User talk:Tony Sidaway

 edit icons

I'm on a break. This means I will not reply to personal emails or talk page requests. This is okay because we have about 1,000 administrators, any one of whom is quite capable of helping you, including reversing any errors I might have made.

This page is archived by User:Werdnabot

---

Please avoid unusual formatting. This is both my user page and my talk page. To find out more about me and what I do, click on the icons in the amazingly cool navigation bar above. Click here to leave a new message. Disclosure of political bias: I took the the political compass questionnaire on 15 July 2006 and the result was economic left/right: minus 8.13, social libertarian/authoritarian: minus 8.26 Please contact me by email if you are blocked from editing: minorityreport@bluebottle.com

Tony Sidaway is officially permitted to disagree with you

Internal link on Brian Peppers article

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

WP:AN/I

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

Rfa

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

Wikipediatrix

Tony, HELP! I do not know if you notice or not but Wikipediatrix has a very short fuse and seems to rub a lot of people the wrong way. We have articles on here that she has continually gotten involved in. When we have asked her to help us she became very confrontational and even claimed we were editing under different names. It got to the point that other editors were calling her down for her antics. I surely hope that this is not a regular problem that everyone has to deal with in thier dealings with her? She has tagged yet the same article on David L Cook for "cites" We went in and gave what we had. Such as a quote from Bob Hope. That comment was made at a banquet full of comedians and not recorded by television or radio. We have tried to explain these things and she still comes right back and tags everything again. I do not know if this is all she has to do all day but it certainly is very hard to deal with someone who has this kind of agenda. We are not Wiki savy and do not claim to be. We have gone in when we check these things to see if everything is done right and if not we try to fix them. I do not know how to cite the things she is talking about. Most of the things that are said between celebrities or at functions are not things that are citable in our opinion. Could you please help us? We need to get this woman off of our backs! She is very nasty. Thanks Daylon Ware IAMAS Corporation 9:14, 2006,25,07 (UTC)

She's doing a good job. Please see Verifiability and Reliable sources. If there is no reliable source for Bob Hope's opinion on David L. Cook, then we can't use it. --Tony Sidaway 13:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Deuterium/Bad edits

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

Eluchil404's RfA

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

Mohit for speedy deletion

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

Three anonymous AOLers wrote on my talkpage.

---

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

• ⁃ [1]

¡Thanks!

—

— Ŭalabio‽ 00:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

---

BLESS YOU

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

Babur

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

Jim Shapiro

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

On the Table

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

User page versions of deleted (or otherwise) articles

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

Terryeo possible attack again

Tony, It looks to me that Terryeo is attacking editors who are Freezone members again. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:ScientologySeries#Free_Zone Here is the quote:

Its obvious to me that neither of you either understand that the Church of Scientology intends to be helpful to people in their daily lives, nor understands that Free Zone practitioners have some misunderstanding which they, individually, have refused to clear up which has constrained them to the Free Zone. :) Terryeo 09:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

We are not berating cofs people, I wish he would stop berating us.--Fahrenheit451 02:50, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Tony's off on break right now, and may not be around to help out. I'm not an admin, either, just a passer by. If you need immediate attention, you might try WP:ANI, or for the lest urgent, WP:PAIN, unless there are other admins who have been directly involved with this in the past. --InkSplotch 16:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

More Terryeo stuff

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

RfAr

Having never before participated in an RfAr, I have a question: do I need to add material to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Warren Kinsella/Evidence or is it ok for me to sit it out entirely? Thanks. You can respond whenever. - CrazyRussian talk/email 03:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not Tony, but he's on break and not likely to respond so I will. With an RFAr, no one is actually required to participate. I've even seen cases where the person who opened the case made no further comments after it was initially opened. That said, I think if you feel you have any thoughts or evidence you think could help the ArbCom in figuring out the case, you should probably contribute. Even if it's already been said elsewhere, a handy link or two can help them sort things out. Many cases have an extensive history built up in forums like the Administrator's Noticeboard, or RFC, but that doesn't mean all the ArbCom members have necessarily seen it.

On a glance, I see that Arthur Ellis refers to you quite a bit in his statement. He even has some links. Putting aside his interpretation of events, ask yourself if the links are self-explanitory or if they paint the wrong picture. If you feel it's the latter, you might want to state your side of things...but I've seen plenty of times when editors/admins didn't feel that necessary. Because when ArbCom goes to evaluate how you fit into this, I expect (based on what I've seen before) they'll evaluate the direct evidence: links, diffs, edits, etc., and not how any one person characterizes your behavior.

For all this rambling, I'll leave you one final note. I'm not an admin, only an editor, and I've never been involved in an RFC or RFAr before. I've read through many (I've thought of applying to the clerk position), so my comments are based only on what I observe. I cannot read the minds of ArbCom, or make official statements for anyone. --InkSplotch 16:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Userbox

Hi Tony,

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

Note

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

Alienus sockpuppets

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

Looks like a straightforward case to me:[2], [3]. Though I’ve some sympathy for Al...well, he can do better than that.Timothy Usher 07:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

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

User logs

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

Jargon

Howdy, I remember seeing something on your user page about how people should use full words and plain english rather than wiki-jargon. I've been thinking about this a bit. Sometimes it seems to me like the jargon IS helpful. When I've told newbies that information must be verifiable, they all know what the word "verifiable" means in English, but they don't know the Wikipedia-specific meaning as explained at WP:V. So, often they will respond saying, "Yes, I verified this info myself, by talking to the subject of the article". If people are referred to WP:V by that name, they will understand that they don't yet know what this means, rather than assuming they do understand the concept. Anyway, I was curious if you had any thoughts on this, or whether jargon is being discussed someplace. Friday (talk) 17:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The page is Wikipedia:Verifiability, a word that means the same on the wiki as it does off. WP:V is complete gobbledygook, a mere collection of letters and punctuation. --Tony Sidaway 21:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Template:fact

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

An appeal...

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

May I suggest that you take my comments seriously and stop quibbling about wording? --Tony Sidaway 00:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll second this comment, and remind you (again) that the arbitration committee has formaly asked you to be civil. And yes, your stock response is that they reminded me too, but I'm not the one being asked to moderate my incivil language. - Aaron Brenneman 01:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm asking you now to moderate your constant, corrosive, uncivil behavior. Happy? --Tony Sidaway 02:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Provide a diff that points to an edit that's "corrosive" and I'll consider redacting. I am able to admit when I'm wrong. - Aaron Brenneman 03:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I've already tried to tackle you about your repetition and amplification of Karmafist's repugnant and baseless personal attacks on Kelly Martin. --03:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The fact that you appear to have difficulty parsing Kelly Martin's words "I created it for one express purpose: to see if El C would jerk his knee and attempt to punish me for creating it." does not amount to incivility on my part. To be frank, for me to call this a pseudo-attack page is a statement of fact, and your attribution to me of the "purest malice" is the only incivlity in this exhange.
Aaron Brenneman 05:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

You continue to twist the knife into the wound. Pure, unadulterated malice. Disgusting. --Tony Sidaway 13:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe I have taken your comments anything but seriously. I don't believe it is petty quibbling to ask personally that if you can't show kindness, at least vent your aggression elsewhere. I cannot see how yourself or others are edified by that choice of wording. KWH 01:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Aggression? Please, please stop being so silly. --Tony Sidaway 02:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything humorous in it. My intent is sincere. Please don't be dismissive. KWH 03:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you included "bollocks" in that list. Not commenting on discussion. --mboverload@ 02:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Speaking rhetorically, would one use it with one's grandmother/priest/any reasonably respected figure, outside of the context of talking about a Sex Pistols album? KWH 03:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Blushes Magazine

Hi, Tony. Could you provide references for the thing? Cheers.  :) Dlohcierekim 11:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)