Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ElinorD (talk | contribs) at 15:14, 1 August 2007 (→Requesting help again: thanks). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

User:Tony Sidaway/OTRS review

Archives

no archives yet (create)

This page has archives. Sections older than 4 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Editing other people's signatures

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

This is now closed. Take any further problems to the RFC. I find this obsession with juvenile graffiti and tagging tiresome and the threat to block was quite overboard. See wikipedia:requests for comment/Tony Sidaway 3.

Don't do this again. You are free to reformat your talk page any way you like, but it is obnoxious to be editing people's comments on other talk pages. You are already aware of this, and since that RFC rules (which are enforced) have been enacted to reign in the silliness that predominated at that time. You do not have any power to enforce your tastes beyond that.

If you have a problem with someone's sig, you have a number of avenues open to you.

• Misplaced Pages talk:Signatures is a reasonable place to propose more stringent restrictions on signatures.
• You can discuss a user's sig with them on their talk page.
• You can open an RFC, either on the subject in general or on a particular user's sig.

All of these are preferable to and less disruptive than editing someone's comments. Please exercise these options when you feel someone's signature is inappropriate. - A Man In Black 02:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I won't stop editing discussions and discussion pages, as and when it becomes necessary, to improve my ability (and that of other editors) to follow the discussion without wading through lines and lines of clutter. --Tony Sidaway 02:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

If you edit someone's signature over their objections on any page but your talk page, I will block you for disruption. - A Man In Black 02:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

To do that, first you will have to find me editing disruptively. Don't make thuggish and vindictive threats. --Tony Sidaway 02:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry you find them thuggish or vindictive. Please exercise one of the avenues of communication open to you in the future. - A Man In Black 03:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't need permission to make an edit on Misplaced Pages. --Tony Sidaway 03:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed not, I find it hard when people claim that users such as you or I would need permission, SqueakBox 03:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Now I will speak. People are right to be angry with Tony over his signature editing, Tony is right to complain that stylish signatures clutter the edit box, however the message no one seems to be getting is that signatures are no big deal. In fact, they're not even deals. They're name markers. Let's all chill out, okay? MessedRocker (talk) 03:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. --Tony Sidaway 03:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Is it just me, or have we all had this discussion about 15 times before? Personally, when the same thing happened to me - - I took the simplest path, and redesigned my signature to an acceptably utilitarian length. Walton 14:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

The excuse being given for mutilating sigs is obvious poppycock. Just ask yourself, which is the greater inconvenience — scrolling a coupla extra lines in the edit window, or painstakingly removing all the decorative elements of a sig? Sidaway is behaving like a two-year old testing to see how much of a brat he can get away with being before Mummy decides it's smack-botty time. El Ingles 21:51, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

That's utter nonsense. Editing the signatures makes the page easier for all of us to read and edit. It takes a few seconds and has a lasting benefit to the discussion. --Tony Sidaway 21:53, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Tony have you not thought about all the disruption you are causeing with this? Please stop as you are obviousely upsetting people over this. Hypnosadist 22:00, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Removing unnecessary clutter from talk pages can never be disruptive. --Tony Sidaway 22:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Clearly it has been, and your actions continue to show bad faith and a lack of respect for fellow editors. See, if i had not known and accepted that you would edit my sig before adding my comment i might think that you editing it was Taking the Piss! Hypnosadist22:17, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

So you see absolutely nothing problematic about spreading your large signature across talk pages that are intended for discussion? If so I'd be a little surprised, but let's see if I can convince you. Here is what it looks like in my edit box:

]

No I don't really mind you having a signature like that. Once you've put it onto the page, anybody who needs to do so can edit the clutter away so as to make the page more readable. What I do have a problem with, however, is your assertion that in doing so I'm not improving the signal to noise ratio of the page but "showing bad faith" and "Taking the Piss". Notice that your signature could be around 35 characters, whereas it's somewhat more than twice the size. Indeed it's comparable to the size of your last comment.

Now you again falsely accuse me of causing disruption. A few people complaining about their signatures being refactored doesn't amount to disruption. You accuse me of disrespect which is a quite humorous considering the quite hideous monstrosity that you place after each comment you make, no matter how brief, on talk pages all over the wiki.

Please, I beg you, you show some respect, some commonsense, and perhaps is it too much to ask, some humility, when you have the nerve to complain about someone editing talk pages to remove unnecessary clutter that you have inflicted on them. --Tony Sidaway 22:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Strangely i know what my sigs raw code looks like because i copied it off someone else all on my own. There is nothing problematic about my sig, atleast you did not edit it when it was user H's sig but he was an admin wasn't he? Your editing of my sig as this discusion goes on is proof of your disrespect. If you don't like my "quite hideous monstrosity" then you can;

• Misplaced Pages talk:Signatures is a reasonable place to propose more stringent restrictions on signatures.
• You can discuss a user's sig with them on their talk page.
• You can open an RFC, either on the subject in general or on a particular user's sig.

I suspect that the ban hammer may be the only thing that will show you that community concensus on this issue is very strong and clear. Hypnosadist 22:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't threaten what you can't deliver. See Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Tony Sidaway 3 to see where community consensus on this matter actually lies. It may surprise you (although it really should not) to see how strongly my edits are supported by the community. It's odd that your suggestions all address what else I should be doing besides actually taking small, but useful practical steps to improve the discussion environment of Misplaced Pages. --Tony Sidaway 23:53, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Yep only strengthens my arguement 31 people for the show some respect and stop editing other peoples sigs compared for the 10 for the stop having big sigs (much much larger than mine). You've been told by many people to stop editing other peoples sigs and the constant arguements this creates is disruptive and getting close to a form of trolling by creating a negative working enviroment. User talk:Hypnosadist 00:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Only 31? Considerably more said that the complaint was utterly without merit! Who am I to listen to? I'm quite amused to be accused by people with stupidly large and intrusive signatures of "creating a negative working environment" by making the talk pages less clutter, easier to read, and easier to edit. --Tony Sidaway 00:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

"stupidly large and intrusive signatures" ROFL! Have you thought of becoming a sports commentator as overstating things to a silly extent has uses there. The thing you fail time and again to understand is these sigs are allowed by policy, you want them gone Change the Policy. Hypnosadist 01:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Non sequitur. I don't need to make them go and I don't need a change in policy to clear unnecessary clutter from a talk page. --Tony Sidaway 01:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Spoiler warning RFA

I've submitted the spoiler warning RFA again, with you as an involved party. Ken Arromdee 16:54, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

We ignore the rules

Hey, that's actually pretty good. Haukur 01:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I hoped you'd like it. Of course if one person ignores the rules and do something silly it doesn't mean he won't be blocked for being silly. So the decision to ignore the rules propagates outwards from bold edit to consensus just like any other edit. --Tony Sidaway

You Ignore the Rules?

Ok - I take your point - it was tangental - however relevant. So I chuncked off the side-bar conversation and linked to it for people who want to read it. Dispute resolution? You're kidding right? You mean Arbcom? That will take weeks, while this poor man gets debased online. Fuggedaboudit.  :) I'm talking about it on the ANI, where VO is currently in the doghouse for having maxi-deleted about all the images that 3 people ever uploaded - including Alkivar, who he's also accused of being a sockpuppet. It isn't even serious anymore - which is why I feel that some kind of notification that this was part of a bigger fiasco was indeed relevant. cheers BlueSapphires 11:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Who or what, is VO? --Tony Sidaway 18:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Videmus Omnia, SqueakBox 18:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/James Renner

Comments left by User:Tony Sidaway to User:BlueSapphires: Hi, I'm sorry but I felt it necessary to remove quite a lot of material from the above discussion because it was off-topic and very uncivil: to wit, the to-and-fro between you and bat-ears. Of course you could restore it, but I don't think it would be much use there as we're supposed to be discussing evidence for deleting or keeping the article. If you believe some kind of punitive campaign against James Renner is afoot, please try dispute resolution rather than disrupting discussions. --Tony Sidaway 10:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

To Tony Sidaway, the pertinent points that BlueSapphires and I made within the off-topic comments are now no longer there. That doesnt seem right? And for consistency, why not address the Amy Mihaljevic AFD the same way (i.e. removing off-topic information)? Bat ears 21:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Please put any pertinent comments back on the AfD. I couldn't find any. I wasn't aware that the same silly nonsense was going on on the Amy Mihaljevic AfD. Thanks for telling me about it. I've removed it. --Tony Sidaway 21:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Amy Mihaljevic

I reverted your removal of comments on the AfD. If the nominator and other commenters are allowed to accuse James Renner, his supporters should be allowed to speak up. James Renner is called a "single purpose account" in the nom, the nominator has linked to the conflict of interest board and the BLP board, Mr. Renner is accused of using Misplaced Pages as a vehicle for book sales, and another commenter accuses him of original research. Given the fact that this nomination is a multi-forum attack on Mr. Renner, someone defending him is NOT off-topic. -N 22:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't even know where to begin on replying to User:BlueSapphires, (s)he's attacking me all over the wiki. For the record, I didn't file the WP:BLPN report, someone else did - that's what brought this to my attention. I could really care less about James Renner, or his book, but the COI was obvious, so I reported it at WP:COIN for other people to look at. I did nominate the article for deletion based on the BLP concerns (though I conceded that a separate article on the crime could be kept), and the photo because it had no clear source or copyright holder. My actions were policy-based and nothing personal. Videmus Omnia 23:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Frankly that kind of disgraceful row has no place on Misplaced Pages. We have a dispute resolution process precisely to prevent the community degenerating into that kind of mess. I wish to take the opportunity now to warn you not to continue your row on this page. --Tony Sidaway 23:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Original Research and original research

About this edit. I put the whole epigraph section in, and that blog post was actually one of the better sources out there on those epigraphs. If you read it, it is clear the guy knows what he is talking about. I will admit that Rowling's use of those quotations was probably not intended as a pagan-Christian juxaposition, but I wanted to get across the point that the Aeschylus quote is exceedingly grim - it is essentially a prayer to the gods of the underworld to allow the character doing the invocation to kill their mother, and that William Penn was religious. Would you be happy if I re-added the link to the blog, which is probably the bes analysis for now, without the clumsy wording I used? I'll try that now, and you can revert if you don't like it. Carcharoth 00:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The point is we don't know whether it was a pagan-Christian juxtaposition, and frankly speaking as an Englishman I think it unlikely that an educated English person would even think of Penn and Aeschylus in that way.

Please don't use blogs as sources. He may know his stuff, but putting the blog there is not appropriate. --Tony Sidaway 00:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you are quite right. I moved it to the talk page in case more reliable sources ever pick up on this. I didn't know the background until I looked it up - epigraphs are really there to set the tone and mood, and it is the actual words, rather than the historical and literary background, that is important, which is why I had incidental details in the footnotes, rather than the main text. The "we sing to you, dark gods beneath the earth" is a bit of a "huh?" moment, but (speculation mode full on) the main thrust I guess Rowling was getting at was the "bless the children, give them triumph now" for the (still young) Harry and his friends. The applicability of the Penn quote is a lot clearer. (end speculation)

I did briefly consider mentioning the various places where I saw the dedication being described as "lightning bolt shaped" (the scar on his forehead). I didn't notice that when I first read the dedication, but it was one of those "oh, of course" moments, once it was pointed out. But how to find a source for that? Do you think it is worth saying that the dedication includes the fans of the books. Trying to source who the real people were that Rowling dedicated this and the other books to might be a bit BLPish, maybe?

Finally, I spotted a comment I think you made somewhere about how the fact that it was "10 years since the first book in the series was published" was trivia and not needed. To me, that is an important part of the context of the whole series - though maybe you were saying that a factoid like that being included in a trivia section was silly, but that incorporating it into the main text would be OK? Carcharoth 01:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

It was an accident. She missed several deadlines during the course of the series, so there was nothing premeditated about it. Only our obsession with the artificial decimal system makes it appear meaningful in any way. --Tony Sidaway 01:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't be silly. :-) I didn't mean that 10 was a significant number. I merely meant that x number of years after the first book is an appropriate thing to mention in the last book in a series. It give it context. Tells the reader that they weren't all written in 2 years, or spread out over 50 years. Carcharoth 01:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I'm being silly. All series of books take a period of time to write. As it happens, Rowling has given that amount of time, and I have already cited her on this in the article, from a message on her website that was reported by AP. Having referred to Dickens' preface from David Copperfield, she wrote in February: "I can only sigh, try seventeen years, Charles...". Presumably it took her seven years to find a publisher. --Tony Sidaway 03:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

This is now being discussed on the talk page. Maybe we should take this there? I was wrong to say 'written', when 10 years is 'published', and I had read the nice Rowling quote about Dickens (I do try and read the rest of an article I edit...). I think there should be a way to provide readers with both the time from first writing (17 years - ie. the author's story) and the time from first publication (10 years - ie. the reader's story). I'm not saying any one figure is important or has significance - I'm just trying to present the basic information in the article that people might be looking for - the who, what, where, when type of questions. Wikipdia tends to be very weak at that because there is a tendancy to think that linking to other articles is enough, when in fact one of the characteristics of the best Misplaced Pages articles is that they are nearly self-contained, and don't send readers running to other articles to find basic information. Carcharoth 03:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think the period of publication of the series probably should be presented in an accessible manner in this article, but I was still a bit squicked by the way in which it seemed before to fetishize the decade. If it's being discussed now the conclusion will probably be something reasonable, but in the event it isn't I'll jump in and fix it. --Tony Sidaway 03:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Kiniro no Corda

Yes I know there is some problems with it, but the main problem is that the main page is getting too long with the episode guide, so I proposed to make a new page. When I'm free, I'm going to convert the episode summary into a more better layout, as examples in Bleach and Naruto. If you can help me on that it will be much appreciated. Or if you have a better solution I'll be glad to hear it.--Hanaichi 04:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

If the episode guide is too long, that means you need to make it much, much smaller. --Tony Sidaway 04:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I know. But with current lack of help its going to take some time.--Hanaichi 04:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Deletion Policy discussion

Tony, the talk page for discussion policy is I think the place to discuss serious suggestions for changing the deletion policy. If you think it does not need changing say so , but dont try to block the discussions or make vulgar comments about it. What you said on the 30th is not helpful. You may I have noticed I agree with you that the proposal is not well thought out, but we have to convince people of that while listening to them in case something can be proposed that is well thought out. Certainly if there is a proposal involving a major change we'd need a wider discussion, but this is the place to work on it. Or do you want to branch it? I dont think that';s necessary quite yet. DGG (talk) 06:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

What I said was as follows:

Oh what bureaucratic nonsense! An AfD is a discussion. You want to make it mandatory now on Misplaced Pages to hold discussions about discussions? Bollocks! And since when do we hold silly bloody half-arsed votes on this talk page about major changes to deletion policy?

This is precisely what I would say to the people involved if I were in the same room and they tried to hold a show of hands about a stupid idea. I don't know how else you would expect me to frame the statement "this is a monumentally stupid idea and what's more those who take it seriously, instead of discussing it, are holding a silly bloody vote about it." How else to point out clearly and unequivocally that Misplaced Pages is not the place for this? --Tony Sidaway 11:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Requesting help again

Hi, Tony. You helped me with this before. I'm deleting some non-free images from that massive Category:Disputed non-free images as of 6 June 2007. I've just come across Eyehategod which has a large number of unfree images inside some kind of table. I'd remove them, but I don't want to leave the article all messed up with broken coding. Can you help again? Thanks. ElinorD (talk) 15:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. --Tony Sidaway 15:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I've added the diff to my own user page for future reference. I hope to be able to figure out how to do it myself next time. Cheers. ElinorD (talk) 15:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)