to add some thing: no consensus has been reached about this information, there is no decision of majority. I see that Koavf passed over the template protection by copy-editing it in the WS page. Daryou 16:57, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Survey_guidelines#Fixing_giant_loopholes

The debate has restarted, your input would be much appreciated, as the discussed propoasal is the one incorporating your previous suggestions and comments. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:51, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Stalking and Assume Good Faith

Hello Tony, I've left a comment on Wikipedia Talk: Assume good faith regarding text I proposed be added in response to your concerns vis. stalking. However, the only editor to respond has been the same one who deleted your text addition from the article. I was hoping for a broader opinion. :) Does anyone actually pay attention to these pages anymore, or am I just lacking in patience? Either way, I just wanted to bring this to your attention, since you might have an interest. I think my text is a useful addition to the article and covers stalking concerns in a way that makes it clear how they're related to AGF. Eaglizard 21:36, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I think it all got put into another article: Wikipedia:Stalking#Coolcat.2C_Davenbelle.2C_and_Stereotek

This does have bearing on assumption of good faith, so a link to that article from WP:FAITH would be welcome. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 03:50, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

AGF

Listen, I don't have a personal problem with you, I'm just frustrated. I think that some of your actions here are overly disruptive here and cause needless acrimony. There are better ways to get across your opinion then edit warring, logical fallicies, etc.. When someone points out that they think you're a troll, for example, why not simply ask "why do think I'm a troll?". and when they give an answer, try to improve from that rather then a page-long dissertation on what a troll is and why you think you are not one. Same with edit warring - if you make an edit and there is substantial disagreement, REVERT YOURSELF, like I did for example when I was proposing changes to WP:RM [4] - that shows that you care and makes it so that other people don't have to take time out of their day to "fix" it, per se. It doesn't neccessarily mean you are wrong - maybe you can explain your arguement and convince other people, etc.. Try not to make long drawn-out arguments if you don't have to - people have lives outside of wikipedia and reading them takes a lot of time - in fact, try not to make arguements unless you have to :). In the mean time, try to Wikipedia:Assume good faith as always(and I'll try to do the same :)). Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 00:29, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Well it's funny because the first thing you do in the above is falsely accuse me of something I never do: edit warring. The second thing you do is falsely accuse me of promulgating logical phallacies. You have asked me to assume good faith and yet you have called me a troll. I'm sorry this just won't do. Don't make false accusations. Don't breach good faith repeatedly and then try to lecture someone else to do what you already are signally failing to do. Look to your own behavior. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 03:45, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

*sigh* very well. It wasn't meant as a lecture, rather just some "tips". Anyway, take care :). Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 03:48, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Ryan, I've been around for nearly a year and you've been around for a few months. If you want to give someone "tips" by all means do so, but please, don't make false accusations when you do so, and don't couch your advice in terms of things that the person in question wouldn't do in a million years, to wit, your priceless advice: When someone points out that they think you're a troll, for example, why not simply ask "why do think I'm a troll?". and when they give an answer, try to improve from that rather then a page-long dissertation on what a troll is and why you think you are not one. Ryan, don't give people advice in terms like that. Also, don't ask people to revert themselves unless they have made an error. That's silly. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 03:59, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Look- you asked me to come here and point out the issues, which I did. However, since you are going to be that way, here's some real criticism. Accusing me of bad faith is one thing, especially when the whole point of the above was to help you. However, assuming I am less then you because you've been around longer is both demeaning and arrogant to the highest degree. You could have just said "thanks for the advice". The fact that you refuse to take responsibility for anything even when pointed out by others such as Radiant! is reprehensible. You insult others who disagree with you ("The participants in the previous debate were clearly asleep at the wheel"), and you cite ignore all rules all while trying to force things against consensus using the very one-sided interpretation of policy, which is hypocritical (see the VfU header). Oh, and that's not in bad faith - I'm hoping it will wake you up and get you to improve a bit. Feel free to criticize me of course, as I've had much worse (I'll hang it in the criticism section of my user page :)). Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 04:54, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Now that's a bit more like it. We're getting to the real issue. You don't like to see someone saying negative things, and you take them as personal attacks. Of course, when AfD discussions do result in obvious errors, we have to admit that they have occurred, and not pretend that things are okay. There is no nice way to say that the people involved in a deletion debate utterly failed to do their homework but just robotically voted to delete.

You mistake Radiant's opinions for fact. He is a nice fellow but he regularly gets creamed when he tries to meddle in policy issues, simply because his interpretations are so bizarre as to be unsustainable. The somersaults that some people are undergoing at present in the deletion review debate are entertaining, but they're not compatible with policy. What you're seeing me do isn't disruption, but an honest attempt to reconcile the thoughts of various contributors in deletion review, with the cold, solid facts of the undeletion and deletion policies. We'll have to do it sooner or later; if deletion review is to work it must work within those policies. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 05:11, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, that was not what I expected and actually refreshing. Doesn't mean I agree (except for the negativity part, which may be correct, LOL :)), of course, but it was a welcome change - thank you! :) Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 05:40, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

There is some discussion to my mediation committee nomination and me calling you a troll earlier. I apoligize for that, BTW (which I hope was apparent from the later correction). Anyway, feel free to give your opinion there if you want :). Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 12:46, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

The Ouestions...that weren't answered..

First off, let me apoligize for not verifying my user name earlier. I'm MegamanZero, and I was the one who had previously posted "Questions Galore" earlier. Because of my hastiness to do more than one thing at a time, I seemed to have screwed up my lettering in the questons..sorry bout' that. Anyway, here are the questions that didn't get answered:

a) Why are some articles marked "needs to conform to a higher quality?"

b) And why are the people who marked them don't explain WHY they need to be brought up to a higher standard..? (See MegaMan EXE article, you'll see what I mean)

Also, do you have any ideas how I can show other wikipedians I want to communicate..? No one seems to visit my user page..

P.S. I LOVE to ask questions. You'll be hearing from me often(Tony cringes at the thought).

MegamanZero 8:24 20 October 2005

No problem with the questions. I'm sorry I missed two of them. Some articles are marked that way because someone reading them decided they needed to be made better. Anyone can add a {{cleanup}} tag to an article, and the text read as follows:

If someone places such a tag on an article and he didn't explain in the edit summary or the talk page, and you don't understand why, ask. Go to the history of the article and find who added it, go to his userpage and click Discuss to find his user talk page, and politely ask him what he thinks should be done. Also check the How to Edit and Style and How-to links mentioned in the template.

If people see you editing a lot in articles that they're editing, particularly if you're active in the talk pages, then they'll discuss things with you and may visit your user page.

Hope this helps. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 06:34, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Margaret Turnbull and related

Thx for the vote and comment. You said it quite well. I really don't understand how video game characters make it through and yet people get all prickly about academic bios. She's a post-doc. I mean, so what? If a sixth-grader had developed the HabCat they'd get consideration in my mind.

Anyhow, my concern over this entry was motivated partly by the desire to not have red-links at Planetary habitability. If you're at all interested in the topic it's at peer review: Wikipedia:Peer review/Planetary habitability. Marskell 10:01, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

coercive monopoly

The version dispute is long over. I think putting that version dispute notice on the article is going to engender unnecessary confusion. Nobody is arguing over versions. What happened inititally is someone created a stub and replaced the long article with that without prior discussion or consensus. That episode was long over before protection was put on. Now, the debates are just about content of the current article. In other words, the note on the tag, "There is currently an editing dispute over two versions of this page" is false. ALso, that's not the reason the page was locked, which just happend a day or two ago. So, I think it would make sense to remove that notice. Thanks. RJII 15:09, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

WP:CIV

Tony, I am not insulting you behind your back, and likewise I request that you refrain from insulting me behind mine. Radiant_>|< 15:54, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

• This is insulting people behind their back. Stop it. Radiant_>|< 22:26, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

No it isn't. Now stop being a silly sausage. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 08:13, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps not insulting, but being utterly patronising. You can do better than that. Ambi 08:32, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

If someone reproduces the opinion of Radiant, in a manner that suggests that this is a fact rather than an opinion, I think it's appropriate to observe that, While Radiant is a lovely chap, his ventures into the area of policy haven't been very successful, and his observations are rarely accurate. For more detail, see my line-by-line response to one of Radiant's extended personal attacks on me, on his talk page. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 09:07, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Oops, he removed it under RPA. Well he's entitled to that, but it certainly wasn't intended as a personal attack, simply a detailed, line-by-line refutation of his baseless attacks on me. It's here, and I reproduce it all below:

There you go again

You falsely accuse me of insulting you behind your back. I did criticise your surprising ineptness at constructing and following a logical argument, but I did so in a public forum, not in some dark alley. Lest you continue to be in any doubt about this serious failing of yours, given your decision to involve yourself in policy discussions, I'll elaborate here.

• Your argument to "delete articles beginning with the letter Z" is in fact an appeal to ridicule, defined among others as "stretching the argument's logic to an absurd extreme".

Not at all. I just give an example of something that isn't permitted under the deletion policy and imagine a group that formulates a way in which they can perform that task. It fails because they don't take into account Wikipedia policy. Likewise Deletion Review will occasionally fail, where it tries to overreach itself. Administrators will continue to undelete bad speedies under the undeletion policy, no matter what fictions the VFU page header contains.

• You said above to Sjakkalle that you "might have reverted once". Apparently you are unsure whether or not you were reverting.

I made a lot of edits. Actually I didn't make any reverts.

• You were edit warring.

Absolutely not. Look at the history. There are many more creative ways for an intelligent person to edit than edit warring.

• You state that all your edits "stated somewhere that VFU operates under the deletion policy and the undeletion policy", but that is incorrect, because this one does not.

In that case, then you have even less grounds to claim that I was basically saying the same thing in all my edits.

• At any rate, all of Aaron's versions already reference both those policies, so I find it hard to believe that all your edits were merely to indicate that VFU uses those policy (which nobody disputes anyway).

I've already enumerated the ways in which the page header blatantly misstates deletion and undeletion policy. That it refers to them is a bit irrelevant. For instance, Aaron's version incorrectly omits the administrator exception for unilateral deletion of out-of-process speedies.

• Rather, it seems from your edits that you wish to be able to ignore VFU discussion, which your earlier actions also seem to indicate.

Certainly I intend to go on ignoring VFU discussion where it traduces the deletion policy or the undeletion policy. What of it? I'm not in your club and I don't have to subscribe to its rules where they diverge from those of Wikipedia.

• You state that "Undeletion policy states that obvious out-of-process deletions can be undone unilaterally", however right at the top of that policy it says "Reasons why an article might be requested for undeletion * Deletion "out of process"".

This is very hard to believe. Are you claiming that the administrator exception doesn't exist?

• You state that you "have not claimed that that an article can be undeleted under the undeletion policy for that reason" (the reason being that "WP would be better with the article restored"), when in fact you have claimed exactly that.

This is where it gets surreal. That edit simply says that VFU operates under the deletion and undeletion policies.

But hey, maybe you meant to cite another edit on that page in which I did say that an article could be unilaterally deleted for the reason you give?

Okay then, let's look at every single one of my edits on that page the other day:

• 00:23, 19 October 2005 Purpose - Fix stuff, particularly the false claim that this page is not about content
  • Say "deletion review is one of the processes than can be used by editors", rather than the incorrect "is the process to be used by all editors, including administrators, who wish to challenge the outcome of any deletion debate or a speedy deletion unless:"
  • Reword slightly to match grammar
  • Remove this rather hostile and contra-policy statement:
    • "This process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's reasoning — only if you think the debate was interpreted incorrectly by the closer. This page is about process, not content."
• 01:11, 19 October 2005 Purpose - #*The page can be undeleted under the undeletion policy
  • Okay, Aaron didn't like that and falsely believes that his version represents the consensus on Wikipedia policy. Try another tack.
  • Add in: "The page can be undeleted under the undeletion policy"
• 01:13, 19 October 2005 Purpose - Remove some ultra vires stuff
  • Removing what looks like an ill-thought out attempt to extend deletion review to include review of non-deletions. No policy basis, and looks like an attempt to duplicate the function of AfD.
• 01:14, 19 October 2005 Purpose - Fix mistatement of the focus of wikipedia: we're about *content*, not process
  • This is Wikipedia 101 stuff, really. We don't want a process that tosses away good articles for bureaucratic reasons, otherwise you end up with Fiascos like Wolters.
• 01:15, 19 October 2005 Fix misstatement of purpose--see undeletion policy
  • More accurate representation of undeletion policy. I stop short of quoting undeletion policy itself, because doing so seems to upset some people.
• 01:31, 19 October 2005 Another go at a policy-compatible version of the pager header
  • At this point Aaron has reverted yet again and is trollishly taunting me to block him for 3RR (which I hope he realises is not permitted, and in any case I don't do 3RR). He also asks me to use the talk page, which is funny because I had made an entry on the talk page at 01:05 (before my second edit) and another at 01:22. Aaron's response was to overwrite both comments at 01:24 with a redirect. This is really not a nice thing to do, but assume good faith and all that...
  • Trying for something basic here. But the main thing that'll interest you is that I say "There are also provisions under the undeletion policy to permit the imediate undeletion of articles that were deleted out of process (that is, not in accordance with the deletion policy)." So not what you say I said. Okay, let's soldier on. Maybe I said it in a later version?
• 01:32, 19 October 2005 Purpose - sp
  • A spelling correction.
• 01:56, 19 October 2005 Not edit warring, just being bold by stating policy in different ways until we find one we can agree on.
  • My last go. It's one process, not the process, and it operates under the deletion policy and the undeletion policy. And a HTML comment saying: "Yes another attempt to formulate the purpose of this page in a policy-compatible manner. This one sticks to the bare bones of policy. Add you wn stuff on top." Fairly obvious stuff I should have thought.

Nope, I didn't say what you think I said. Sorry, I did my best to find it but I couldn't. There you go, the human brain is like sometimes. You think somebody said something, but they didn't.

• You just admitted that you have "undeleted an article deleted in process (have been) under WP:IAR", once more showing that you wish to be able to ignore VFU.

Absolutely! When it screws up, I don't sit around and wring my hands.

• At any rate it is hipocritical to cite WP:IAR in your defense (twice), when you are accusing other people of breach of policy.

You may have a point there. I don't mind being called a hypocrite as long as the encyclopedia gets written. Sticks and stones, you know.

• This is boiling down to discussing semantics,

Not really. It's boiling down to your failure to construct a logical argument, supported by correct factual observations, to support your thesis. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 19:14, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

XW

I wonder if you'd be interested in taking a look at User:Friday/XW. It's my own thoughts right now on the "follow an exact process" v "do what you think is best for the project" controversy. Feel free to edit or comment on it, if you like. Friday (talk) 21:14, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I think it's lovely. I agree that even if it isn't a principle to adopt, it certainly gives us lots of insights into how Wikipedia actually works. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 09:03, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

my mediation committee nomination

Thanks for your input Tony! I have a response there - further commentary would be appreciated :) - thanks! Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 21:41, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Apologies

I wanted to apologize for snapping at you on WP:AN/I, I was out of line. I have grown frustrated watching your attitude there over the last few weeks, and was in particular frustrated with work today. Regardless, I should not have snapped at you. I would however encourage you to reevaluate your attitude. If I had first encountered an admin such as yourself upon arriving to Wikipedia I would not have thought very highly about the community. This is not meant to be a personal attack, you have made many valuable contributions and continue to do so. Your attitude however is very much like the BOFH of internet lore. You seem unwilling to listen to other arguments, unwilling to justify your actions and in general unwilling to compromise.

I can understand that you think you are justified, I can understand you think you are correct in your actions. I cannot, however, understand that you will neither explain yourself nor give actual consideration to those who disagree with you and your actions. I would encourage you to alter this behavior in the future, your attitude is not constructive and could turn people against Wikipedia. You are an administrator, you should act as an example for others to follow. We look to you for answers and inspiration because of your position. Please do not abuse our trust. TheChief (PowWow) 22:44, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Be fair, I explained myself exhaustively. Your criticism was not only intemperate, it was completely misplaced. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 08:12, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

You did not explain yourself exhaustively. While my criticism was intemperate, it was not misplaced. You have a problem with admitting you are wrong, or explaining why you are right. I would strongly suggest to you that you take some time for introspection and determine the root cause of this problem and address it. TheChief (PowWow) 15:05, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

We'll have to agree to differ. Exhaustively, completely, compendiously, soundly and roundly I responded. I have no problem admitting that I *may* be wrong, but when I've responded as fully as I did to Radiant, I don't appreciate false claims that I have been less than complete in my responses. Go back to the thread and see if I'm right. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 18:54, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

And your arrogance is why we've RFC'ed you. Bravo Tony. Agriculture 05:46, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

No. Go back and check the RfC. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 06:10, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

What your belated, half-assed "Yeah, whatever I'm sort of sorry but sorry I'm not"? Agriculture 06:13, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

You're entitled to your opinion. My apology is sincere. However my point is that your belief that arrogance and incivility are synonymous is incorrect. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 07:09, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

RFC

I have openend an RFC on your frequent incivility, personal attacks, and poor response to criticism. Radiant_>|< 12:34, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Tsk, tsk. I sounds like you're "attacking" Tony yourself. I would have phrased your remarks differently if I thought as you apparently do:

• "You frequently seem incivil to me; some of your comments look like personal attacks; and I wish you would respond to criticisms more (what? quickly, decisively, amusingly, please pick one or be more specific).

As a thumb rule, it behooves us all to make courteous requests when asking others to increase their courtesy level. We're starting to develop a project page relating to this here, although it's incomplete.

In most cases, you shine, so I know this will be helpful to you, Radiant. Uncle Ed 15:10, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Unilateralism

If you're referring to my comment on the Wikipedia:IAR page, I wasn't speaking with only you in mind. There have been several admins that I have seen make decisions that went against consensus or policy; and I feel that nearly every time IAR is used, it is used to circumvent policy. For example, if I came across a perfectly deleteable article (i.e. AnyFamilyGrocer is a grocery store in so-and-so, Illinois. They used to sell hot-dog buns and ketchup.) that I knew would not survive AfD, I could use IAR to justify speedy deletion. This would anger a good many people; either inclusionists who dislike CSD anyway, or policy-police. Hence, I wouldn't do it, because it wouldn't be worth removing a harmless stub 5 days early if it annoyed a lot of people. Undeleting outside of process is a similar example. I don't follow process because it's neccessarily right, but because, as a sysop, I don't want to give any impression of abuse of power, and I don't want people to think that I view myself as above policy. Sometimes, you convey to me the impression that you feel you are above process and policy, and it worries me.--Scimitar ^parley 14:15, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

George Bush

You write that wikis don't work if you cannot edit pages. This is obviously true in general, but I do not see why certain pages (like simple disambiguation pages) couldn't be permanently blocked. An editor could submit suggested changes to the admin that blocked the page. It seems to me that this could lessen the overall work that needs to be done by admins (protecting/unprotecting) and editors (continuous reverts). So my suggestion is that this policy be changed.

Alternatively, one option is to block it for longer. Why just three days and not for instance three months? The protection could be set to expire automatically. (I don't know if this is currently possible in Wikipedia.) --Rob 14:26, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I recently changed out practice with respect to page protection, and I've settled on a regular cycle of three days as appropriate in most, but not all cases. Three of our articles (on micronations) are being attacked by some kind of bot run by a long-term banned user, and they've been more or less continuously blocked for ten days now, with occasional tests to see if the bot is still there. Some other articles (three or four, all on radio talk show hosts) are cycling in and out of protection as part of some vandalism attack. Otherwise, nearly all vandal attacks seem to die off after three or four days. I'm in favor of starting off with short-period protectionss, and progressively increasing the period if these don't work. So rest assured, a much longer protection period would result if necessary. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 14:54, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Our friends, the Macedonians and Greeks

Would you like to join me in a strategy? I have been asking people to "avoid personal remarks such as those I've marked up with HTML strikeout formats" and usually get fast, permanent relief from those annoying dog fights on talk pages with this approach. It often works better than the "mutual ban" tactic.

Let's work together on this, okay? Uncle Ed 15:04, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Good job

Hey, I notice you've been getting a lot of flak recently (which is particularly distressing since you and Aaron and Radiant are some of the people I respect most around here) so I thought I should take the time to tell you that you are really appreciated. I want to thank you for all of the maintenance work you've been doing at WP:RFPP, you don't even want to know what it looked like a few months ago, and keeping the number of protected pages low. I know that it can be a dirty job, (look what unprotecting a list involved in a larger dispute got me into) and one that no one notices, or fully appreciates. I think protection is one of the most harmful things we can do, so I am also particularly glad at how you've been combing through the old entries at WP:PP and unprotecting them as needed. This is often forgotten about. So, a WikiThanks from me and keep it up. Dmcdevit·t 20:10, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks from me too. I've got a long statement on the RFC too :). Take care :). Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 07:30, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

IRC

Well, I was on IRC multiple times with you but you never responded to me... I can't say I didn't try, no? I really would like this to get resolved one day - but clearly that day will not be today. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 12:17, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

My impression of you has not been ameliorated by your recent behavior. It may well be a long time before I trust you to discuss anything with me in a manner that I don't find intolerably boorish. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 12:19, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

What? After completely ignoring me on IRC that's what you have to say? That is both rude and disrespectful! That kind of behaviour is not fitting of any admin, let alone any user! I am done here. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 12:34, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Coercive monopoly

I am out of ideas on how to proceed on Talk:Coercive monopoly. I have tried everything I can think of, but we aren't making any progress at all. The editors are arguing in circles and attacking each other and getting nowhere. I am open to suggestions. -- BBlackmoor ^(talk) 18:30, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Jossi Fresco suggested a survey, so I guess that's what we'll do. -- BBlackmoor ^(talk) 23:14, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

FYI, RJII appears to be intentionally disrupting discussion of the survey. Any assistance you can provide would be appreciated (I know now that you personally don't care for surveys, but that's water under the bridge). -- BBlackmoor ^(talk) 18:48, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

My 2 cents

Hey Tony. I don't believe we've ever had an encounter before now, and I wanted to say I am sorry for the harshness of that encounter. But I want you to open your eyes. You seem to be making comments everywhere about how the RfC is just a group of people with an axe to grind, and the consensus is that you are not on the whole uncivil or arrogant in your editing and moderating practices. I want you to open your eyes and see that there is a large consensus that you are uncivil and arrogant quite often. You seem like a good editor to me, as a moderator I have my questions based on your contributions, but I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and say you do a generally good job. Your attitude, however, as it has been displayed in your contributions is largely unacceptable for a moderator. Even now you seem to be trying to dodge some constructive criticism, and you seem to be refusing the chance for introspection and change.

I will not comment on the extent of the problem, as that is not for me to do, but you need to accept that you do indeed have a problem. Your actions and words are often inappropriate. Be bold by all means, strive towards what you think would make Wikipedia better, but be civil and tone down the self righteous arrogance. People will both take you more seriously, and you will find that less people feel you are a bad element. TheChief (PowWow) 19:16, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

It's not just I who is saying that this is a ridiculous RfC. The criticism on civility has been rather mild; the evidence somewhat unconvincing. Nevertheless I've clearly given offence, and that deserves an apology. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 20:14, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Tony, there are admins who are certifying the dispute. You need to take it seriously. Personally I find the evidence very damning. Additionally I don't think anyone is looking for an apology. They are looking for you to actually take the matter seriously, to drop the facade of arrogance which you display, and for you to actually reform. TheChief (PowWow) 23:07, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

There are admins certifying, and arbitrators saying it's ridiculous. This is not your usual RfC. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 23:34, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Tony... this is the most disturbing facet of your problem. You are unwilling to address the issue. You seem to be ready to say you are sorry, and have done so, but my purpose in coming here wasn't to argue about the validity of the RfC. It is undeniably valid, users have a serious problem with you as an admin, and they are detailing it. Instead of addressing their very real concerns and promising to review your actions and make an effort to reach a resolution you instead are attacking the process. People are accusing you of bad faith and arrogance for this very reason. Maybe it is the medium, text is a difficult medium to deal with because emotional content is not preserved, but you do come off as being extremely arrogant, egotistical, and unwilling to admit you could ever be wrong.

You have a problem with your authority, or at least the perception you give others as to how you weild your authority and 90% of the problem is attitude. You don't appear to have made many questionable decisions as an admin, but you have a very questionable way of dealing with things. You refuse to actually listen to critcism, you refuse to provide explanation for your actions and you react in a hostile and arrogant fashion to other users.

What we are looking for, and what I have been trying to explain here is that you need to take this to heart. Instead of blowing all of this off and trying your hardest to ignore the situation, why not actually decide to put the required effort into the situation and see if you can address the issue. Please Tony. Take this seriously. TheChief (PowWow) 04:59, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Tony has made plenty of "questionable decisions" as an administrator. He ignores consensus and pushes POV. Speak for yourself, I want him deoped. Agriculture 05:04, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Look, it's a quite simple complaint about incivility. That means that I should be more civil, as we all should. The claims that I don't listen to criticism or answer it are utterly without foundation. The Chief's claim that I don't take it seriously are also unfounded. However it is a ridiculous RfC. It is ridiculous for people to single me out when they know very well that I could enumerate their own far more extreme incivility were I as petty-minded as they are. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 07:59, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you think the same way as I do.

Thank you for supporting to keep dogfart article.I thought I wrote it objectively,but some people delited it so soon that I can never expect.User:HansChung

Merger debate at Talk:J. T. Vallance

Tony, I'm wondering if you could weight into this merger debate about a principal from a prestigious school in Sydney. Basically, the guy isn't notable but a new user is putting up a strong, if terribly flawed, fight. You're an admin with respected judgement and have had a say on high school matters before. Thanks. Harro5 08:13, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm the other side of the debate. My point is simple and I've qualified it on the page ad nauseum. I'd be happy if someone like you could settle it once and for all.

To be quick, what I'm saying is that the 'merge tags' are unnecessary and aesthetically displeasing. They have been there for at least a month and nothing has been done about the merge, while there has been little to no discussion on the matter (the discussion is only occurring between myself and Harro5 - this doesn't warrant the merge-tag's existence, IMO). I have continuously maintained that I'd be happy for the merge to take place if a 'precedent/rule' can be cited for it. This has not occurred however.

At the moment I feel that the page is an article of knowledge and belongs in Wikipedia. No one has disputed this reasoning. I have indicated before that if any practical reason - i.e., Wikipedia can only handle so many pages - can be found then the page should be merged accordingly. However no reason has been presented.

I met all the terms of Harro5's requests, yet he has not met mine. I would be very happy if someone who has the power to arbitrate the matter does so. Ultimately, I just want those tags off the Sydney Grammar School page and I'd be perfectly happy if the JTV article were to be merged, given appropriate justification. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Savaloy (talk • contribs) 09:17, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

• I believe User:Savaloy has breached the three revert rule and is using an IP address to do so.--User:AYArktos | Talk 09:36, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I find the three revert rule unhelpful in situations like this, and don't generally use it. I'll have a look and see what's up. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 10:19, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

CVU

Sorry for getting mad at you on IRC last night. My thoughts on the situation have now mellowed and I have asked Snowspinner to apologise to Cool Cat and Essjay, not for the deletions, but for carrying them out without first discussing the issue on Wikipedia. --GraemeL ^(talk) 12:43, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

No problem. I knew that we disagreed with one another, but didn't realise you were angry--IRC is like that. Never mind, I just thought Snowspinner acted in what he believed to be the best interests of the Foundation, and I thought he did so in a timely manner. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 13:25, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

User:Iago Dali

It is my understanding that you have an interest in users with unusual editing habits. Perhaps I can direct your attention to User:Iago Dali. That user made a bit of a mess at Lord Byron, which User:Bwithh has put some effort into cleaning up. There now seems to be something going on at Talk:William Shakespeare where more attention is being paid to the matter. Perhaps you'd care to take a look? Jkelly 17:56, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Western Sahara

Hi Tony. The edit warring at this page is a non-ending one. It really needs some attention. I've been observing the conflict between Daryou and Koavf and I don't believe they would reach a consensus w/o an intervention. The problem is simple; Daryou argues that Western Sahara is a region and not a government which is the SADR and therefore the flag should only appear at the SADR article. On the other hand, Koavf argues that Western Sahara is a region and a country. Well, a mess! Cheers -- Svest 00:29, 24 October 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up&#153;}

Vandalism

Tony,
I've placed a note on my talk and user pages indicating my contrition over bad-faith reverts as IgnoreAllRules. Whatever frustrations I felt, whatever questions I may have about your motivations, they are no excuse for such behavior. The fact that my actions were seamlessly reversed within minutes only highlights their childishness, and in no way mitigates my responsibility. I apologise to you personally, and to the community as a whole.
brenneman^(t)(c) 07:21, 24 October 2005 (UTC)