User talk:Tony Sidaway

 edit icons

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

Just a question

Hey, on the talk page of Wikipedia:Security, I noticed that my signature had been replaced by "Matt Yeager" (with the timestamp). I traced the edits to you, and wondered why you felt the need to replace the signature I use. Did it present some difficulty to you in reading? (Other editors, apparently, have brought this up to you before.) My signature seems to have not been a problem for any other editor. Cheers! Matt Yeager 21:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

It's unnecessarily long and clutters the edit box. I trim talk pages routinely as part of reading through the discussion before writing my reply. Having done so, I can see the discussion without having to wade through lots and lots of gibberish which, I'm sure you'll agree, contributes nothing to the discussion and simply makes the talk page bigger. --Tony Sidaway 21:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Upon reading this talk page, I've come to the conclusion that many other people disagree with what you are doing. I believe that you are strongly for the idea that Wikipedia policies are just formalized, written-down description of what Wikipedians are actually doing. If that's the case (and I think you're largely right on that), then perhaps you might consider this a totally informal way of us telling you that what you are doing is against a rather large and unanimous consensus and therefore you should probably stop doing it. If you prefer, I'll write it down in a new WP page, Wikipedia:Other people's signatures, and if you think what I wrote doesn't accurately convey consensus, I'd love to hear your arguments, and if you think it does accurately show the consensus being developed here, I would love for you to abide by it. Matt Yeager 23:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I've no problem with your deciding to write down what you think is consensus on talk page refactoring. But beware of selective sampling. --Tony Sidaway 23:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

That's very true. It appears to not be a unanimous consensus, at least--User:Hoary didn't like it much. As long as you beware of ingoring sings of dickishness, I am perfectly happy to accept that the people posting here have been "chosen" selectively. Still, take a peek up and down the page, and notice that several Wikipedians do think "there is no excuse for editing another's contributions for the indicated reasons ... which I notice from the above discussion has been raised more than once", as User:Epeefleche pointed out below. So long as you're willing to believe that there may well be a consensus that your behavior is "dickish", I'm happy, at least for the time being. Matt Yeager 19:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it likely that a reasonable person on examining the result of my incidental cleanups of talk pages would describe my actions as "dickish". Beneficial, much-needed, admirable, a god-send, perhaps. But not dickish. --Tony Sidaway 19:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Since this discussion revolves more about the signature problem apparently I will once again warn you that I will consider messing with my signature vandalism, however I won't waste my time undoing the change at the moment as I know you will change it back. And a slight change to a signature isn't that bad in my opinion. All I do to mine is color it, bold it, and add a link to my talk page. I doubt that messes up a discussion too badly. Funpika 21:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually your signature adds three lines to the edit box, replacing three lines of discussion with nothing much. You may assume that what I'm doing is vandalism if you want, but you will be mistaken. --Tony Sidaway 21:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I still am assuming that your edits are vandalism. Normally it is easy enough for me to read the discussion through the actual page and find where I will reply on the edit page. Funpika 21:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually I think I will assume good faith and not call your edits vandalism. Funpika 21:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Two thoughts on this. One, there are Wiki guidlines for sigs, which I believe this one violates. "Two, I think there is no excuse for editing another's contributions for the indicated reasons ... which I notice from the above discussion has been raised more than once".--Epeefleche 22:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

You're close, but not quite there. The bits you're missing is that the signature is there solely to identify a person in a discussion, and discussion pages are for discussion. It's quite acceptable to refactor a discussion page to improve discussion, and that's what I'm doing (but in a very minor way) when I refactor signatures on the page, replacing large and obtrusive strings of characters with ones that typically just point to the user page or user talk page. Wikipedia gains in three ways, usually:

1. the refactored signatures are less distracting when reading the rendered page, making the discussion easier to read on the page;
2. the refactored signatures usually identify the editors more reliably than the originals because sometimes the originals don't even show the username on the rendered page: mine always do;
3. finally (and for me the most important) the edit box, where one adds one's own comment when editing a discussion page, is likely to contain much more discussion and less clutter than the original version with the long signatures; this greatly improves the signal-to-noise ration and the quality of the debate is much higher because people can actually see what they're replying to whilst writing the reply. --Tony Sidaway 22:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tony. I'm open to learning ... can you give me the url for the Wiki policy that supports what you are saying? Just the part about you being allowed to revise another's sig -- not urls supporting the benefits ... which would be the benefits of them doing so, after a request. Tx. And does this mean that you will start refactoring Radiant's signature? --Epeefleche 22:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The principle, which supports refactoring far more radical than merely pruning clutter from a page, is described here: Wikipedia:Refactoring talk pages. --Tony Sidaway 22:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Tony. Will take a look when I can print it out. BTW, another but related point ... I have a problem with an editor who deletes my comments (when they are contrary to his) from both discussion pages and his talk page. Can you point me to the (common sense) Wiki guideline language to the effect that this is a no no. And, can you suggest how I might proceed to deter him from doing this in the future, since discussion has been unavailing? (And, I should point out, he is an admin). Many thanks.--Epeefleche 22:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

This kind of situation is like determining whether an edit is vandalism, in that we look at what has been done and try to work out why it was done--whether, that is, we can possibly assume good faith. In many cases we have to actually go to the person's talk page and explain our problems with the edit and ask for the other guy to say how he sees it.

Sometimes some editors may make personal attacks and, although it's controversial, one way to deal with such attacks is to remove them (see Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks). This has to be done carefully and judiciously, and isn't the kind of thing to do without careful thought about the likely consequences. I'm not saying that's what's happening here, just that it's a possible explanation of why he's removing your edits. If that is the case, it's almost certainly mistaken, but it's still worth trying to assume good faith and asking about it.

If you still can't work out what's happening and resolve the problem, the next thing to do is ask a third party to take a look. If you can give me some links to the edits in question (in diff form if possible, otherwise page links will do) I'll be happy to take a look and advise further or perhaps intervene. --Tony Sidaway 22:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks much!

Here is what I guess you are looking for ... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ADeletion_review%2FLog%2F2007_May_3&diff=128882714&oldid=128794086 . That shows the delete.

What it does not show, but I can provided as well, are the numerous requests by me and at least one other editor for him to put the material back on the talk page.

The admin who closed the discussion as no consensus has indicated to me that he did not see my comments. That demonstrates I believe the impact of the move.

See as well DRV on Jewish Figure Skaters, cont. on my talk page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Epeefleche#Category:Jewish_figure_skaters

Though I've requested that he revert his no consensus decision (or at least relist the item) under the circumstances, I've not received a response.

Thanks. (BTW -- note that while I communicated with Radiant (to no avail--he never responded), I avoided an edit war. Not that it did me any good.)--Epeefleche 22:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Your unilateral deletion of a projectpage

I almost left you a {{subst:uw-delete3}}, but you are no newbie; you should know better. If you have a problem with the extistence of Wikipedia:Service awards, please take it up at WP:MFD (though be aware that this has already survived MfD once, rather overwhelmingly). Please review WP:CONSENSUS before randomly removing Wikipedia projectpages again. —SMcCandlish 21:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

PS: Just FYI, you have a "I'm busy, don't expect a quick response" notice on the top of your talk page that is just shy of 7 months old. I doubt that you intended that to remain there that long. :-) — SMcCandlish 21:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't delete anything. The word to describe my action isn't "unilateral", but rather bold, and is encouraged on Wikipedia.

There is a method called the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, and the first step in this is to perform the bold action. If you've reverted, now we have identified ourselves as people with different opinions on the subject, and we can discuss. I'll go to the talk page and discuss it with you. --Tony Sidaway 22:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't mean "delete" in the "administrative removal of article and history" sense; but I think you know that. Page blanking is a bit more than WP:BOLD. The fate of that page is beyond you and I having a discussion; it has already been through WP:MFD, with overwhelming consensus to keep it (counting the nominator there were only three unrescinded "delete" !votes, all of which raised logical objections that were never responded to, making them rather less than weak). I'm happy to discuss whatever you like, I suppose, but I don't think such a discussion will have much to do with whether the page is ultimately left as-is or redirected, since that is already a community-level discussion (which has been clearly resolved). WP:CCC and all, but a renewed discussion of killing off WP:SERVICE is an MfD matter. —SMcCandlish 22:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

You know this is getting a little puzzling. First you say "delete" and now you say "page blanking". But you know quite well that what I did was redirect the page to one that, as I've said, appears to me to be functionally identical.

But let's keep further discussion on Wikipedia talk:Service awards. --Tony Sidaway 23:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, other than I have to comment that I think you are being faux-obtuse here; it isn't credible to me that you cannot understand that removing all of a page's content and replacing it with #REDIRECT [[Wikipdia:Barnstars]], at which none of that content is present, might be objectionable to someone as destructive, or that the term "delete" could be used in a broader, more generalized sense than "administrative total removal of a page and its history". Let's not be silly. If your point is that I was being imprecise, I concede (I thought I was clear that I already had conceded that, actually). — User:SMcCandlish 23:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

To clarify: I am not being obtuse, faux or otherwise. I will put your gross misreading of my actions down to inexperience of Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 23:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

That response isn't doing much to assuage the feeling I expressed. "Mistaking" me for a newbie in response to my actually temporarily mistaking you for a newbie doesn't seem helpful. Anyway, rather than anklebite any further — and I'm sorry if I've misread your actions — I have responded as requested at Wikipedia talk:Service awards with a no-merge rationale. If you genuinely don't understand why I find your wipe-and-redirect edit objectionable, please see that rationale post and note that Template:Mergeto (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and {{mergefrom}} exist for a reason. :-) I too believe in WP:BOLD, but I believe that, like WP:IAR, it has narrow applicability and can't be used to justify "just whatever", but rather actions that fall within the scope consensus generally accepts for it; and further that a WP:MFD history for a page pretty much automatically takes such a page out of the scope of WP:BOLD when it comes to a delete-or-merge proposition that was covered by said MfD and the "keep" conclusion's rationales raised there. I apologize again for over-reacting; I admittedly was not paying very close attention to the usernames in the edit history or would not have used "Rvv" as an edit summary. I suppose I could sycophantically grovel, and beg for forgiveness, but that would both be undignified and undermine my point that I can't agree with your redirection position. Multiple apologies on the matter are hopefully sufficient. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 02:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

PS: I was already well aware of WP:BRD; this didn't seem to qualify, and looked more like you simply chose to ignore the MfD and the fact that the superficial similarity of the WP:SERVICE "awards" to WP:BARNSTARS had already been hashed out. It appeared to me at the time to be your unilateral decision that the overwhelming MfD consensus simply didn't matter in the face of your opinion. Sorry if that was a misinterpretation of the nature of your point. — SMcCandlish 02:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I think your experience of Wikipedia must be radically different (and much more fraught with hazards) than mine. It's easy enough to turn a page into a redirect: just replace the content by the instruction to redirect to the new target. You don't need to mess around with ridiculous tags and whatnot if it's a matter that appears obvious. If you turn out to be mistaken about the obviousness, someone will always revert and (I hope) explain. That's what be bold is about. --Tony Sidaway 02:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think your summary of my experience is spot-on, and may well explain a number of things. I wish my Wikipedia was as fluffy and soft as yours. <sigh> Because I wander into (am drawn to?) contentious areas, I tend to get gnawed on a lot. This has made me four things: thick-skinned; cautious (perhaps insufficiently most of the time, and over-much some of the time) of stepping on toes - I rarely invoke WP:BOLD and have literally never invoked WP:IAR, though I've come close several times; insistent upon process when it applies (which often conflicts with WP:BOLD and WP:IAR; e.g. if one wants to merge WP:SERVICE into WP:BARNSTARS one uses the merge tags and hashes the matter out on the target's talk page; that sort of thing); and, lastly, unlikely to ever be an admin here, because I am an equal opportunity tomcat, and am not afraid to hold admins to the standards they hold non-admins to, meaning I've had plenty of beefs with admins who feel that consensus processes, policy, and precedent do not apply to them; and all it takes is one well-known admin opposing your RfA and all is lost in short order) I'm not sure I'd advise a similar course for anyone else to take. Heh. Aside from raising my hackles (rowr!) in a particular alley, for what little that's been worth, you seem to be doing quite well with your direction. >;-) PS: I meant what I said at the WP:SERVICE talk page; while I'm almost certain we've argued about something before, you stick in my mind - I recognized your user name immediately when I bothered loooking - as a Good Editor(TM). — SMcCandlish 09:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

MartinBot

Your recent edit to Qian Zhijun (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // MartinBot 12:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Note of false positive left here. --Tony Sidaway 13:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Removing discussion from DRV

I strongly request that you not remove discussion from Deletion review as you did in this edit. DES 17:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

In this instance, I'll have to politely decline your request. --Tony Sidaway 17:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Nicholai Daedalus' signature

The first comment was first posted on Nicholai's talk page. The discussion continued here so I've copied that comment here for completeness.

Yes, you've jogged my memory. I did want to tackle you about this before but I had other things on my mind. Your signature looks like this on the page:

• -—ΔαίδαλοςΣΣ

Now the effect of that on a discussion page is to distract the eye when a reader is trying to follow the discussion.

And as if that wasn't distracting enough this is what one has to content with in the edit box:

• -—[[User:NicholaiDaedalus|<span style="border: 2px solid Black; background-color: Red; color: Black">'''Δαίδαλος'''</span>]][[User talk:NicholaiDaedalus|<span style="border: 2px solid Black; background-color: Black; color: Red;">'''Σ'''</span>]][[Special:Contributions/NicholaiDaedalus|<span style="border: 2px solid Black; background-color: Black; color: Red;">'''Σ'''</span>]]

In the edit box, this is tagged to every single comment you make, no matter how brief. This makes it difficult for a person replying to a discussion in which you have participated to locate the comments, amid the sea of extraneous characters and formatting.

And because you render only part of your username, and that in the Greek alphabet which not all of us know, this also has the effect of completely obscuring your username.

So there are three problems there. Would you consider addressing them by changing your signature to something more acceptable? I normally refactor to remove unnecessary and intrusive formatting when I'm involved in a discussion, but I can't be everywhere and I don't intend to make a hobby out of it, so it's really up to you to try to stop the discussion pages turning into something resembling a toilet wall. --Tony Sidaway 17:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

1. It's a matter of individuality and identification. It's personal preference that I am known by the name Δαίδαλος, however that is almost impossible to type in a login without being cumbersome, therefore my reluctant choice is to use english characters for my login, but my identity is Δαίδαλος and that is how I wish to be known. People who wish to type Daedalus or Daidalos instead are more than welcome to if it's easier for them, but that is not my prefered alias, and so I will not change my signature to match my username. As far as I'm concerned, my username is as closely matched to my chosen identity as possible, not the other way around.
2. So it can be a little confusing in edit boxes. I was aware of the drawbacks when I chose to write my signature's code, and I chose to individualize myself anyway. Pointing them out now will not further convince me of changing it. Considering how many modified signatures there are out there, I don't see that you have any wide-ranging consensus and as far as I know you are the only person who has expressed a problem with this.
3. The page that you have pointed to about refactoring is not a policy and it is not a guideline. It is a how-to. It has no weight/enforcement whatsoever and respecting an individuals right to individuality and personal identity should supercede any how-to guide. You want to cite essays, how about don't be a WP:DICK?

If you change my signature on your talk page, then that's fine, I don't care much about that. But if you change my signature in a discussion, I will consider it vandalism. --—NicholaiDaedalus 18:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

If you want to consider my edits vandalism you're welcome to do so. However you will be wrong. The signature's purpose is to identify the username of the person making a comment. Anything else is unnecessary decoration and may be removed or refactored in the interests of keeping the talk page fit for the purpose of discussion. As I said, it isn't a toilet wall on which you may scrawl whatever graffiti you wish. --Tony Sidaway 18:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't usually complain about signatures, but an edit screen-cluttering red blob in Greek is not helpful to anybody. Please consider changing it. – Steel 18:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

And my signature reflects my identity while my username is an easy to type close approximate of my identity, so my signature as I have it is a perfect identification of who wrote the edit. If my choice of identity and personal expression is considered "graffiti" to you, then I thank you for insulting me! Do not edit my signature, or anyone else's for that matter. If you can somehow gather a consensus among WP to no longer allow that little "Raw signature" check mark or to ignore that little comment about using nicknames under the "my preferences" link, then sure, I'll modify my signature to make you happy then. But not until. Do not modify my signature in discussions. It is vandalism, and as far as I can tell a personal crusade for something that has no consensus. --—NicholaiDaedalus 18:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

According to our house definitions, it's certainly not "vandalism", by any stretch. That doesn't mean it's necessarily a good idea, or likely to lead to reduced conflict, but "vandalism" it ain't. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

There's no need to get so defensive. Tony Sidaway is not the only person to complain about over the top sigs and I find your stubborn responses and unwillingness to even consider his request quite inconsiderate. – Steel 18:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I feel it is vandalism as it alters how I wish to express myself, but if this is arguable then I won't push it. Call it rude, instead. As far as my stubborn unwillingness to consider his request, I considered it, and I dissagree. That doesn't mean that I didn't think about it, and that doesn't mean that I haven't given any weight to his arguments, it just means that I disagree. --—NicholaiDaedalus 18:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't affect your ability to express yourself in the least. Leaving aside the fact that you have a userpage for that purpose anyway, nobody can stop you having a distracting, obscure and very large signature. But after you've had your fun and made a mess of the talk page, some of us would like to use it for its intended purpose: discussion. To that end I think it's reasonable to clear up the mess you have made and restore it to a more suitable state for discussion. --Tony Sidaway 18:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

This conversation is going in circles. I do not feel that it detracts from the discussion page in a significant way, and my signature is a form of expression so modifying it does affect my expression. If it is obscure, then so be it, I created it for me, not for common knowledge. The code may be long, but my signature is no larger than normal text, in fact it is smaller than my username. I find both sides of this argument going in circles and repeating ourselves. I dissagree with you, and have decided not to change my signature. I'm leaving it at that. Good day. --—NicholaiDaedalus 19:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

It's kind of a tricky issue. Edit boxes can become difficult to work with, because of the accumulation of bulky code. Only a handful of lines are visible at once, and when 2/3 of those lines in a discussion are devoted to code for colorful and interesting signatures, it lessens the value of the edit box as a tool, for some people. Other people are bothered by different things. Personally, I have a very hard time working in an edit box where everything is packed togethter with no blank lines indicating breaks in the threading. Adding a few blank lines certainly ruffles a lot fewer feathers than de-formatting signatures, but the principle is the same.

These discussion pages are ultimately for the encyclopedia, and not for our enjoyment and self-expression. A certain amount of idiosyncracy is great, but where it actually gets in the way of others' ability to help with the project... one might consider sacrificing a little bit for the common good. Something that doesn't bother you might make it very difficult for someone else to participate. A certain parsimony of code is a form of courtesy.

Tony doesn't always meet questioners halfway on this point, which might be part of why you see the conversation going in circles. People set patterns, and stick with them, you know. However, you can count on Tony's absolute good faith; he's doing what he does to make the project better, every time. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I have never assumed that discussion pages were for enjoyment or self-expression. But that doesn not mean that a unique signature is unnacceptable either. I do not doubt his good faith, I doubt his consideration on what others may find offensive. Something that bothers him is no excuse to editing someone's signature. He may ask that they change it, but he should not take it upon himself to modify it. The entire principle is insulting and rude to those he edits. --—NicholaiDaedalus 20:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I quite intentionally didn't say "unacceptable". As for Tony's approach to the issue, he and I have had that conversation before, if I reacall correctly, and I don't feel compelled to repeat it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

On a slightly less germane note...I think Tony's opening statement to Nicholai is perhaps the most polite request about simplifying signatures I've seen from anyone, especially Tony. Cheers! --InkSplotch 21:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Clearly Tony's password has been compromised. Who is that editing on his behalf ;) David D. (Talk) 22:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Alphabet soup

It's late, so I can't off the top of my head remember which AfD you were commenting on regarding the overuse of stuff like WP:BIO, WP:CORP, and WP:RS. But you're right, especially where new users are concerned. How can they have any clue to what I'm talking about when all I'm doing is throwing around these abbreviations? I've been trying lately to flesh out these terms when I know I'm talking to someone relatively new. If I'm citing one as part of an AfD, I'll at least try to say what part I'm citing instead of just throwing code in their faces. It's making me a better Wikipedian, and I've got you to thank for it. (end of sucking up mode) DarkAudit 05:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh that was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brielle "Brie" Baumbach.

It was a particularly egregious case. Even I didn't know what the fellow was talking about, so as I had to go to the trouble of looking up the terms I thought I might as well replace the letters with the terms and make a comment about what a bad idea it is to use the letters in discussion. --Tony Sidaway 13:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom

The Qiun Zhijun situation is at ArbCom, and you have been listed at a party. Please leave comments there. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Not adding Xoloz was a mistake on my part that has been rectified. It's probably not a good idea to accuse me of trolling, though. Just thought I might throw that out there. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Star Wars Kid

Sorry, didn't mean to be rude, but it seemed like something of a drastic edit to make without any discussion. Frankly, I'm not terribly interested in the subject (such as it is), but I'm forced to wonder: has a decision been reached somewhere recommending a redirect? If not, I think we'd have a hard time explaining the removal of so much of what makes the article noteworthy. Cheers, Albrecht 04:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, what makes the subject noteworthy is the fact that it became an internet meme. The article is really only about the person, and that's one of those edgy things that I don't think we want to do with Wikipedia. This is roughly what happened: young kid plays with light saber, makes cool movie and puts it on internet; internet jackasses make fun of kid, who they think looks fat and nerdy; kid gets upset, tries to sue. Kid's young life has been ruined before it's started.

Now my view of this is that we can cover this in a sensitive way, talking about the meme, or we can join in with the jackasses and cover his futile, tragic attempts to stop his persecutors, in loving detail. Guess which I chose. Would you mind if I reverted? --Tony Sidaway 04:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I understand your concerns, but I feel they could be better addressed by editing the article to refocus it on the meme, rather than throwing out several decent paragraphs talking about its popularity that don't mention the kid himself at all. Have you considered just editing the article to make the kid's position in it less prominent? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 05:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I took your advice. Would you like to take a look at the article Star Wars kid now? --Tony Sidaway 05:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the name should still appear somewhere in the article, as long as it's not leading off with "xxxx is the star wars kid." It needs a longer lead that explains what happened and just how popular it is anyway. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 05:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the name belongs anywhere on Wikipedia. He's a private individual. --Tony Sidaway 06:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

(ec) I don't see how the real name adds to the encyclopedic quality of the article, but I can see how not having the real name benefits the person involved. Daniel 06:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:ATouchOfFrost.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:ATouchOfFrost.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 07:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Yikes, tagged with db-g7. --Tony Sidaway 07:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

42 (Doctor Who episode)

(You removed my references to X-Men and Solaris, others' references to Hitchhiker's, etc, etc. on the basis of it being original research)

And yet it'd done all of the time in trivia sections of Doctor Who episode articles. It's fun to for viewers to share stuff like this. Real encyclopedias don't contain these kinds of pop culture articles, or trivia. Why, oh why do pedantic editors try to hold Wikipedia to the standards of real encyclopedias, when they participate in such articles in the first place? (Throws hands in the air.)

Congradulations, a few minutes ago the article was getting robust and interesting, and in a flurry of destructive edits, you've gutted it. So many things that remain in the article are unsourced and original research. The entire summaries of all of the episodes are unsourced original research, as are the cast lists, and so on, and so on. God, man. When it comes to fannish articles like these, you can't be a scholar and pedant, it's so antithetic to the existence of these kinds of articles, and deadly to the morale of the people who use and contribute to them. -- AvatarMN 08:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

It's an encyclopedia, not a fan site. There are Doctor Who wikis, I believe. --Tony Sidaway 08:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

"Encyclopedias" don't have articles on Doctor Who. Wikipedia does. Doctor Who wikis are anemic because they don't have the usership that Wikipedia does... which has articles on Doctor Who. And you, sir, use and contribute to them. How you can argue about stuff like this is puzzling. And you don't argue my points that these articles are by nature and necessity unsourced and full of original research, I notice. I don't think you can. Argue that articles such as these don't belong in "Wikipedia, an encyclopedia" if this is how you really feel. AvatarMN 08:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

You have a point about the plot summaries. If you make a case for removal on the grounds that they are original research, I will support you. --Tony Sidaway 08:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Remove plot summaries on 188 articles? Gutting the work and spoiling the fun of thousands, maybe millions of editors and users? Getting into protracted disputes with all of these well-meaning, helpful, and satisfied folks? All for a principle that is totally antithetical to the very existence of such articles, and clearly overruled by the fact of the continued and long-standing existence of they and countless other articles on other shows? No way, man! That sounds like a larger scale of what someone goes around doing, but it sure as shit isn't me. And if you cede my point on the summaries, I don't think you can hold the against the points I've made on the other contributions. -- AvatarMN 09:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

If you don't mean it, don't suggest it. However, if you do, I'll support you. --Tony Sidaway 09:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't suggest it. I said that they're proof that these sort of articles are by necessity unsourced and full of original research. And I suggested that if you are going to remove some contributions on those grounds and not others that also "qualify for removal" on those grounds, you don't have a leg to stand on and should knock it off. -- AvatarMN 09:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Why do you think he has a point over plot summaries as original research? Provided a summary doesn't try to interpret the plot beyond simply stating what occurs on screen, there shouldn't be a problem. Digby Tantrum 09:51, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The plot summaries on most of the Doctor Who articles are derived from amateur aural transcription. A case could be made that this requires a certain amount of synthesis. In any case it's not necessary for an encyclopedia article about a fictional work to discuss its plot in the kind of detail that the Doctor Who articles do. Brief synopses referring to reliable external sources would work quite well. --Tony Sidaway 16:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

You're saying you want less information on Wikipedia? I would have thought the more information available to the public the better. Also, when you find yourself apparently "the only one in step", you are probably the very opposite. I suggest that, should you not wish to be up against a barrage of complaints and continual reverts of your edits, which to many border on vandalism (Indeed, you were once termed "borderline insane" - hardly an accolade for editing an international encyclopaedia! [1]. Of course, I have my tongue in my cheek, but the point remains.), you adopt a less hardline approach to your editing. Wikipedia thrives on the masses putting their work forward for all to benefit. What your are doing is entirely against the grain of general opinion and is therefore the kind of action which will one day doom this outstanding facility. JPBarrass 15:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

By the way it's not permitted to link to personal attacks on external websites. Thought you might like to file that away for future reference. I've never had any problems with people reverting my edits. --Tony Sidaway 15:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Should you read that external site, you will find that it does in fact praise you with words like accomplished, so is hardly an attack. It just has a rather interesting sidenote. I believe you when you say that you have not had a problem with people reverting your edits, because, from what I've read on this page, your edits are generally reversions of other people's good work, which could easily be classified as vandalism. Read this page. How many people are there complaining about you? Now read it again and count how many are supporting you. Now go away, think about yourself and come back a calmer person with a brighter outlook on life. JPBarrass 08:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a vandal. I'm a quite calm person and I haven't a problem responding to criticism. I've got all the support I need to function very effectively on Wikipedia, which is what counts. --Tony Sidaway 11:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

One of the problems with our episode articles is that the plot descriptions are very long and poorly written. This actually conceals useful information from the public by drowning it in a mass of inconsequential detail. See for instance the discussion on Talk:Smith and Jones (Doctor Who) about a proposal by me to rewrite the plot to omit such detail in favor of giving a good narrative account of the plot. --Tony Sidaway 15:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The solution to that would be simple: have a blurb section and a more detailed section. JPBarrass 15:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I can prove that you're retalliating against me and targeting my edits for reversion; this is harassment. You used my edits history to find the article Ashitare, where, during our argument, I had chanced into a typo and fixed it. You didn't revert my edit, but you made a format edit that left your footprint in the article's history. Is it ethical to hound someone like this, I wonder? -- AvatarMN 17:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not retaliating in any way, just removed a bad edit or two after you openly espoused the addition of unsourced rubbish to Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 10:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

If you care, I've now added something of an open letter to my own talk page. -- AvatarMN 23:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC) (talk)

AmendmentNumberOne

• AmendmentNumberOne (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

After being unblocked, immediately goes and modifies WP:KEYSPAM, and then reverts (just once) when I reverted it. Also, see bottom of talk page for relevant details. Swatjester 09:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

My opinion of this fellow is already well known. It was a serious mistake to permit this troll to continue editing. --Tony Sidaway 16:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Wheel / edit war

I suppose, since 3 of the reverts were done by non-admins, that we have to call it an edit war or revert war. Nonetheless, there has been a lot of admins acting on their own in spite of known admin opposition in this case. Mango 12:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Admins acting in the knowledge that other admins disagree with them is fine. Wikipedians are a pretty diverse bunch and it's not required that every single admin who comments expresses approval of any given action. To say that the admins who deleted the article acted alone is simply incorrect but that doesn't have anything to do with wheel warring either. --Tony Sidaway 16:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Ref Desk guidelines

If you disagree with the current guidelines please help us modify them, either by direct changes to the guidelines or by discussing them on the talk page. Thanks, StuRat 16:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

That's what I just did. I said they were bollocks and gave specific examples. --Tony Sidaway 17:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

LOOM

Leave the tags up for the time being. The article is being used as an example of their benefits. If you get your way, you'll get to remove them soon enough. --Kizor 00:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Put them back if you like, but I see no benefits there. --Tony Sidaway 00:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

H2G2

Don't be daft - it doesn't need sourcing! Listen to the theme tune to H2G2 then watch 42 again - it's as clear as daylight.

No good without a source, sorry. --Tony Sidaway 13:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

How can there POSSIBLY be a source?!!!!!!!! You want a news story about it or something?!JPBarrass 13:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, a news story, or a credit on the BBC website. That would be adequate. --Tony Sidaway 13:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you actually being serious?! The plot is not referenced. In fact those pictures could have been from anything! If the images are clearly from the programme in question then the tune is as clearly from that film. Nothing could be clearer. Stick it in your VCR again, go to 41 minutes into the episode and listen. Listen again 20 seconds later. If they had said "Hello. I'm Bob Carolgees." then I bet you wouldn't have said it needs referencing. And yes, it really is that clear.

I played 42 last night shortly before removing the item from the article. I listened to the segment where the ship starts to break free from the sun, but this left me none the wiser. I checked the author of the H2G2 film on imdb against the music credits for this episode, and I'm still none the wiser. This is not verifiable. --Tony Sidaway 13:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Go to 41 minutes and 4 seconds into the episode. If you don't hear it (shortly before Martha kisses the man with whom she nearly died) then I'm afraid you're tone deaf! ;) JPBarrass 14:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I hear incidental music. What am I supposed to hear? --Tony Sidaway 14:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

havent you seen hg2g? the journey of the sourcerer i think its called --Dwrules 14:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

That's the theme tune for the radio and television series. It's an old instrumental piece by the Eagles, a favorite of mine even before Adams used it. No, I definitely didn't hear that. --Tony Sidaway 14:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, my mistake. I was writing the film version but meant the TV version (which itself was echoed in the film version, probably hance the confusion). Anyway, it's the classic H2G2 theme. Sorry for the muddle. But anyway, if you didn't hear it, then I'd definitely say you're musically challenged (without offence), and hardly think it fair to disadvantage the average musical listener by removing the reference. I never like an edit war, but this really does seem silly. JPBarrass 14:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Smith and Jones (Doctor Who)

Good work there! Looks much better now. Matthew 15:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad you like it. This is the version I wrote weeks ago and put on the talk page, but it didn't get a good reception at the time. --Tony Sidaway 17:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey

Nice sig! I'm jealous :P [2]. R 13:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Refactoring signatures

Any particular reason why you refactored my signature on a comments page here? I know I was editing from my alternate account, but I thought that using my regular signature made my identity sufficiently clear. Walton ^{Need some help?} 16:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I expect it's because your sig is barely readable :-\ Matthew 17:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Mainly I refactor it because it looks like this:
<font face="Verdana">[[User:Walton_monarchist89|<font
color="Purple">'''Wal'''</font>]][[User talk:Walton_monarchist89|<font
color="silver">'''ton'''</font>]] <small>^{<font
color="Purple">[[WP:ASSIST|Need some help?]]</font>}</small></font> 16:56, 22
May 2007 (UTC)

Thus is takes up three or four lines in my edit box that could contain discussion. Refactorimg it significantly reduces noise in the discussion, making it easier to follow. --Tony Sidaway 17:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

OK. I won't pick a fight with you over this, but if you refactor my sig in future, can you please refactor it to "Walton" in plain text, not "Walton_monarchist89" (as at the end of this posting)? I don't like my username much, and unfortunately WP:CHU is out of the question because there's already a User:Walton who has made some edits, hence not a candidate for usurpation. Walton 17:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

If I do that, won't people think you are User walton? In fact I used to think that. It's very confusing. Couldn't you just choose a username that is available and that you do like? --Tony Sidaway 17:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps [[User:Walton_monarchist89|Walton]] is what s/he is asking for. Navou 17:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes I know what he wants. My problem is that this would make him appear to be user walton. --Tony Sidaway 17:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've been using my current sig for several months and no one's complained. User:Walton has not been seen since January 2006 and made fewer than 10 edits in total, so s/he is not likely to take issue with it. Walton^Assistance! 18:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

In any case, ideally I'd prefer you not to refactor my sig at all. I was just saying that if you insist on doing so, please use the name that I normally use. You may also notice that I've changed my signature - it's now only 2-3 lines of HTML code (depending on monitor size) and should be less obtrusive. Walton^Assistance! 19:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

unwritten policies on sensitivity

Hello,

There seems to be an unwritten policy: "Minors known exclusively for events which would embarrass them will not be mentioned by name or have articles created containing their name or image"

It seems like a reasonable policy.

Why is it not part of the Biography of Living Persons policy (perhaps in the private figures section)?

The WP:BLP currently seems to focus more on following content policies than on the sensitivity policies. It mentions sensitivity, but is somewhat vague on what is meant by the term.

The "do no harm" section would seem to include this case, but it is softened at the end with "When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic." which some could infer to mean that a "sourced/neutral/on-topic" article would be an acceptable way to remove doubt about an articles appropriateness. (I'm not claiming to agree with that inference).

If there is a reason for not making it policy, would it be acceptable to list it as a "for example" as in:

Sensitivity concerns to living persons should be given much weight, and an article that is sourced, neutral, and on-topic may still be inappropriate. For example: minors known exclusively for events which would embarrass them will not be mentioned by name or have articles created containing their name or image.

Such a statement may lead to increased discussion or disagreement about sensitivity (which may not be a bad thing - it would be preferable to increased discussion or disagreement about policy)

I posted this here instead of at WP:BLP because you seem to be involved in actions related to minors and have experience in this area. Uncle uncle uncle 18:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I saw when you posted something similar on another user's talk page. I haven't read our biographies of living persons policy, I just follow commonsense, and so far it seems to have been broadly in keeping with that policy, even if some of the bits that are obvious to me may not actually be written up well in the policy. --Tony Sidaway 18:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Badlydrawnjeff comments

Re: [3], please play nice. Georgewilliamherbert 00:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

You would notice if I wasn't playing nice. --Tony Sidaway 00:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Nevertheless... Georgewilliamherbert 00:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

He needs to be told. He's very close to going too far. --Tony Sidaway 01:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

There is telling him that he's skirting with incivility, then there's threatening him, which is incivil in and of itself. Two wrongs won't make a right; they'll escalate the situation instead of defusing it.

I have also asked him to keep it civil. Georgewilliamherbert 01:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not talking about civility. He can eff and blind all he likes for all I care, but there are some things that he is contemplating right now which would severely disrupt Wikipedia. He needs to know that this would be a bad thing to do. I've told him. --Tony Sidaway 01:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: User:Badlydrawnjeff

Per approximately two hours of IRC discussion, it had been determined that the disruption caused by that user outweighed any efforts to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. The amount of drama and all around chaos that has come as a result of his actions and the resulting actions of others caused is a disruption and an exhaustion of the community's time, as noted in the block reason. As one of many administrators, others have been in contact with the user and have taken actions that you described, such as warning the user. This issue is no longer a single admin's responsibility, nor is it the responsibility of the community as a whole. While I am not suggesting that this is elitist, it is the responsibility of all administrators, of which there has been consensus, to act when events like this occur to prevent any further damage to the project. Zsinj^Talk 02:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)