Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:27, 26 July 2006

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

Listen to this page (2 parts, 7 minutes) Part 2 These audio files were created from a revision of this page dated Error: no date provided, and do not reflect subsequent edits.(Audio help · More spoken articles)

decolonization and POV

Please see Decolonization. I believe another editor insists on repeatly adding POV material to this article. What do you think? Can you do anything? This editor does not respond to what I write. Thanks Hmains 19:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

i need help

I wanna add TCW Fantasy Wrestling but it is set for speedy deletion. I wanna add all my sites, i have 3 which i want on this site.

Doesn't seem to be suitable for Misplaced Pages. We're not a link farm. --Tony Sidaway 07:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Iloveminun

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Iloveminun. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Iloveminun/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Iloveminun/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Johnleemk | Talk 14:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

RFArb

Thanks for letting me know — I'll add evidence as appropriate. Nandesuka 22:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		For having such a great user page I had to copy it. South Philly 02:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Spam

Please stop spamming my talk page. Thank you. Karmafist 14:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Fundamentalist Sockpuppet

Please take a look at this and this talk page for proof of abuse. These sockpuppets are used in revert wars in Babri Mosque, Hindu Rashtra, Manu Smriti, 2002 Gujarat violence, Shiv Sena. , , Hope this is sufficient. Anwar 14:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Did you start a wiki about Townsville Pri Sch?

I am a staff in that school and was surprised to discover a wiki about it. Did you start it or do you know the person who did the article... Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.156.6.54 (talk • contribs) of 10.07.06

Someone else started an article but it was deleted nearly a year ago. I then did a bit of research and came up with what is essentially the current version. The information came from government information, newspapers, and so on, all on line. --Tony Sidaway 19:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

If you can stop them from spamming my User page, I would be obliged. Thank you Porky Pig 19:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Support required for self-righteous editor

Hi, I have as of late noticed that Wikipediatrix has been constantly changing and adapting an article to suit her POV - The Frosties Kid. After several attempts to reason with her by other users and myself in Talk:The_Frosties_Kid she has blatantly disregarded anyone's input and the fact that this article is based on a true subject. On top of this she turns the argument around by making everyone else appear guilty of being in the wrong. It is eveident that she has no knowedge nor cares to learn about the subject that the article relates. Please could you help in this matter seeing as I don't know how else to apporach it as she is being very unreasonable. Thank you. Piecraft 11:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I've protected the article. Please discuss changes on the talk page. --Tony Sidaway 11:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Tony, I have put forward my views and statements relating to the article. So I'm just waiting for any further feedback. But that's what started all this trouble in the first place, the fact that every other user was ready to discuss changes and the matter with Wikipediatrix who all of a sudden has now disappeared after the lockdown of the article. Anyway, hopefully this can be resolved without anyone going insane. I'm not going to lose sleep over this though. Thanks again for stepping in though. Piecraft 12:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Can the lock be removed, things have settled and there is now substantial evidence + citations. thanks --Jum4 09:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Note from mboverload I support doing a TRIAL unlocking of the article, and I can alert another administrator to relock it. Say to put it on article parole or something, I can monitor it and if another admin sees your comment they can quickly protect it again. --mboverload@ 09:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I do not support said unblocking until users Jum4 and Piecraft can be made to understand the concept of Original Research, and to not make personal attacks to me such as "Wikinazi", "loon swinging a handbag", "get your head out of your ass" and "if you are too slow". Such uncivility is unacceptable. The discussion page indicates that they think personally emailing a cereal company is a valid source for a Misplaced Pages article, and Jum4 brushed off my WP:OR concerns with, and I quote, "Let's be honest most articles on Misplaced Pages are over embellished and long winded." wikipediatrix 16:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Tony, thanks for your advice, from now on I will be civil. wikipediatrix I really meant no malice in my comments and I really am surprised you reacted the way you did. I'm just frustrated as this is the first article I have started and it going nowhere. All the claims have now been referenced so I really just want this sorted. Boy have I learned a thing or new, my next article will be so much easier!! --Jum4 19:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Tony, firstly let me say that this Frostied Kid article is going nowhere fast. Basically every user is happy to revert the article as it was, and how it originally adhered to the regulations (save for the fact that the name of the actor is unknown because it has not been released). However as I have stated before none of the content placed into the article is "original" according to wikipediatrix. If you look through her track record she does tend to have a flighty way of dealing with other users and articles on WP, and does not consult nor discuss before making radical deletions or altercations to the article. This was the main reason I called your attention to deal and arbitrate this problem with The Frosties Kid page. As I see it wikipediatrix is still being self-righteous, and trying to get away with it by not adding to the discussion to help improve the article and throwing around cries for wolf that she's been insulted by myself and Jum4, just because she knows she's in the wrong for this one time. I know I may come across frusterated but it is getting to the point of ridicule, there are enough sources that cite the validity of not only the article but also the content and phenomenon of this ad. Sure it needs trimming but to senselessly delete relevant information regarding the ad and the internet phenomenon that it is goes against the purpose for this article. Please shed some of your wisdom on this because I'm tired of continuously asking the same questions and pointing out the reality of the subject to blind eyes. Thanks. Piecraft 01:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

DRV

I am sorry for my strong comments at DRV. I just wanted to quickly clarify something with you - if you believe that the consensus at an AfD is redirect, do you list the result as "keep", delete" or "redirect", because I think that this may be causing some misunderstanding. --David Mestel 06:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

If I think that a redirect consensus exists, I usually close as keep, and may perform the redirect myself. This is because redirection is an edit (which can be performed or reverted by anyone), not an action of deletion (which requires administrator powers to perform or revert), --Tony Sidaway 08:23, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that this has caused some misunderstanding, as many people (including myself) thought that a redirect was more akin to a deletion, in that the article no longer exists of itself, though I can see your point too. Maybe it would be better if in future you closed with Keep and redirect, or similar, just to make things absolutely clear. --David Mestel 19:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

No. It wouldn't be right to mislead. A redirect is an edit and we must not obfuscate that. --Tony Sidaway 00:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Closing with a Keep and redirect isn't misleading and it would help avoid confusion. Dionyseus 01:17, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

It might mislead because if somebody read "redirect" in the close they might think that was a result of the deletion debate rather than an edit. --Tony Sidaway 01:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

It isn't at all misleading - if redirect is the consensus of the AfD, the edit is made as a result of that AfD. And even if it were slightly misleading then I would say that it was the least worst option, as keep really does look to an outside viewer as if you plan to keep the article and do nothing to it. --David Mestel 06:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

As closer, that is often all I do plan to do. The purpose of AfD is to decide on deletions. If an editing consensus emerges then anyone can act on it--that's how editing (as opposed to deletion) works on Misplaced Pages--so it is not incumbent on the closer to perform edits. --Tony Sidaway 13:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Or maybe "keep, with consensus to redirect". I just feel that saying only "keep"is misleading, as redirects essentially mean that the article ceases to exist as an article in itself. --David Mestel 07:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

That's not really true. --Tony Sidaway 12:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

How? --David Mestel 14:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Make a page on Misplaced Pages, say User:David.Mestel/Redirect test. Type in some content and save. Then edit it by blanking and replacing the content by "#redirect User:David.Mestel. At that point it's a redirect. Now go to the new redirect page and look at the history. You will see that the original content is still there. Click on the original version and you'll see it. Now edit that and save it. The redirect has now been replaced by the original content. It never ceased to exist, it was simply occluded by the redirect. --Tony Sidaway 14:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I see your point, but I think mine still stands - to readers of the encyclopedia, it doese not exist as a seperate page with seperate content. And besides, what harm does it really do to say "keep and redirect"? --David Mestel 19:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

It does no harm, and I'm not against saying it. But I sometimes don't. And I think that's okay too. --Tony Sidaway 19:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair 'nuff, though perhaps next time it comes up on DRV, you should just leave a note saying something like "by keep, I meant keep and redirect". --David Mestel 20:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Falun Gong and signing off

It was meant humorously, actually. I know from seeing your name on my watchlist that you are pretty involved on a daily, or at least near-daily, basis. (Oy, you and Alienus!!) That's what made the comment irresistable. ;-) CovenantD 23:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Tea and crumpets

An rfc has been initiated concerning spoiler tags. See Misplaced Pages:Spoiler warning/RfC if you feel inclined to comment on the issue. -Randall Brackett 12:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Michael Jackson

Nice work cleaning up this disgraceful page! Tyrenius 13:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Alright pal, listen up!

I've been spending way too many hours lately wandering around AfD, RFI, ANI, etc, etc, (places my cardiologist tells me to avoid) and I keep seeing your name pop up over and over again, like I have for the last couple years I've been editing, and everywhere you post there seems to be controversy, negativity, and fallout! I just want to say one thing to you, dammit:

Thanks.

I don't know exactly why you attract so much controversy, but the fact that you continue to do SO much work here in spite of it is really remarkable. Personally, I find you often ascerbic and under-wordy, but that really only makes me wonder if you aren't just a sockpuppet of a certain User:Larry_Sanger (and I hope you take that as the compliment its intended to be).

I would say to you one thing, Tony, on a serious note, the same I would have said to Sanger had I been around in those days: from reading your comments, I think you'd spend far less words defending yourself if you spend a few more explaining yourself in the first place. I don't think I've ever disagreed with your reasoning to any serious degree, but often I wonder why you didn't make the point at the time of editing, instead of in defense, later. In any case, and like Larry's writings, your deep appreciation of the subtleties of extant policy is always enjoyable to me. Thanks, again, for all your work. (PS, I have no barnstars or the like for you, I prefer simple text.) Eaglizard 09:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I think the above is intended as a mixture of thanks and advice. I wish we could always tell when our behavior is likely to be highly controversial. Many of the bust-ups I'm involved in are over things that seem quite minor to me, whereas I can sometimes take very bold actions and nobody utters a squeak. This doesn't mean that I shouldn't take your advice to heart, however. I think it's excellent advice and I'll make an effort to improve. --Tony Sidaway 16:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Problems with SqueakBox

Tony, the problems with SqueakBox continue. He has posted this very unpleasent comment in the talk page of Zaptero. In my user page he's recovered the sock puppet note despite the result of the check. And he has redirected () the evidence posted about his relation to the possible sock puppet User:Skanking. I'm getting tired of this user who never talks about content and simply insults all the time. Hagiographer 10:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

IP war of Ecuadorian-Peruvian War

Hello there! It's being a while since the last time that I contacted you. Unfortunately, there is a rv war in the article regarding the Ecuadorian-Peruvian War, which involves one of the parties that was accused in my RfA . I do not know if I am allowed to participate in the talk page of any Ecuadorian-Peruvian article, could you clarify that to me? I would gladly appreciate that. Another thing, you stated a couple of months ago that it was possible for me to request the same ban for the other party involved in my RfA. So far, I have seen that he continues to edit in those articles without check and balances, which might compromise the neutrality of the articles in question. Can you explain me the procedures? Thanks, and I will wait for your answer. Messhermit 13:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• I'm now being accused (on mere speculation and most likely based on hate agains my person) of sponsoring Vandalism here in Misplaced Pages ... what should I do? Messhermit 16:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Hello Messhermit. Nobody hates you (or at least I don't). I have only requested an investigation on the matter of the series of vandal attacks on the article from several IP addresses (two of them from Miami). The wording of your first post to Tony, and your request for the article to be blocked due to an "edit war" made me wonder what is really going on, and to think about the possibility that you may be involved. That's all. If my suspicions turn out to be wrong, I promise you will have my apologies. Sorry for the inconvenience. Andrés C. 17:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Wow that was quick. I wonder, according to this individual every single edition made in Miami is my responsibility... not only that, most likely any single edition that he dislike would be "my fault". Still, even if I'm nowhere editing next to him, apparently I'm constantly checked by this individual. Tony Sidaway, where can I take this problem so this does not bother you anymore? Messhermit 18:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Question re:Blu Aardvark (again)

If you have time could you answer a question about this case. I saw this on AN/I. Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Blu Aardvark (again) Looking at the sanctions in the arb case, I do not see a provision for extending the ban for this type of continued disruption. Does an automatic extention occur with every ban or does it need to be spelled out in the sanctions of an individual case? FloNight talk 13:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

In principle the one year ban could be reset (as an enforcement matter) from the moment he breaches it. I chose not to do so when he had been abusing his talk page, because it was possible that he didn't realise he wasn't supposed to use it while banned. But now that he has been trying to edit on WP:ANI I'm going to reset so that it runs from today. --Tony Sidaway 14:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for following up. FloNight talk 15:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

User:62.255.83.8

Thanks Tony. I thought I had blocked with "Block anonymous users only" checked, but clearly didn't. I appreciate you fixing that. Best, Gwernol 14:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

List of Ontario provincial highways

I actually did take it to the talk page and listed it on RFC. Bridesmill agreed with me and I had a civil debate with him over a minor point. Bridesmill also made a minor change to the article related to it, after which William reverted to his preferred - and incorrect (I can say this definitely, especially after reading the law he cited to support his position) - term. --SPUI (T - C) 15:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with that. It's what you did next that bothers me. Don't edit war. --Tony Sidaway 15:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

When the question is so clear, what else is there to do? Find another editor to certify an RFC and take it through that dog and pony show? --SPUI (T - C) 15:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Not at this stage. Be patient. Don't be drawn out into edit warring. There are two probations hanging over you on this particular issue. If people agree with you then they should happily revert William Allen Simpson for you. Then you won't be editing disruptively. --Tony Sidaway 15:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately it doesn't work that way - most people don't care enough about this obscure topic to do the reading and get involved. Those that do often wish to be a "good editor" and not do any reverting. --SPUI (T - C) 15:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

That attitude is precisely why you've got two probations. --Tony Sidaway 15:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for not answering my question. --SPUI (T - C) 15:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I already did. You asked "What else is there to do?" and I responded "Be patient. Don't be drawn out into edit warring." Discuss. The world won't come to an end just because you stop edit warring. --Tony Sidaway 15:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

While it's sitting at the incorrect state other people will make good faith changes, making fixing it up afterwards a lot harder. For instance, on , I didn't notice until five days after he did it, and there are a bunch of other edits in there. --SPUI (T - C) 15:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you want the article to be protected? I think that is a reasonable argument for protection. --Tony Sidaway 16:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd rather it be available for editing by all - and protection on William's version would be much worse than an edit war. --SPUI (T - C) 16:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

threded talk

there is much threaded talk in the evidence. Zeq 16:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll take a look. --Tony Sidaway 16:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I've examined it all and see no threaded debate on Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Israeli apartheid/Evidence. --Tony Sidaway 17:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Slim removed it but Homey may put it again. Zeq 17:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC) - mistake.

If he does that, either you or SlimVirgin can come to me and I'll fix it and have a friendly chat with Homey. --Tony Sidaway 18:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

- maybe it is time to have a friendly chat. Zeq 18:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

That is not a threaded comment. However, the comment you added to my section on Peer Review is a threaded comment. . I have removed it. Homey 18:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Homey is right. However I'd rather you both came to me rather than risk an edit war on the evidence page. --Tony Sidaway 18:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Your evidence

In your decision to ban me you stated that I was trying to NPOV Homey's POV pushing. (maybe your words were different) and later said that if he was under probation you would ban him as well ebcause of similar behaviour to mine. I think you should add your evidence to the discussion. Best, Zeq 17:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I said that. I'm clerking the case so I'd rather not involve myself adding evidence. If you want to add what I said to evidence, please do so. --Tony Sidaway 18:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

William H. Kennedy page

Just to let you know I'm diving into the middle of this mess, on the talk page, and gonna try to see if I can bring the two users together to work on the page. I do not really see the second editor as a vandal as such, but he is definitely a major anti-Kennedy POV pusher. If I can get Suture, the anit-Kennedy editor to cooperate on the talk page, do you have a problem with my removing the semi-protection from the page? I'm mostly convinced that it's all one person doing the ani-Kenedy POV pushing, so if I can get him working towards a more constructive end.... - TexasAndroid 19:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd rather keep semiprotection on for a few days. If you want to try to talk this fellow round, feel free. --Tony Sidaway 19:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Removal of comments

SlimVirgin has just removed comments by me from the Workshop page. No explanation given. Rather than restoring them myself I am bringing the matter to you. Homey 19:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll ask her why she used her rollback button there. --Tony Sidaway 19:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

See Slim's explanation and apology below. --Tony Sidaway 20:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Macedonism

Please protect Macedonism again. The article is currently under MEDCAB's mediation. The other side does not provide any useful sources nor reasons for its edits in the talk page, and it isn't involved in any discussion whatsoever. So could you please either protect the page... the latest edits were not "discussed" at the talk page, so given the fact that no input has been given at the talk page's efforts to come to a compromise version, and entire sourced sections are being deleted, they can also be considered simple vandalism. Regards. --FlavrSavr 19:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Please apply at WP:RFPP if you think it needs to be protected. --Tony Sidaway 19:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure they were discussed, and reason for erased passages were given, unlike your sides removals, which are totally unexplained. The passage of section 6 of support is removed as explained in talk because it is irrelevant to the claim. The other edits which your sides removes are actual improvement to the article and no reason for their deletion is given. --FunkyFly 01:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Considering the behaviour that got the article protected in the first place has just started up again, and the mediation is in progress I think it better that the article be protected for the duration. At least until both sides can come to an amicable agreement on the talk page as to a compromise version. Further to this I have protected the page. - FrancisTyers · 01:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, admirable for you to protect it in the same version. Btw mediation has been dormant for more than a week. --FunkyFly 01:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

My revert at the workshop page

Tony, my apologies. It was a mistake on my part, and as soon as I realized I'd done it, I reverted myself. SlimVirgin 20:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Potential Policy Idea

Hello Tony Sidaway, having read your comments in the ED article for deletion discussion it got me to thinking about the idea for an actual policy that in effect would be prohibitive of Misplaced Pages having articles about organizations and people who are well known for their criticisms of Misplaced Pages. I imagine that such an idea has been previously proposed and I was thinking that you might be aware of prior discussion of such a nature. Is there anything you might be able to point me to or any kind of advice you might be able to give me in terms of pursuing such a policy proposal? Thanks. Netscott 21:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it would fly. I think that it would be a good idea but it hasn't a chance of becoming policy. It could also have undesirable side effects. If the NY Times publishes an article about Misplaced Pages, do we delete the article on them? I think it's a reasonable occasional criterion for deletion that we may feel that we can't really write dispassionately about a subject, but that's as far as I'd go. --Tony Sidaway 21:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I would support something like this. I really don't think that Misplaced Pages should have any articles on sites, people or publications that are critical of Misplaced Pages. It just doesn't make sense to have things like that. Netscott, let me know if anything comes of this, I would love to support it. --Bouquet 22:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

It is always easy to maintain our principles in peacetime. It's when we're faced with opposition and conflict that we need to be more, not less, vigilant of our principles. -- nae'blis _(talk) 20:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Howdie. I just came across this discussion. Every the worst tyrant believes in freedom of speech so long that speech is totally uncritical of his authority. It would send a pretty bad message if Misplaced Pages censored opinions and content that questioned its ideals and functioning. His Excellency... 22:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

It's easy to get carried away and think that Misplaced Pages is supposed to be an open society (which it isn't) or an experiment in free speech (far from it) or some other search for a philosophical ideal. It isn't. It's a project to build a high quality encyclopedia. Since Misplaced Pages itself is a very small part of the world and one, moreover, that we're not really equipped to evaluate neutrally, it's probably best to write about the many other things and leave the writing about Misplaced Pages to the outside world. --Tony Sidaway 23:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Socafan

He claimed that your deletion of his arbitration request "violates policy". Can you clarify to him? 01:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I can't remember it. If he thinks I abused my position he can repost it and I promise not to get involved in it. --Tony Sidaway 02:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

It was only that the policies say arbitrators who are asked to recuse answer. Two did not. You removed the request again. I do not object as nothing was happening. No one has suggested how to resolve the conflict that is still ongoing. I do not know what to do. Socafan 22:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Zeq and the evidence page

Zeq is editing other people's evidence on the pageHomey 11:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Once in a while I get to correct other people's gramer......people do it to me all the time:-) Zeq 11:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

That's okay, but just be careful in sticky situations like this, in case somebody gets the wrong idea. Please avoid edits like that on pages pertaining directly to the arbitration, specifically the main arbitration page, the evidence page, the workshop page, the proposed decision page, and any of the talk pages associated with those pages, and any talk page of a clerk or arbitrator, participant or anyone else submitting evidence. This isn't an order or a directive (even if I wanted to give one to you, I don't have the authority) just an attempt to give good advice. --Tony Sidaway 16:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Deletion

Hello again. I apologize for this in advance because I know I irritate you, but WP:DR requires me to discuss this matter before going any further. You speedy deleted a subpage of mine as an attack page, despite my statement that the branch of subpages was NOT intended to be an attack page of any sort, but merely a review of evidence, including it's quantity and it's relevance (found here. There was already a delete discussion going on, see Misplaced Pages:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Karwynn/Compiling_Evidence/data_dump_to_be_sorted, which discussed the matter of it being a possble attack page. By deleting the page outright, I fell like you completely bypassed the ongoing discussion and acted unilaterally, nullifying good faith efforts by Hipocrite, rootology, DJ Clayworth and myself to resolve the matter using the appropriate measures. Would you consider restoring the page, blanking it temporarily as a compromise, and continuing discussion in the MfD section? Thanks for your time, Karwynn (talk) 19:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I regret that, because of the nature of this page, it cannot be restored to Misplaced Pages because it contained wholly and completely unsuitable material. --Tony Sidaway 19:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

For fairness' sake, I will tell you that I raised the issue in the MfD page, and you may wish to comment there, as well as at WP:ANI. Karwynn (talk) 19:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Not a problem. Thanks for the heads up. --Tony Sidaway 19:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Having been quite patient with those who are accusing me of making attack pages and then completely ignoring my comments, I respectfully request that you head over to WP:AN and reply specifically to this. I need to know why my stated objectives for these sub-pages are not seen as being honest, good-faith descriptions. I can specify the objectives further if need be. Thanks, Karwynn (talk) 19:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I have already told you that I strongly disagree with your assertion that it isn't an attack page. --Tony Sidaway 19:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Ugh, no wonder you're so annoyed by me, I don't make myself clear enough: What I'd like to know is why you don't agree. Karwynn (talk) 19:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

That's the second time you've said you think I'm annoyed at you. I'm not. I don't agree because of the nature and provenance of the material. I've already said this on WP:ANI. --Tony Sidaway 20:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Final Question on the Matter

I must ask one final thing - I may recreate the page, removing any reference to IP, Checkuser or sockpuppetry information, simply for the sake of revewing it. I will also add the "admins are going to delete this soon, it's a big conspiracy etc." part in the beginning. I will likely add my disclaimer-style descriptions (found here to it if I do. I will only be using it as a resource of possible diff links. I can even clear off the original author's commentary. Are there any other problems you would have with the page? Karwynn (talk) 20:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know. Please don't take that as an invitation to proceed. --Tony Sidaway 20:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I can see how that's a lot to ask on my part, since the page was very long. What do you suggest? Karwynn (talk) 20:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I can only suggest you drop the entire ill-advised venture. --Tony Sidaway 21:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Karwynn/Compiling Evidence/data dump to be sorted

Hi Tony (I've given up, I'm using the familiar from now on, unless you'd rather I didn't),

As with just about everybody on Misplaced Pages, I got the email recited on this page. I investigated, and determined it was mostly bullshit (except for the allegation that you did, indeed, use the word "fuck", but that doesn't mean very much.) If a user wants it to hang out in their wiki-space until they too can determine it's bullshit, where's the harm? A listing of spurious allegations that is already wiki-public knowledge, thanks to spammers, hardly seems to constitute an attack page to me. (Not to mention that, technically, CSD A6 doesn't apply to userspace...but you know that.)

Since the content is pretty much meritless, I'm not just going to reopen the debate... but I do wonder why speedy deleting the thing seemed the best course of action to you. Best wishes, Xoloz 02:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

It was an obvious speedy because trash like that has no place on Misplaced Pages. We're an encyclopedia, remember. :) --Tony Sidaway 02:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, okay... I'm not even going to try dissecting and analysizing that truism, because I'm too tired! As long as I'm here, I'll mention two completely unrelated things -- 1.) I'm not sure where you got the idea to have a spoken version of your talk page, but I think its ingenious and quite cute; 2.) Before we got on the wrong foot by butting heads over deletion issues, the reason I admired you no end (and am still very much predisposed to like you) is that you remain the only person I know with a political compass score further to the Left than my (-7.3, -6.7.) I can't help myself: everytime I come across that score on your talk page, I picture the Dalai Lama (he's the exemplar for our quadrant), and I get a really big smile. :) Best wishes, Xoloz 02:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Some troll did the recording after I deleted some of his decidedly odd audio recordings of real articles. I kept it because it's funny. --Tony Sidaway 02:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Bloat

Would you kindly remove the illogically added commentary to the AfD? It just constitues unecessary bloat particularly in light of User:Rootology's own citation of the same content properly linked to a pertinent section of talk page. Thanks Tony Sidaway. Netscott 02:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe I've added any such commentary to the discussion. --Tony Sidaway 03:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm referring to User:Hardvice's bloat that represents what he's been reverting back onto the AfD. Even bainer agrees with the spirit of my removing the duplication bloat on the noticeboard post that Hardvice made. Netscott 03:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you and bainer and hardvice and anybody else who cares about this have a little confab and reach consensus on what to do? --Tony Sidaway 03:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm seeing by your last commentary on User:Hardvice's talk page that you're perhaps coming to understand what editors have had to deal with in interacting with him. His writing style reminds me much of the attacking spam message. Netscott 03:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

3 hours is a bit short as User:Hardvice has literally been spreading that example of stalking all over the place (see his comments in this thread ). It'd sure be nice to see if there was indeed a relation to User:Rptng03509345. Netscott 04:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Trivial, yet annoying

Please stop refactoring my signature outside your talk page and AN* pages. --brenneman 02:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I try to leave at least one full copy of the thing in each section I have to edit; the remainder I telescope down to something less obtrusive. It really is appallingly big, you know. --Tony Sidaway

I can actually relate to Brenneman's commentary here... the problem with leaving one is that it suddenly makes subsequent commentary appear as though it's coming from a separate editor. I tend to go back and restablish my signatures for the sake of consistency so that readers will be able to not have to consciously determine if the same individual is commenting or not. Netscott 03:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

It's better if subsequent editors don't have to wade through acres of clutter. --Tony Sidaway 03:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd tend to agree with your commentary but as I've never had the impression that a consensus about such a view existed I've not concerned myself too much relative to it particularly in light of my growing colleciton of sigs . Netscott 03:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you remember when you first edited Misplaced Pages? Do you remember reading anything about it being an encyclopedia? --Tony Sidaway 03:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but I also remember about being a Wikipedian which apparently has less value for you. But I suppose you could ask the same thing from the folks whose signatures I've admired. Netscott 03:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Read that page, Wikipedian, again, carefully. See if you can find anything about how it is the job of a Wikipedian to clutter up discussion pages with bloated graffiti. Try to see what it actually says about Wikipedians. --Tony Sidaway 03:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

"The ending of Wikipedian, though, suggests being part of a group or community. So in this sense, Wikipedians are people who form The Misplaced Pages Community.", in my view signatures form an integral part of establishing one's identity in that community and as such one's signature outweighs any concerns about "bloat". Netscott 03:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

That's fine, good for you. But in my experience I have to remove clutter from the discussion in order to get to the actual words. So you do your thing and I'll do mine, and I'm sure we'll get along fine. --Tony Sidaway 03:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

That's the spirit... but I suspect we'll see more Netscott's and Aaron Brenneman's making similar posts here on your talk page before too long. ;-) Netscott 03:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

This is not a problem. Educating those who need to be educated is a pleasure. --Tony Sidaway 03:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I mutually share your view. Hehe :-) Netscott 03:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, Tony, there is another option: templates. --71.36.251.182 18:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I think there are many cases where tidying up a talk page with some well-placed white space contributes a lot more to readability and editability than refactoring signatures, and might make the latter unnecessary. Just a thought. -GTBacchus 18:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Seems like a great idea. It'd be far less likely to cause unneccessary wikidrama by irritating other editors, too. Friday (talk) 18:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Can signature templates be in userspace like userboxes are now? I don't really "get" templates and how they work still, it'd be a really easy thing to shift over, I bet. --badlydrawnjeff 18:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe the issue there is that, each time a page is transcluded (whether it's a whole article, or a userbox, or a simple sigfile) that's an extra bit of work for a computer in Florida to do. I'm sure there's a more precise way to say that, but essentially, with the number of signatures flying around here, Misplaced Pages's servers would be turned into signature-transcluding machines, and that's certainly not what the people who contributed money to buy the servers had in mind. -GTBacchus 18:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Makes sense. --badlydrawnjeff 19:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

The signatures are far and away the most serious problem in discussions, because they are interspersed with comments in the edit box and large signatures make it very difficult to find those comments. --Tony Sidaway 19:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, there's no getting rid of signatures. Are you sure you're not being overly fanatic in your opposition to them? --Friday 19:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Tony, I'd like to show you an example of what I mean. Could you point me to what you consider an egregious example of a page that's rendered uneditable by bulky signatures. I remember you had a good example before in this discussion, but I can't remember where. -GTBacchus 19:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I can't remember either. Since I started refactoring the cumulative benefit has been so marked that I seldom encounter a discussion that is unmanagable. In response to Friday, of course the beauty is that I'm not getting rid of signatures at all. I'm simply cleaning up discussion pages to make them easier to edit. --Tony Sidaway 19:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

See, I was never bothered by signatures, but I find the lack of eye-saving white space to make some pages very difficult to find my place on, in the edit window. Maybe I'll start cleaning up pages that I find difficult to read. If there were a culture of edit-window hygiene around here, that wouldn't be such a bad thing... -GTBacchus 20:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Go for it. --Tony Sidaway 20:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I remember that it wasn't a conversation, but an administrative page, and it was mostly about Voice of All's signature. Perhaps you've already refactored that one down to a managable state. -GTBacchus 20:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I seem to recall comparing bishonen's RFA with one from a year later. The difference was very marked. --Tony Sidaway 20:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

You know what? I think we discussed all of the above and more on the RFC, the number of people who joined me in finding the whole complaint utterly baffling was quite huge, and one arbitrator went on record as describing it as possibly "the stupidest certified RFC I have ever, ever seen." I do agree with Aaron that it's trivial. I ask him to keep his annoyance to himself. This act visibly improves the signal-to-noise ratio of discussions and I consider it to be worth my time. --Tony Sidaway 01:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup Taskforce

I don't know if you are available but I added WiMAX to your desk. Let me know if you want me to reassign it. Thank you. RJFJR 03:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

A bit too busy for the foreseeable future. --Tony Sidaway 03:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Farsi Misplaced Pages

According to User:Future Perfect at Sunrise User:Zereshk is trying to attract votes from the Farsi language Misplaced Pages. Obviously I (and probably you) can't read Farsi but the aforementioned user who understands it says that is what he is doing. He also commented on the section regarding the incident on AN/I. I thought you might be interested because you commented on the AN/I.--Jersey Devil 06:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Small correction: Sorry, the link I gave was broken, corrected now. It's in English actually. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe this has been discussed on WP:ANI. I have nothing to add to that. --Tony Sidaway 11:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello

Hi, I am on my ArbCom for user:Ericsaindon2 page, and I do not know how it works. --— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.227.173.154 (talk • contribs) 11:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

It's fairly simple really. The arbitrators will investigate the situation, decide if there is any harm being done to Misplaced Pages, and propose remedies to make sure that the harm stops. The most important page is the Evidence page, on which you can put, in a section marked with your username, evidence about the situation, or refuting evidence provided by others in their own sections. There are fairly plain directions on the page, but come back to me if you're still uncertain.

• Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Ericsaindon2/Evidence

However if you are Ericsaindon2 I have to warn you that you are currently evading a one-month block placed by Fred Bauder on 19 July. Please don't do that. As Thatcher131 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) noted on the talk page, Ericsaindon2 can place evidence on his talk page and this will be copied to the evidence page of the arbitration. Evidence can also be emailed directly to any arbitrator (their email addresses are on Arbitration Committee) or to me as an arbitration committee clerk. If evidence is sent to any of these people in email. they will ensure that all of the arbitrators see it. --Tony Sidaway 11:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Arguments

I believe I've offered proven arguments that I am not a troll, but a person with a different opinion than you. If this is not enough, I would like to continue trying to convince you on my talk page. Hardvice 11:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Just cease your speculations about MONGO's IP, and you'll have convinced me that you're not beyond redemption. --Tony Sidaway 13:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I should remove the remaining editing history of that IP, since everyone thinks it's mine...I invite anyone with the ability, to checkuser my IP anytime they want to...it begins with 68, not 24. I also request that the next time someone tries to post what they think is personally identifying information about me deliberately, after being made aware that they shouldn't, that they should be blocked indefinitely. All these attempts at character assassination are simply harassment.--MONGO 13:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

THen why are you so eager to remove the IP contribs? It seems like you'd want to keep them as a show of good faith. Boy, would that be a blow to those of us who think it's yours. Karwynn (talk) 16:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

The question is...what difference does it make...that IP has not demostrated one piece of evidence in any edits that it has done anything other than good faith edits here, so what is your point? You're on a witch hunt it most definitely appears.--MONGO 17:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Karwynn, you should really just stop talking about, thinking about, asking about, having anything to do with IP addresses. It's a non-topic. Why haven't you already said "oops, I didn't realize we're touchy about IPs here, please delete them from the history and I won't do it again"? Why are you still asking questions about the IP, and about how MONGO is acting about the IP, and about how you think it's MONGO's IP? If you think it's MONGO's IP, you'll refrain from discussing the matter any more out of your sense of decency and respect, right? If you think it isn't MONGO's IP, you'll refrain from discussing it out of your sense of decency and respect for whoever's IP it is, right? Better than both of those would be neither to think it is MONGO's IP nor to think that it isn't, because you're simply not thinking about it. -GTBacchus 18:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

One other small point, Karwynn. You should know that MONGO, and Tony Sidaway, and I, would all jump to prevent someone from revealing your IP address, or linking you with an IP address they thought might be yours, because we all would consider it our duty to do so. I'm pretty comfortable speaking for MONGO and Tony in that matter, because I know them both to be dedicated admins who consider user privacy a very high priority. A Misplaced Pages in which none of us ever speculates about another's IP address is better than the other kind - let's see if we can make it so. -GTBacchus 18:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't exclude me from the list of people who would fight to defend Karwynn's privacy. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't mean to omit you, Hipocrite. I just hadn't seen your name in this thread. In fact, those of us who understand that IP addresses of users are simply not up for discussion are legion, and that fact should suffice to show Karwynn that our objection to posting this particular IP address is completely routine and appropriate. -GTBacchus 18:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

To up the thread Tony said, "Just cease your speculations about MONGO's IP, and you'll have convinced me that you're not beyond redemption." Thanks. I'm glad to see people assuming good faith. Hardvice 08:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I have already told you outright that I think your activities constitute trolling. Believe it or not, Misplaced Pages policy does not shine most brightly for those who assume good faith of trolls. But trolls can be reformed, so behave yourself. --Tony Sidaway 09:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't assume good faith mean not jumping to the conclusion that people are trolls when they may just lack social skills or other related things? Hardvice 10:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but it doesn't make sense to ignore even the most egregious and clearly malicious behavior on those grounds. You have attacked MONGO, and a less well grounded editor would have been repelled and driven away from Misplaced Pages by the virulence of the attacks. If you continue, your days on Misplaced Pages are numbered. --Tony Sidaway 10:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Gaming again

Sorry to disturb you, but User:Tazmaniacs and I are it again: Groupement de recherche et d'études pour la civilisation européenne and Nouvelle Droite. I cannot seem to self revert on the latter page to avert a 3RR penalty. Intangible 15:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay. Don't war any more and I'll try to help you sort this out. --Tony Sidaway 15:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I see that Intangible's calling for you. I'll humbly advise you, dear administrator, to tread softly when blocking people, especially if you are not aware of the nature of the conflict. You may be interested in this Rfa filed against Intangible by User:Cberlet. I have recently reversed a wave of edits by Intangible deleting the reference to the term "far right" without any basis either than trolling. He hasn't troubled himself with any "fact" tags and is not interested in upgrading the quality of Misplaced Pages. Cheers! Tazmaniacs 15:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

There is another message for you on my talk page. In two words: get familiar with the content dispute before taking administrative decisions. Your administrator status doesn't entitles you to take sides in a dispute of which you seem not to be familiar with. They are loads of contributors which support my reversal of Intangible's removal of the term "far right" from the National Front page and other related far right pages. Please be aware that Intangible is obviously a member of the far right — who is trolling around by removing this "far right" term from relevant articles —, I'm not sure you've found the best cause here. Tazmaniacs 16:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Image:Orthodox-Church-in-Banja-Luka.jpg

I listed this image for speedy deletion as a uploader of image. Please, can you delete this image. There was discussion about relevancy of fair use of this image. Regards, --Pockey 18:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Allready deleted. --Pockey 19:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Internal link on Brian Peppers article

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

Professionalism

I noticed that you had deleted (and then protected from re-creation) the article on Musa Cooper, with the comment of "Crap". . I'm not aware what was in the article at the time, but I can verify that the individual is currently notable, as a contestant on the game show So You Think You Can Dance, and that the "crap" comment is now circulating among the show's fans as "this is what Misplaced Pages admins do to articles that they don't like". :/ Might I ask for more explanation as to the article's deletion, and/or a reversal so that the article can be expanded, as is going on with the show's other contestants? I would also humbly suggest that you might want to reconsider the wisdom of using pejorative edit summaries when using admin tools, thanks. --Elonka 18:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

It was crap. Nobody pays me to do this job. --Tony Sidaway 02:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Merging and whatnot

Does merging an article involve merging their histories, or is all the text incorporated into one article, with the emptied one being deleted/redirectized? The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 22:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

That kind of merge (which is known as a history merge) is sometimes performed where an ill-advised split has occurred, but normally you just merge the text of the first article into the second and turn the first article into a redirect to the second. --Tony Sidaway 00:06, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Specifically, I'm thinking of incorporating the text from this article, putting it into this article, and then listing the former for speedy deletion as an unlikely search entry. Does that seem enough in order, or is there a better way? The ikiroid 01:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

You can do the first thing (the merge) without the second thing (the delete). Keeping the original around costs us almost nothing and ensures compliance with the site license. So don't list it for deletion. We're not running short of paper. --Tony Sidaway 01:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, will do. Should I rename the emptied article to something more........easy to use as a redirect? The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 01:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Leave it there (people type some weird stuff into search engines). Add more redirects that you think may be useful. --Tony Sidaway 02:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, thank you for the advice :) The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 15:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Request your opinion

I would like you to take a look at this dialogue. Do you think there is a personal attack here? http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources#published

Here is an online definition of "publish": and the first two apply: prepare and issue for public distribution or sale; "publish a magazine or newspaper" have (one's written work) issued for publication; "How many books did Georges Simenon write?"; "She published 25 books during her long career" One should look closer and ask, "Who is the intended public of the work?" Examples could be "the english-speaking world" "those residing in and around Boulder, Colorado". Here is a link to the definition of public: The first two definitions are nouns and apply: a body of people sharing some common interest; "the reading public" people in general considered as a whole; "he is a hero in the eyes of the public" The first definition listed here of public is what I am refering to. --Fahrenheit451 17:41, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Would you be willing to put those into the wiktionary and link them to this page? Wjhonson 18:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Really, that would be far better than what User:Fahrenheit451 just did, which was to delete out all of the definition of Publish. Terryeo 22:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there is a personal attack there. Terryeo referred to your act as "to delete out all of the definition of Publish." What you actually did was to remove the following text from Reliable sources:

''']''' means ''previously published to the ''. The word derives from Latin and means ''to make public''.

Terryeo's words seem like a reasonable description of what you did. --Tony Sidaway 00:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Spamalot

Hey, Tony, any word on what people think of my preliminary proposal? Way off base? IronDuke 15:36, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Still thinking about it. --Tony Sidaway 15:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Report at WP:AN/I

Hi, Tony. I see that Robertsteadman and Neuropean were squabbling at your talk page recently. Neuropean has now left. His behaviour was certainly not impeccable, but it does seem certain that Robert was wiki-stalking him, and hurling insults at him (sockpuppet, vandal, stalker), and that it just got too much for him. Robert is also the indefinitely-banned user Robsteadman (talk · contribs), who engaged in massive edit warring, abuse, and votestacking-sockpuppetry. He was allowed back on probation, with the new name Robertsteadman. Although I personally find Rob(ert) to be an extremely abusive and disruptive editor, I believe that I have always behaved with fairness towards him, voting to keep his article, removing a taunt after his sockpuppetry was discovered, removing evidence of his sockpuppetry and of his indefinite blocking from the talk page of his article (since it probably wouldn't be very nice for him if someone — maybe one of his students — looked up the composer Robert Steadman, and found out what his history on Misplaced Pages was), and on several occasions reverted vandalism or harassing messages from his user or talk pages, and asked other editors to leave him alone, despite the fact that throughout all of this, he was making hysterical accusations against me as well as against numerous others.

I feel that I should have acted more quickly, because when I saw the accusations of wiki-stalking, I took a quick look at the contributions of both editors, and it seemed to be true, but I was involved with making other posts, so I put off doing something about it. I don't think Neuropean will be back, but I'd like to feel that this can't happen again with someone else. It was completely characteristic of the way Rob(ert) used to behave with people he had been in dispute with before he was indefinitely blocked. If you have time to look at my report at AN/I, I'd appreciate it. If not, no problem. I know it can take a long time to read up about something that you haven't already been following. Cheers. AnnH ♫ 16:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I sometimes think that the earlier we can catch these cases the better, but I admit I'm usually much too slow. I took a look at the accusations but decided to let them ride unless Neuropean made a more pointed complaint. I think I should have taken the time to ask other about Robert Steadman. --Tony Sidaway 16:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Please talk to user: Syrthiss who has more information - there is much more to this than the factually inaccurate acocount being posted around WP by Ann. Robertsteadman 17:54, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:AN/I

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

Iran related articles noticeboard/Incidents

Please watch this page and post your public messages on this page so that everybody may have access to it. Thanks

--Aminz 05:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Regards, --Aminz 07:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

User:AquaticTheory

I do not think it would be a godd idea to block this user. As per the Arbcom ruling:

PoolGuy restricted to one user account

1. User PoolGuy shall use one user account. That user account may be PoolGuy or a new account which he may create in order to get a fresh start. Should he create a new account he need not disclose its name.

Passed 7 to 0 at 01:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

He is quite entitled to the AquaticTheory namespace. A block would only get in the way of the mediation session. --BarryC _(talk) 16:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

He was subsequently subjected to a community ban:

16:16, 25 June 2006 Andrew_Norman (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) blocked PoolGuy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) with an expiry time of indefinite (Exhausted community's patience - see WP:AN

See also this discussion which led to the community ban. --Tony Sidaway 17:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Redirect relisting

Hi,

Why in the heck did you speedy close "King's Highway (Ontario)" a second time, when DRV just finished overturning the previous speedy keep as improper? What were you hoping to accomplish? This closure is being undone: I will consider another speedy keep closure a violation of your ArbCom ruling, and will sanction accordingly, or ask another to do so. Best wishes, Xoloz 19:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh don't be such a stuffed shirt. I speedy closed it because it's an obvious redirect and you're just wasting time. Another speedy close (which I'm not considering doing) would not be a violation of my arbitration ruling. Don't make empty threats. --Tony Sidaway 19:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I would consider it a violation of your ArbCom ruling. A new speedy close after an old has just been overturned is effectively reversing the DRV. Reclosing now would be reversing my re-opening. I would seek sanction for you under such a circumstance. That is no threat, but a statement of fact, so I'm glad we won't have to pursue that. This is part of a contentious naming dispute, with parties who love to bring these things to DRV (and elsewhere), and we don't need to be giving them any irregularities on which to harp. I don't especially think the redirect is bad either, but following DRV's suggested course hurts nobody.

I'm not trying to be a "stuffed shirt": I was just left to wonder whether you'd even looked at the thing before you closed it, given that a speedy close had just been overturned. If you had looked at it, I would feel rather miffed, because you were just creating more work for DRV. Best wishes, Xoloz 20:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Bollocks. A speedy keep without people running around trying to turn this into the bureaucracy it isn't would be a fitting end the stupidity of the original listing. --Tony Sidaway 20:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

SPUI (talk · contribs)

Tony SPUI is continuing to violate his probation from the Highways arbcom this time on Minnesota State Highway 33. He's engaged in another edit war with a totally new user this time. JohnnyBGood 21:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I've asked both SPUI and Jonathunder, as very experienced Wikipedians, to stop edit warring and resolve their differences by discussion. --Tony Sidaway 21:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

How many warnings does he get. This is the second or third time in a week you've warned him. He's violating his probation, you obviously agree or you wouldn't be warning him. Are the warnings indefinite as long as he moves his disruption around? Cause if so I'd like to do the same but have so far restrained myself. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 21:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

You forgot to apply the block to me for coming up with this monstrosity in the first place. Really, Highway 33 isn't that important, except for people driving from the Twin Cities to the Iron Range. And there are other routes, like US-53. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 23:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I do think Elkman is overracting, however I'd also like to present that he's been so irked as further evidence of SPUI being incivil to other users and further hurting the project as a result. I know you want to give the guy chances when many others are demanding his head on a pike, and I'm not totally univolved I'll admit. But doesn't there have to be a line in the sand with a user that is this divisive? I mean seriously. His block list is a mile long and rightly so, yet they always seem to be lifted after less then an hour. And now he's go TWO probations against him and yet he's being given chance after chance after chance to continue violation at least one of the probations (I admit I'm not to familiar with his first probation which is still in effect). Sorry if this seems like a rant, but I'd like to see policy applied evenly. Last week William Allen Simpson was blocked for calling SPUI a "vandal". Yet SPUI for being equally incivil, while under a probation that demands he be civil, didn't even elicit a warning. SPUI is a heavy contributor, of that there is NO question, however heavy contribution is not a license to do as he pleases and then get away with it. And if he is going to continue to get away with it then that should be applied evenly and people like WAS and myself should get indefnite amounts of patience. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 01:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

User:WelshCountryside

Hey, Tony. Steve Caruso from the AMA here. Just making a quick followup. Was it confirmed that User:WelshCountryside was indeed a sockpuppet? That user account applied for help under the AMA and Jossi took their case. I just wish to be certain of the proceedings. Peace and thanks! --The_Thadman 00:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

It's that particular editor's modus operandi to start a sock puppet and hammer away endlessly on a grievance that runs as follows:

• The Arbitration Committee restricted him to one account in the case Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/PoolGuy, where it was found that his use of multiple accounts had been disruptive.
• Notwithstanding that, he disputes that the blocking of his sock puppet GoldToeMarionette (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), in March, before the arbitration case began, was in order, and insists that its continued blocking is unjust.

Here is a discussion on WP:RFAR in which he tries to get the Arbitration Committee to unblock GoldToeMarionette. They refused. His PoolGuy account was indefinitely blocked shortly thereafter in a community ban because of his relentless badgering on this matter.

The behavior of the new accounts WelshCountryside (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (first edit 01:52, 19 July 2006, made an AMA request for assistance) and AquaticTheory (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (first edit 02:31, 19 July 2006, made a Mediation Cabal application) is consistent with PoolGuy's use of sock puppets and obsession with the case of GoldToeMarionette. Those accounts have made no edits unrelated to that case. I have concluded that both are sock puppets of PoolGuy, and blocked them accordingly.

Should jossi decide to take up this editor's case, and should he still be interested in clearing his name, I suggest that the next step would be to apply on his behalf to the arbitrators or to Jimbo for an appeal in this case. --Tony Sidaway 01:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for being so thorough with your response as all of this certainly puts my mind at rest. :-) As things look, Jossi's actions are in agreement with the proceedings as he has closed the case, stating as such. Peace and many thanks! אמר Steve Caruso _(desk/AMA) 04:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

¡Thanks! (was: Personal Attacks)

Hi, in response to your complaints on WP:ANI I removed some of the personal attacks. Unfortunately this seems to be a probable AOL user so cannot easily be blocked for long. You don't have to take this kind of attack, though, so please contact me directly if he continues and I'll see what I can do. Naturally you should remain civil even under this kind of provocation, but I've no reason to doubt that you are civil at all times. --Tony Sidaway 02:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

¡Thanks!

Long time, no see. I have spent much of my time lately on my own intactivistic wiki and dealing with personal problems in the real world.

• -

Eloquence hosts it for me via Myoo.De. Unfortunately, this leaves every little time for WikiPedia.Org. Indeed, this unpleasant business has lead to more time on WikiPedia.Org than I have spent in weeks.

I could have removed the attacks myself, but I left them there for the moderator to see. Until I lost patience with the user, I did remove them myself. Indeed, the anonymous IP earlier had penis pictures up too, but that was before I lost patience trying to engage the user and removed them myself.

I look forward to editing with you again in the future.

—

— Ŭalabio‽ 03:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

For you

I was awarded this recently, and even though I know you stated you don't like barnstars, thought you might like to get this one anyway...you jerk:)--MONGO 05:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I changed the picture. It's purty. --Tony Sidaway 10:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

per Neuropean, re Robertsteadman

(this is being sent to Shane, Dan, and Ann as the three who Neuropean contacted with his request as well as Tony)

Assuming you read what Neuropean wrote, do you have any consideration of giving Robert another last chance? I have my own feelings on the matter, but want more feedback. Please reply here, or on my talk page, or email me. Syrthiss 12:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I read what he wrote and I think in the circumstances he was very polite. I don't think we should allow Robert a second chance; he's already driven one editor away. --Tony Sidaway 12:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Tony. Syrthiss 12:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Rfa

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

Wikipediatrix

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

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

User:Deuterium/Bad edits

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

Eluchil404's RfA

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

template potentially advocating illegal acts

Tony, you may want to look at {{User joyride}}. The term joyride in International English is often understood to mean steal a car and race in it. The template also uses the word hot which, in the context of mention of cars and joyriding, is understood in International English to mean stolen. So to millions of potential readers worldwide, this template appears to be indicating that the user of the template breaks the criminal law by stealing cars. There is a tfd against this template. In the circumstances however, given the meaning that will be attached to such a template, i.e., that it advocates, promotes or endorses the breaking of the criminal law regarding car theft, can such a template be allowed to remain on Misplaced Pages? I am all in favour of templates, but I believe this one goes far too far across the line in potentially being seen to advocate criminal acts and so warrants deletion irrespective of the vote result. Jtdirl 21:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I've speedied this as "Blatantly inflammatory and highly likely to bring Misplaced Pages into disrepute". --Tony Sidaway 21:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

re:Encyclopedia Dramatica

Thanks for your adjective-heavy description of my action. Your opinion is noted, but I still don't see any valid reasons to close that debate early (as I don't see any valid reasons to keep deleted the article in question). I think that a neutral closing administrator will see the emptiness of arguments of those in favor of deletion and will do the right thing in the end. Grue 11:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

While I respect your right to a view on the merits of the article, and to reject the overwhelming consensus to keep the article deleted, your actions have actively harmed Misplaced Pages, and you've admitted here that you took the action to advance a partisan minority view. In the light of that, I ask you again: please reconsider your action. --Tony Sidaway 12:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The real consensus is there: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Encyclopædia Dramatica, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Encyclopaedia Dramatica, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Encyclopædia Dramatica (3rd nomination), not some secluded DRV page. This leads me to believe that my opinion conforms with the majority. Grue 12:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

You seem to have misread the close. Nandesuka recorded a delete, and this has been endorsed massively on review. --Tony Sidaway 12:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Hum...I can't see that there is any concensus to restore the article..not even close. The purpose of the DRV is to determine if the Afd was closed inappropriately. Since no one demonstrated by way of discussion at the Afd that the ED article could conform with policy such as WP:V and guidelines such as WP:RS, it was not a viable candidate for inclusion in Misplaced Pages. No one has demostrated that the Afd was improper closed, so why keep the argument ongoing? Who cares about past Afd's...Misplaced Pages is an evolving entity, so maybe our standards are higher now. I think the quality of featured articles and the demands for proper referencing and prose have risen a great deal in the year and half since I first edited here. Maybe if ED becomes more notable in the future it can have an article.--MONGO 12:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, nice way to discuss that with me before doing that. Maybe now you at least understand why I did that. (Note that was addressed to Grue, not Tony)--Pilotguy 15:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Mohit for speedy deletion

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

Would you have a look at these diffs please

Dear Tony Sidaway

I see from User Talk:Mike18xx that you have been having dealings with him. I have thought of putting an incivility warning on his user page but it is blocked. I'm not sure if he is currently blocked or not. I still find the dispute procedure quite confusing. Anyway, I wondered if you could look at these diffs and take action or tell me how to proceed. They involve User:Aminz who was recently blocked and then unblocked, unfairly as it seems from what I can make out, and is now taking time out.

Appears to me to be uncivil.

Not very civil and does not indicate commitment to common search for improvement and consensus.

Ditto

I am particularly worried by this last one, as it uses one article's talk page to say disrespectful things about editors on another page.

Thank you

Itsmejudith 14:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your report. If you want to say something to or about this editor, User:Mike18xx, you can put it on his talk page. His user page seems to have been protected owing to an apparent attempt by that user to recreate a deleted article on his user page. He is not currently blocked

Having looked at his recent output, as listed by you above, I'm blocking him for a week (to give Misplaced Pages a rest from such gross attacks) and may soon make an edit on WP:AN to discuss his future on Misplaced Pages. --Tony Sidaway 18:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

This appears to be a case of double-punishment for the same offense, as mike18xx was already blocked for three days previously for those particular offenses. Methinks you're being used by would-be censors whose apparent tactic is to pester administrators with crybaby antics whenever they do not get their way in an article. If you were to actually look at who is writing what in the Pinochet and Allende pieces (do some comparisons on the history pages), you'd easily see who are the vandals and who's keeping the pieces up to reasonable semblances of Wiki standards. Please unblock him.--Joan

• Misplaced Pages clerks