Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:02, 27 June 2007

User:Tony Sidaway/OTRS review

Re: TWINKLE Bug

Thanks for looking out! -- Dangerousnerd 19 June 2007 01:21 UTC

Akc9000

This wasn't pointless bureaucracy because another admin had reversed the indef block. When that happened, I took the case to WP:CSN in hopes of getting the block to stick. Jehochman 00:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Not a good forum for such a discussion. Nasty place. Avoid at all costs. "Votes for banning." Eugh! --Tony Sidaway 00:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Disagree. Navou 00:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard

In particular, read the close of that discussion. --Tony Sidaway 00:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that closure out to me. Very true and Phaedriel sums it up well in a couple of areas. It has served well in the past but the discussions must be guarded to keep COI (short circuit for dispute resolution) out and keep it from becoming votes for banning. I'll probably propose a renaming to something other than status quo. I thank you for applying the very appropriate closes to the last two discussions, in order to keep discussion proper for the forum. I would ask that you if possible be more descriptive as far as conclusions such as "Pointless bureaucracy to continue." as it left me scratching my head. I am very interested in your opinions as they have been somewhat of a boon in the past as far as shedding a new perspective on these types of issues as far as I am concerned. Do you have any opinions or suggestions on how to unnasty that "nasty place"? Navou 00:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I favor deletion. --Tony Sidaway 09:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Another apology

I'd like to apologise for my comment here - I made an error in mischaracterising a comment of yours as a "deletion summary" when in fact it was a comment in a discussion. I also believed erroneously that you were a current admin (I never thought to check Special:Listusers). If I had noticed that the comment cited was not a deletion summary, I would not have criticised you - profanity is excusable, IMO, in the context of a heated discussion, but would be unacceptable if used in a deletion summary. So I'm sorry for misjudging you. Walton_monarchist89 19:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

It was obviously an honest error. Thanks for apologising just the same. --Tony Sidaway 00:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

OK. Incidentally, why have you gone back to refactoring my sig? I thought you said this one was short enough. Walton 15:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:BDP

I was under the impression that WP:BLP also applied to the recently deceased, largely for the same reasons as well as for protecting the next-of-kin. However, the policy does not seem to indicate that. Did I miss something or should said page be updated? Radiant! 09:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a "Scope" section in which we discuss the considerations that mean we sometimes apply the policy to the recently deceased. I'm very pleased at the progress we've made. --Tony Sidaway 09:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

BLP

So what is my opinion when it comes to BLP then? It seems that you haven't read the countless times that I have stated how important I think the policy is and that we share many of the same views. You seem to ignore that we agree on many aspects of it, instead focussing on what is fast becoming a test case for BLP deletions. I stand by my restorations and have fully explained myself to Doc via email, to which he seemed to at least understand where I was coming from. I also stand by the fact that I don't believe the articles warranted speedy deletions and that the process of BRD was appropriate.

I'm now wondering what you are wanting to achieve by bringing up past debates that I have been involved in. Are you not happy with the cautioning? I fail to see how I even warrant that, let alone anything further as you seem to be aiming for. violet/riga (t) 17:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

It isn't about whether we agree on the BLP.

It's about whether you deal with BLP deletions appropriately, or just undelete them without consensus.

--Tony Sidaway 18:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Avoiding much of what I said, of course. I'm just amused that you haven't been able to show how those articles are BLP violations and, as far as I'm concerned, haven't shown any evidence to make me think that the articles shouldn't have been undeleted. violet/riga (t) 19:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm avoiding most of what you said because it's irrelevant to the arbitration committee's warning. I really don't mind if you have an opinion that differs from mine. I do mind if you don't set your opinions aside and abide with Misplaced Pages policy. The Committee seems to agree with me on this. --Tony Sidaway 20:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Irrelevant? Ahh just as dredging up the past is irrelevant then? Or should I look into the naughty things that you have done? violet/riga (t) 20:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I think your behavior there was relevant to your recent behavior: another momentary lapse in your normal ability to work well with others, perhaps, or maybe some deeper problem? Your continued insistence that you did nothing wrong suggests the latter to me, but fortunately for me I'm not required to reach a decision on such matters. --Tony Sidaway 20:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

The thing is that in both cases I was right. Deny it all you like and claim "wikilawyering" and "letter not the spirit" but you simply haven't proved my actions wrong. You can say that I should've discussed it but clearly there was nothing to discuss - nobody has given any reasons why those deletions were acceptable. I'm rather happy about that. violet/riga (t) 20:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I refer you to our eight esteemed colleagues of the arbitration committee, who disagree with you on the matter of your conduct in the circumstances.

See Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff/Proposed_decision#Violetriga

They may be contacted via the mailing list, or email to a clerk, or individually by email or on their talk pages. --Tony Sidaway 20:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

They say that I should have discussed it. Fair enough, that would've been an option, but I fail to see how that course would've helped. And my point still stands - nobody (you, Doc, or the arbcom) have shown that the articles should have been deleted. violet/riga (t) 20:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Even if that were true, it is not the issue. Please talk to the arbitrators about this. I may often find that my opinions seem to coincide closely with theirs, but I am not their interpreter and they can do a much, much better of explaining their reasoning themselves. --Tony Sidaway 20:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

It is the issue - I undid unacceptable deletions. I should be thanked! violet/riga (t) 20:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Ask them why they're not thanking you. --Tony Sidaway 20:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

You are the most vocal one of the entire situation and I'm not talking about what the arbcom think. violet/riga (t) 20:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I've said all I have to say. I'm confident that you've understood what I'm saying but are unable to accept it. The Committee is saying the same thing but unlike me it has teeth. If the Committee and I are wrong, then ignore me and convince the Committee. Then I'll reluctantly but faithfully set my opinion to one side and accept their new opinion in the interests of the encyclopedia. And that's what it's all about. Not you being right, not me being right, but us both being able to work together to improve the encyclopedia. --Tony Sidaway 20:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Which goes back to my original point: if you are trying to create a situation where we can work together I'm not really sure why you wanted to bring up the past to try and cause further problems. violet/riga (t) 20:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned my involvement in the case is over, unless the arbitrators start considering further findings and remedies involving other parties than those against whom they have already considered sanctions. --Tony Sidaway 21:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello

Hi Tony. Your old faithful friend has come with his thoughts and More thoughts :) --Bhadani (talk) 20:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Gang bang

Tony, would you prefer that I write a separate (and longer) article focusing on the film series? It clearly meets Misplaced Pages:Notability as discussed on the article talk page. If you like, you can then nominate it for Afd, and watch it be kept with overwhelming acclaim. Please don't just delete content without participating in that discussion. --AnonEMouse 22:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The film series is overbalancing an article on a cultural phenomenon, and further is tending to misrepresent the usually spurious claims of pornography as reliably sourced fact.

Please feel free to write a separate article about the film series. --Tony Sidaway 22:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. Will do. I haven't been involved in editing the "cultural phenomenon" part anyway. I assume a 1-paragraph section in Gang bang with a see Main article link would not be out of line? --AnonEMouse 22:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale

Hi, Tony. I sometimes see you commenting on image copyright policy, and I'd appreciate some advice.

Shortly after I joined, I uploaded images of my Fontanini crib and figures to Commons. Jkelly gently pointed me to Derivative works, and then, at my request, deleted the images from Commons. He did say, however, that I could upload them here and told me which tag to use. They're both currently in the Fontanini article. I also uploaded Image:Lladro.jpg, which is currently in the Lladró article.

Almost a week ago, someone tagged the three images as having no fair use rationale. I had never written a fair use rationale before, and I didn't get round to it until today. The images are Image:Lladro.jpg, Image:Fontaninifigurines.jpg, and Image:Fontaninicrib.jpg.

I looked at the instructions, and made an attempt for Lladro and for Fontaninicrib. I didn't bother for Fontaninifigurines, as I was already beginning to have doubts as to whether it was really justified to have two fair use images in the Fontanini article, which is quite short. (In fact, I had asked about it at some page — I can't remember which — that dealt with fair use issues, and nobody had answered, so I just forgot about it.)

Could you please take a look at the two images that I've written a fair use rationale for, and tell me frankly if you think I'm justified in claiming fair use, and if I've filled it in properly. I'm quite happy to delete anything I uploaded that doesn't satisfy the requirements.

Thanks for your congratulations on my adminship. With regard to IRC, I did wander in there one day recently, but found it extremely complicated. Also, I haven't figured out all this stuff about a "cloak", so you're unlikely to see me there any time soon. ElinorD (talk) 12:39, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Those figures really enhance the article because without them it's really difficult to visualize what is being referred to in the articles. Both Fontanini pictures are useful in the article. Your justifications seem fine but, if they're ever challenged, I'll be happy to help to improve them. --Tony Sidaway 20:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Tony. I've left the second Fontanini image in the article, and have written a fair use rationale for that as well (more or less the same as the other). ElinorD (talk) 21:07, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: The "do no harm"/naming/etc. discussion at the RFAR

I feel I should apologize. I began that discussion in an effort to get a better sense for how broadly other editors, possibly including you, interpret "do no harm", especially in regards to name inclusion. Given Raul's comments, it seemed germane. Although we've certainly disagreed on articles before, I honestly didn't intend for it to become a pile-on of involved editors looking to find fault with your viewpoints or past actions. And it certainly wasn't an effort to change policy by proxy on a talk page. I'm no stranger to policy talk and even bold policy edits (heck, I refactored some of BLP just today!), but I honestly hadn't even noticed the couple of lines about name redaction in there. I've been far busier with the wrap-up of the longstanding conflict at WP:NPA and a discussion about WP:EL to have followed BLP's changes closely. And if the comment about misrepresentation was directed at me, then I apologize in that regard as well; I'm quite aware that you're simply an editor (well, and an OTRS volunteer, but that's neither here nor there), albeit a very active one in this sphere of policies and articles. I'm just an editor, too.

In any case, I still hope for an open dialogue at some point about how to determine when things should be redacted, but it looks like that thread isn't going to go that way anytime soon. In the meantime, now that I know BLP mentions the issue, I'm may have a hand at tweaking just what we're saying about it. We may have butted heads, but I would value your input once I get something together.

-Serpent's Choice 20:32, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I feel that it became overly personal. I don't write Misplaced Pages policy alone, but there seemed to be a sense in which I was being used as a proxy for disagreements on policy which should be addressed on the talk page of that policy and in a more appropriate discussion, with regard to the issues rather than personalities. --Tony Sidaway 20:40, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I suppose that I bear some responsibility for that, having quoted you in my initial post. I chose your words solely because you seemed to have a well-defined position that was different from mine. I really didn't expect that the dialogue would so quickly veer off. I addressed further comments to you more directly because you were the editor responding, and because you had expressed concerns about the quality of my argument. To wit, my examples weren't intended as a strawman, nor even directly about BLP; rather they were meant as examples of "harm" that articles might do and so I was hoping for a dialogue about how literally that maxim is to be inteded. Of course, that's clearly not what I got, and for that I am sorry. Serpent's Choice 20:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, I've tried my hand over at WP:BLP, per your suggestion. I expect that there's a lot more work to do before the passage is "right", but I tried to offer a place to start that I hope is universally amenable without being uselessly vague. Serpent's Choice 21:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

The Sound of Drums.

You may want to do the out-of-universe conversion on this article, as I can't for the life of me figure how to without diverging. Will 21:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll think about it. The main plot elements are simple: the Master's ruthless plan to take over the earth, the mysterious tocaflane and their need to leave earth, the capturing of Martha's family, and the Doctor and his companions' attempts to thwart the Master's plan. There's a lot of running and shouting and stuff, and some of it needs to be described. --Tony Sidaway 22:00, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Twinkle reverts

Twinkle has three types of revert. One is called "vandalism". That is for reverting vandalism. Therefore, the other two must be for reverting non-vandalism.--Rambutan (talk) 07:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't absolve you of the obligation to give a meaninfgul edit summary. --Tony Sidaway 08:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I normally do: they do enable you to use one, like this.--Rambutan (talk) 11:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

MfD

Hi Tony, regarding the MfD that you recently closed as erroneous- the reason for the nomination was that the article had been overturned at DRV and had been suggested that a listing should be made to follow process. Since divisiveness was the issue, a procedual nomination at MfD was made by me in order to conclusively prove this. After your closure, someone else reopened the discussion. My suggestion is to let the MfD run regularly and then make a close, so there isn't any future dispute on the userbox. Sr13 10:59, 24 June 2007 (UTC) Read the comment, posted before me. Sr13 11:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't make nominations like that again, please. Never list an item for deletion unless you want to delete it. Also I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't count votes. I've already said both of these things but you don't seem to have taken any notice. Please read and try to understand the deletion policy if you are going to open or close deletion listings and deletion reviews. Okay. --Tony Sidaway 11:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:FORUM

Tony, you claim to be an experienced user of Misplaced Pages, so why are you so blatantly encouraging - and participating in - violation of WP:NOT? You could support me by enforcing policy, since you ought to be more responsible than the fan-crappy people on that talkpage topic.--Rambutan (talk) 19:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:Last of the Time Lords, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Rambutan (talk) 19:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

That's what you should get for this.--Rambutan (talk) 19:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh calm down. It's the end of the season and everybody wants to know what will happen next. A bit of speculation is fun and doesn't do any harm. --Tony Sidaway 19:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Rambutan: Misplaced Pages is first and foremost an encyclopaedia -- yes; but it's also a community... light conversations help the community. This is a case where we IAR. Matthew 19:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

And how about this?--Rambutan (talk) 19:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Pomte is being a bit of a silly sausage. Just ignore him. --Tony Sidaway 19:59, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

This is your last warning. If you continue to use talk pages such as Last of the Time Lords for inappropriate discussions you will be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. LessHeard vanU 20:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest that you're getting a teensy bit carried away there. --Tony Sidaway 20:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

It got your attention. LessHeard vanU 21:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

You've got mail. And if you ever try that again you'll have some explaining to do. And possibly plenty of leisure to do it in. I don't like to see people abusing their admin tools to bully project editors. --Tony Sidaway 21:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I will continue do as I think is correct, and if you think threatening me is going to make the slightest bit of difference then you will be disappointed. LessHeard vanU 22:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

LessHeard vanU, how is Tony using disucssion pages inappropriately? Is he disrupting wikipedia by doing it? No. I respectively request that you go and read up on WP:BLOCK. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I've put a note on each of the affected talk pages asking people not to edit war with these people, and promising that they'll be dealt with if the disruptive intervention continues. I won't make any more comments on this matter here. --Tony Sidaway 22:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The Frosties Kid

Ooops, I didn't quite realise the GFDL implications when I made the edit to Frosted Flakes. I do have a copy of a sandbox idea i wrote for the article dating back to 27 july 06 Here, the contrib log is . This was a pure re-write during the first Afd. I think that I can hack it down to two paragraphs that fit unobtrusively on the Frosted Flakes article. Is reapplying my own GFDL licensed contributions breaking the new GFDL I am applying. Merged pages never have to go through the same method, although seemingly transparent if text has been merged without a proper edit summary, it makes a nonsense of process. Mike33 20:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

If you have your own self-written revisions then they can be applied to the article if you leave a link to the original in your userspace on the talk page. --Tony Sidaway 20:07, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the help - its always safer to go down well trodden roads - just wish you guys would oneday provide a single page that links every policy and guideline, cracks them into two sentences and can be wikilinked into. You are a star Tony, but just please make a new introduction to policy. your friend Mike33 06:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

DRV

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Jessica Michalik. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Rebecca 02:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

CSD U4ia

Have you ever considered that people would take you a lot more seriously and listen much more readily if you were less THUS SAITH TONY SIDAWAY about it all? I started out more or less agreeing with your position regarding polemical userspace content, but the longer the discussion goes on, the more you've been persuading me towards the other side. --tjstrf talk 07:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I can only state my opinion. If you disagree then obviously you misunderstood me before.

--Tony Sidaway 07:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Advice Required

Please give me advice.

The owls are not what they seem. --Tony Sidaway 20:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Methinks this is about User_talk:Bob_Castle#Attacking_other_editors, where the IP says that due to your being British, you will automatically understand him. (Either that was just proven to be false, or you each understand each other on an even higher level than I can comprehend...) --AnonEMouse 21:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Listen very carefully, I will say this only once. --Tony Sidaway 21:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Restoration of The Lying Game

(Copied from User talk:DESiegel)

Hi, I'm unclear about your motive for undeleting this article. Do you believe that there is merit in the argument that it should remain on Misplaced Pages, or is there another reason? --Tony Sidaway 09:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Let me be clear. I undeleted this because whatever else it was, it wasn't a speedy. It wasn't an A7, because it wasn't about a person, group, firm, or website. It is just possible that references might have been found at an AfD that would make it notable enough to be kept, although i doubt it. I would have placed it on AfD, but there was an AfD in progress, and I was unwilling to revert the close of that without some support from DRV. Had I encountered this untagged, i would probably have tagged it with prod, and possibly {{hoax}}. Perhaps this was a case where something that clearly wasn't a speedy shouldn't have been argued over, given that the chance of it being kept as a valid article is low. But I am seeing far too many invalid speedys recently, and given that some editors, and indeed some admins, infer precedents from lack of action (look at the spoiler debate) failing to act on this kind of invalid speedy is tacitly agreeing to an extension of the speedy criteria that is IMO a vary bad idea. 15:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Responded on User talk:DESiegel to keep the discussion in one place. --Tony Sidaway 15:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Ping! Responded on my talk page. DES 15:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Ping DES 15:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but you don't have to edit my talk page every time you make a response to one of my comments. I know where your talk page is. --Tony Sidaway 15:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Template:Needs rationale

Hi, I've nominated {{Needs rationale}} for deletion at Misplaced Pages:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 June 26#Template:Needs rationale. —Angr 18:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Your post to Durova

It is interesting that you should remark that Durova is inconsistent. I find her recent actions on WP:CSN to be inconsistent also. In two cases she has either blocked or suggested lengthy community bans, yet in a third she deleted (not closed or archived) an entire post and commented it as 'not appropriate for that board'. Lsi john 19:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

It's okay, everybody has my permission to be funky, but sometimes I like to ask why. --Tony Sidaway 23:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. heh. I'm not sure funky is the word I'd use, but I suppose it'll do. Gday to you. Perhaps we'll meet in mainspace. Peace in God. Lsi john 11:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/CharlotteWebb

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/CharlotteWebb. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/CharlotteWebb/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/CharlotteWebb/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 23:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Blanking Sandbox per BLP

Thanks for blanking that CGM page. I was going to work on cleaning up the article, but then things got away from me. Then I noticed the main article was merged with the Duke one, and I never got around to deleting it. Andyparkerson 07:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Gere

I have no problem with your removing the material from the talk page, but your edit comment indicated that you were preparing it for archive, and I don't see an archive of that material. Sometimes it is helpful next time someone comes along with a similar suggestion to be able to point to an archive and say, "discussed and dismissed already." It doesn't have to be named, just Archive 1, 2, whatever. -Jmh123 15:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you thought I was about to archive that. I had no intention of doing that, and it should not be archived. --Tony Sidaway 16:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I misread the edit comments and the process. Like I said, I think there's some value in having an archive as some people will persist in bringing up ridiculous notions. Are Talk page archives visible in google searches? -Jmh123 16:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Just remove any and all dodgy claims about living subjects of Misplaced Pages articles from any page No archive, no discussion. I don't know whether or not any search engines archive talk pages, and I don't think it's safe to make any assumptions about this. Anybody can see any page on any wiki. --Tony Sidaway 16:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Spoiler warning RFA

I have opened a about the spoiler warning issue, in which I've listed you as one of the involved users. Ken Arromdee 17:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)