Misplaced Pages

User talk:Tony Sidaway: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 03:52, 11 June 2006 editSplash (talk | contribs)33,425 edits that just got moved back to ANI by someone← Previous edit Latest revision as of 11:54, 30 May 2024 edit undoGodofincompetence (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users921 edits Notification: proposed deletion of Gradient Analytics.Tag: Twinkle 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{not around|3=8 October 2021}}
]
== Nomination of ] for deletion ==
<!-- BEGIN WERDNABOT ARCHIVAL CODE --><!-- This page is automatically archived by Werdnabot-->{{User:Werdnabot/Archiver/Linkhere}} <!--This is an empty template, but transcluding it counts as a link, meaning Werdnabot is directed to this page - DO NOT SUBST IT --><!--Werdnabot-Archive Age-14 Target-User talk:Tony Sidaway/Werdnabot archive--><!--END WERDNABOT ARCHIVAL CODE-->
<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ''']''' is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to ] or whether it should be ].
{{User:Tony Sidaway/TopNav|username=Tony_Sidaway}}
{|
|<big><center>'''This page is archived by ]'''</center></big>
|}
----
{|
|<big><center>'''My activity on the wiki, and responses to requests, may be intermittent or non-existent for the next few months. Thanks for your patience. --] 12:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)'''</center></big>
|}
----
{|
|<big>'''Help me to reduce the disfiguring effect of jargon on Misplaced Pages discourse. Whenever you are tempted to use POV as a word, consider using one of the alternatives in ], which you are encouraged to extend.'''</big>
|}
<big><center>''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.</center><center> ''</center></big>
<center><big>Please contact me by email if you are blocked from editing:</big></center>
<center><big>'''minorityreport@bluebottle.com'''</big></center>
{{User:Tony Sidaway/Templates/TalkArchiveBar}}


The article will be discussed at ] until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
== StrangerInParadise motion ==


Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.<!-- Template:afd-notice --> ] (]) 03:06, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
This motion already has more than enough votes to pass for the past week or two, yet has been "sitting there" without anyone formally implementing it. Is it now time to formally implement it? --{{unsigned2|20:32 UTC, 8 May 2006|69.117.7.84}}


== ArbCom 2017 election voter message ==
: One of the arbitrators will close that motion. I obviously can't because it's obvious what I think of StrangerInParadise's behavior. --] 20:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


{{Ivmbox|Hello, Tony Sidaway. Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
Ready for archiving. --] 03:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
==Arb-Com Workshops==
Tony, I have briefly looked at a couple of recent ArbCom cases, and in particular in the case of FourthAve it seems to me that the workshop, particularly the proposed remedies, is a cut-and-paste job, which is probably fine. However I think this predisposes the ArbCom to consider a limited set of remedies - in particular in this case there is no option to ban for periods other than 1 year. In your clerking role is this something that could be improved, or am I barking up the wrong tree? ''] ]'' 22:26 ] ] (UTC).


If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. ] (]) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
|Scale of justice 2.svg|imagesize=40px}}
<!-- Message sent by User:Xaosflux@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2017/Coordination/MMS/11&oldid=813413898 -->
== Nomination of ] for deletion ==
<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ''']''' is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to ] or whether it should be ].


The article will be discussed at ] until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
: In my experience the arbitration committee doesn't just consider the workshop proposals, but makes most of the running itself. The best way anybody with your concerns can address them is to edit workshop pages and, if you think the proposed decision is going all wrong, make a commment on the talk page or in email. --] 22:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.<!-- Template:afd-notice --> ]. ] 22:33, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
== ] ==


== ArbCom 2018 election voter message ==
Dear Tony. I think you deleted this userbox and I am kinda hurt by this action as I see that other religious user box templates still exist e.g. ] . Was there any specific reason why it was deleted and not others? Thanks, --]<sup>] | </sup> 10:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


{{Ivmbox|Hello, Tony Sidaway. Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
: I don't have a button on my sysadmin console to reliably identify and simultaneously delete all deletable templates, so I do them one at a time. --] 11:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
::Sure and I support your actions Tony but my question was that a one off deletation or will the other boxes be deleted, etc? I am guessing they are and this was not a matter of religious discrimination of any sort, yes? --]<sup>] | </sup> 13:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. ] (]) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
The other boxes will be deleted, but a mass deletion of all of them is not envisioned.
|Scale of justice 2.svg|imagesize=40px}}
<!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2018/Coordination/MMS/11&oldid=866998401 -->


== Task force climate change ==
As an alternative to expressing a religious belief, you might consider creating a userbox that says something like "I am interested in ]". This would enable those with expertise or interests in the subject to advertise it in a relatively neutral manner. --] 13:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


Hello Tony Sidaway,
Interesting so the problem is with the userboxes not looking neutral?! I did not realise that they are offensive. --]<sup>] | </sup> 14:22, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


You are currently noted as a participant of the ]. With much of the activity in this task force about ten years ago, I think it's time for a revival. Global warming is getting a lot of attention in the media now and it's therefore important our articles are up-to-date, accurate and neutral.
:Please do not <small><s>vandalise</s></small> <u>destroy</u> the userboxes, Tony &mdash whether they be about Zoroastrism, Sikhism, or whatever your next target will be. (Sorry, but I fail to see any grounds to assume good faith in these cases.) If you think the userboxes in question should be re-phrased, feel free to help out. If you undelete the two religion userboxes you recently deleted, there will be a chance of working on them (with or without your help) to find a way to make them less “offensive”. Not that there really was anything offensive about them in the first place... -- ] 17:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


I've updated the task force page and the to do list and invite you to have a look at the page again, add something to the TO DO list or start collaborating by improving one of our many articles. If climate change has lost your interest, feel free to remove your name from the participants list.
:: Don't use the term "vandalism" to describe deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. --] 19:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


] (]) 16:36, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
::: <s>As long as ], I have no choice but to stand by my words. -- ] 19:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)</s> (see below)


== Re: Time I stopped being a curmudgeon about signs of appreciation's barnstar ==
::::You are using an incorrect definition of the word "vandalism" and at the same time are calling long-standing respected members of the community "vandals". For your own good, please desist. --] 19:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


You did THAT to the ''']''' article—in ''2015''?!?!!! That is one ''well deserved'' barnstar, lemme tell you! The nostalgia! My best friend and I were following ''], ], ]'' and other then-'']'' fare of the time, several days a week, so we saw that blow up real-time! Dude, I mean...'''''dude'''''. Dang.
:::::OK &mdash; I hear your threat and choose to retract my phrasing. I am at a loss for ways to describe what is currently going on here... ''Speedy, un-substituted removal of perfectly unoffensive userboxes meant for user pages only'' while it is quite clear that there is no consensus to go to such drastic measures (I apologise in advance if anyone should find the phrasing “drastic measures” to be objectionable). I realise that Tony Sidaway has been with this project for a long time. But exactly because of that fact, I would also have expected an ability to act with more restraint in a matter of such lack of community consensus. -- ] 19:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


...
::::: From my careful soundings, I believe that we have a strong Misplaced Pages consensus for the removal of userboxes that serve little or no purpose than to cause contention and exacerbate the unimportant differences between Wikipedians. We all subscribe to the Neutral point of view policy, we all attempt to leave out personal views behind when we come to Misplaced Pages. While it's sometimes good to put a note of one's biases on one's userpage, celebrating those differences in the manner that many userboxes do is never compatible with the Misplaced Pages project to create a high quality encyclopedia. --] 19:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


Thank you for all your hard work, there and elsewhere! Thank you very much! —] (]) 10:33, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
:::::: Thank you for entering the dialogue. :) I do agree with part of what you are saying. for instance, “I hate communists/capitalists/porridge eaters/Martians” is not a constructive message. But banning messages of the type “I am a Sikh/Zoroastrian/rabbit rescuer/vegetarian/meat eater” does not necessarily have such flame-war-reducibg effects that it justifies that limitation of fact-builder networking it creates... '''Personally, I actually find these boxes useful for actively pulling in people of different perspectives.''' My interest in Misplaced Pages is to build open, multi-perspective and strictly fact-based encyclopaedias. I know from my work on the ] as well as the ] that an openly multi-perspective encyclopaedia model works and earns its respect. What I and many others am/are seeing here, is a process to make this aspect “invisible”. The various points of view and biasses are still going to be there, but in a less transparent way, and therefore also much more difficult to balance out. -- ] 20:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


Thanks. I worked hard on several controversial articles for a long time, and I think my work was appreciated. ] is one, ] is another, and there were many others. ] 22:23, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
::::::: Olve, religion has caused more and bloodier wars than pretty much anything else in the history of mankind. Religious userboxes, of all the userboxes, represent to my mind the most deep-seated and pernicious form of bias on Misplaced Pages. And I speak as a practicing member of a religion. There is a difference between professing a faith and proclaiming it, and Misplaced Pages is not the place for proclamation. Just my € 0.0156. ] 12:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


== How to control global warming listed at ] ==
I vote to have this added to admin buttons...a delete offensive userbox tab....what a great idea...just think how much more professional we'll look when we identify ourselves solely as Wikipedians...that would eliminate many concerns about us being biased. Misplaced Pages is better off if we eliminate the barriers that divide us...at least while working on the project.--] 17:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
]
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect ]. Since you had some involvement with the ''How to control global warming'' redirect, you might want to participate in ] if you wish to do so. <!-- from Template:RFDNote --> — <span style="font-family:gill sans">]</span> ] 23:56, 8 July 2019 (UTC)


== Moving to inactive ==
:I still have not been given an answer why this template was deleted and not ]? Even after I pointed it out? --]<sup>] | </sup> 21:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


Hi, FYI the climate change task force is now a stand-alone project (]). You were once listed as active at the task force but from your contribs it appears you are in (semi?) wiki retirement. I've therefore taken liberty to move your name to the inactive list, but feel free to rejoin us any time! ] (]) 20:40, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
:: Don't try to rush us. ] will be deleted in due course. --] 00:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


== Hope you're doing well, whatever you're up to ==
*This comment by Tony Sidaway is the key to resolving this dispute, and to avoiding hundreds of potential future disputes: "As an alternative to expressing a religious belief, you might consider creating a userbox that says something like 'I am interested in ]'." Why not, instead of continuing to generate ill-will and arguments like the above with continuous deletions, instead convey the message very clearly regarding what is or isn't appropriate, by ''moving'' and ''rewording'' the templates to ''make'' them appropriate: rather than simply deleting {{tl|user muslim}} and potentially angering hundreds of valued Muslim contributors to Misplaced Pages, why not move it to {{tl|user islam}} and reword it to "This user is interested in ]." (possibly after substing its current form to the pages of the users using it, if you think that it would be a bad idea to assume that belief is probably indicative of an "interest")? This will solve three problems, and do so in a relatively simple and efficient way: (1) it will eliminate POV-expressing userboxes, in accordance with T2; (2) it will eliminate most of them in a relatively subtle, graceful, inoffensive way, rather than the violently abrupt change of a mass-deletion (or, even worse, the arbitrary and offensive bit-by-bit deletions currently generating such conflict); (3) it will prevent endless DRVs over the POVed userboxes, such actual deletions won't be involved for any of the moved templates. Obviously this can't work for ''every'' POV-expressing userbox: many, like "This user is religious." (which already has an "interest" counterpart at {{tl|user religion interest}}), will simply have to go, if T2 stays as-is, though judicious use of template redirects and substs can still help minimize a conflict. But for a large number of POV-expressing templates, a move to interest/expertise-expressing ones is not only much more beneficial for Misplaced Pages in the long run than simply annihilating everything, but also will be infinitely less controversial and divisive than explicitly deleting the templates. In other words, it's the most practical way to go about implementing T2, both in terms of editing the encyclopedia (it'll convert relatively useless boxes denoting "This user happens to believe in alchemy" to much more useful boxes denoting "This user is knowledgeable or interested in alchemy-related articles", and do it all in a consistent and simple manner that will be much less time-consuming and damaging than deletion-and-recreation) ''and'' in terms of keeping the community from going nuts and starting another all-out war over these silly little boxes. Thus, it diffuses the problem in an elegant and relatively inobtrusive way, turning what is currently a hindrance into what could be an advantage with time. What do you thinke? -] 07:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


]
I've thought a lot about this, and I think it's best to make a clean start rather than doctor templates in-situ. For a start, the people who transclude the current template would probably rather simply have the contents of that template included by a "subst" than have the content and the meaning changed to make a completely different statement. Secondly, as you seem to recognise above, there are often many templates involved.


Thanks for the good wishes. I'm largely disengaging from all social forums, as indicated . There's still time for me to reconnect with my solipsistic side, I hope. Only by shutting out ] can I have any peace, which for some reason seems to involve lots of microcontroller stuff and obscure programming languages. --] 13:38, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
There will be cases, perhaps, where all those transcluding a template can agree to a neutral version, but this is going to be the exception rather than the rule. I see no reason not to just get rid of the offending templates while development of different, more neutral, templates proceeds in parallel. --] 12:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
:If I could find it, I'd send you lyrics to a song where the singer, in first person, places a cell call to someone else, asking if the other party received his email. The conversation goes live into the mens room when the singer walks in on an occupied stall. He wants to talk about techno weenie who piled it all up on a sheet of plywood, doused it with crisco, set it afire, and disappeared into the Rockies leaving only an address at the corner store. But the ironic refrain claims the speaker isn't a victim of the techno world "oops, didn't know the stall was occ-uuuuu-piiiiied....." Good for you, and if you can stand a bit of zombi speak, I have ] (]) 14:28, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
:: I've returned to the coastline between the rivers Tyne and Wear, which I choose to call Mesopotamia for obvious reasons. Nature is very much evident here, where I grew up. I get out onto the coastal walks whenever I can. --] 19:05, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
::: Awesome! I just returned from a forest school outting (classic version) with multiple families. The kiddos turned up many species of mushrooms, saprophytic vascular plants, a tree frog, multiple salamanders, various aquatic creepie crawlies which in our area indicate a stream has high water quality. This made me quite happy since not that long ago that stream had problems. Enjoy your anti digital reawakening! I haven't managed to pull the plug yet, obviously. ] (]) 20:18, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
==] nomination of ]==
]


A tag has been placed on ] requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under ], because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a ], a ], a ], under discussion at ], or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.
:A fair point, but I disagree, and I think that attempting to "make a clean start" is actually the ''opposite'' of what we should be aiming for. Also, in case you didn't notice, my newest proposal is not that we simply "move-and-rewrite" all these templates (based on the assumption that Muslims, for example, will be "interested in Islam"), but that we "subst-and-move-and-rewrite" them: the substing will give all the people using the old version what they want, and the moving and rewriting will give the template a more appropriate name and text for future users, thus killing two birds with one stone. So I think that takes care of your concern that some might not appreciate having the rename forced onto their user pages: by mass-substing them first, ''then'' moving them, we circumvent the deletion and deletion-review nonsense while simultaneously eliminating T2-violating userboxes ''and'' creating suitable replacements for users who really want to express their Islam-interest with a userpage template. Win-win-win. Additionally, I think that the "make a clean start" strategy (a.k.a. a "great purge" of almost all userboxes :)), even if it seems appealing now, will ultimately turn out to be a ''lose-lose'' situation. The following problems arise with trying to simply purge the userboxes, rather than attempting compromises and less dramatic ways to eliminate the problems. The following negative consequences, among others, will ensue from a mass-deletion:
:#Lots and lots of time-consuming and divisive warring and fighting and lasting bitterness over the deletions. The above and past complaints are just the tip of the iceberg.
:#We'll have cluttered up the template namespace with deleted pages and protected-deleted pages, rather than the much cleaner and more accessible tact of cluttering it with ''redirects''. :)
:#Dozens of talk pages and hundreds of significant edit histories will be lost, even when a page-move to a non-POV-expressing version would have been extremely trivial and easy to do and would have preserved both the history and the talk page, while eliminating all unacceptable aspects of the box.
:#Starting over from scratch, as I've noted, will be immensely time-consuming in the long run, forcing interested users to waste hours recreating userboxes when they could instead be working on Misplaced Pages articles. Even if a mass-delete is appealing right now because it ''seems'' simpler, in reality, it'll just cause much more complication and bureaucratic haggling than the quicker and easier task of converting inappropriate templates into appropriate ones where possible. A little finesse and template-rearrangement smooths the acceptance of policy changes like T2 ''infinitely'' more than harsh and aggressive actions like deletions do. So, the subst-and-move will be much more useful for Misplaced Pages, in my view, than the subst-and-delete, both because it will save time that would have been wasted on pointless arguing, Deletion Reviews, hostilities, and conflicts, and because it will save time that would have been wasted on pointless redesigning and recrafting of userboxes which we already have plenty of. For example, why force users to design a whole new "This user is interested in Islam." template when we can save their time and energy for more encyclopedic concerns by simply using the raw materials available to us (the unacceptable POV-accepting userboxes) to quickly and easily craft such a template? It's easiest on ''all'' sides.
:Obviously, this subst-and-move isn't possible for all of the religion userboxes: for example, I see no problem with just substing and deleting {{tl|user relirespect}}, {{tl|user Liturgy of the Hours}}, {{tl|user hell atheist}}, {{tl|user Lapsed Catholic}}, and several other religion-related templates, where a conversion into a more acceptable format isn't feasible. I'm fully willing to create a list of which templates should probably be deleted and which should probably be moved (and where), if there's interest; I'd even be willing to simply do it myself, if there's any interest in such a move, and if I could get someone or a bot's help with the task of mass-substing these templates (the task of moving and rewriting the templates, on the other hand, I can do on my own quite easily indeed, and would actually have done a while ago if I'd been able to get clear support for doing such). But I feel strongly that a subtle conversion from POV-expressing to interest-expressing will be much more effective at minimizing controversy and conflict, and smoothing the T2-derived userbox transition (by empasizing much more clearly and consistently than a mere mass-deletion would that relevant encyclopedic interests, not POVs and ideologies and bumper stickers, are what templates are for), than crude deletions would be for most cases. -] 23:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may '''contest the nomination''' by ] and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with ]. <!-- Template:Db-catempty-notice --> <!-- Template:Db-csd-notice-custom --> <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 17:32, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
2353. that's the number of words spent so far on this disucssion of whether this userbox is inflamatory or divisive or violates this or that policy. these words could have been put towards building an encyclopedia! instead, they were spent on dividing and inflaming the community in an argument over what is little more than a harmless bit of digital bric-a-brac. solution: leave the userboxes alone. build and encyclopedia instead. ] 21:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


== Username Eligible ==
==User Page Changes==
Per the numerous comments regarding potential proselytization on my user page, I have decided to remove entirely the section regarding the steps in my conversion to Islam. I welcome additional comments on what you believe may be construed as proselytization. Thanks in advance. ]]] 23:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


My username is suitable for Misplaced Pages editing?
== I really want you to see my side ==
] 14:33, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
: Thanks for asking. I see no problem with your username, though I'm hardly up to date with current practice on Misplaced Pages. If you find the username being challenged, and this makes it difficult to improve Misplaced Pages, I believe you can ask for it to be changed. I'm sure you realise that the purpose of the wiki is to produce a great encyclopedia, it isn't for experiments in what constitutes a valid identifier. --] 22:43, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
== ] of ] ==
]


The article ] has been ]&#32;because of the following concern:
I have been called a troll and a vandal by user:grandmaster and maybe I am uncivil, but I do know that he is being false in both his edits and behaviour.
<blockquote>Fails ]. It's all ] information aside from trivial filming location details. It is in no way a justified spin-out.</blockquote>


While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, pages may be ].
I already added this to your page, but look at this once more;


You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your ] or on ].
This is what I just pasted on the discussion page of the project; please read as follows;


Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the ], but other ]es exist. In particular, the ] process can result in deletion without discussion, and ] allows discussion to reach ] for deletion.<!-- Template:Proposed deletion notify --> ] (]) 12:25, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
: ''This is about freedom of speech. You can not decide on who join or not because if you do that then what is to stop you from letting others with opposing views join. I am here to make sure that the Azari articles excel and are factual and I continue to struggle to do so. User Baku, you leave messages unsigned, user:Grandmaster you use pages to verify things that re not even mentioned on the page like the one for Music of Azerbaijan.''
==Orphaned non-free image File:SuperOffice Logo.png==
] Thanks for uploading ''']'''. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a ]. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see ]).


Note that any non-free images not used in any '''articles''' will be deleted after seven days, as described in ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:Di-orphaned fair use-notice --> --] (]) 04:59, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
: ''I am allowed to place that user box there and editors can pick is they want to use it. There are other user boxes that are only used by one person. I do not seem to recall in consensus in making them. You are being hypocrites because you created one of the user boxes calling for a ‘Liberated Azarbaijan’ which I see not one of you has removed to strengthen your arguments. You are nurturing a culture of bias and misinformation.''


== ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message ==
If you want to see who is in the write please go to the ] article and read the history and what was being asserted by myself and by user:Grandmaster. Also then read the source he used for his claims. Then please look at the ].


<table class="messagebox " style="border: 1px solid #AAA; background: ivory; padding: 0.5em; width: 100%;">
I am being demonized, but at least you will see why I am upset with what these users are doing. This is not fair. You can openly see that this user is being devious just if you look at his editing methodology. I even tried to compromise with him in various articles, but he deleted my arguments on the actual talk pages.
<tr><td style="vertical-align:middle; padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">]</td><td>Hello! Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2020|end}}-1 day}}. All ''']''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.


The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
And when it comes to edits he has the numerical numbers through his allies over me who ususallly don't know about the subject and I get blocked for making legitmate edits via the 3RR.


If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. ] (]) 01:19, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Also please look via the history the editing he made using the source he himself validated. --]
</td></tr>

</table>

<!-- Message sent by User:Xaosflux@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2020/Coordination/MMS/01&oldid=990307860 -->
::Additionally here is more proof that I was being civil ] and that user:Grandmaster is making false statements. I also want to say someting else it is ironic that he went out of hs way and would dlete my work even if little things were not verified, but his own claims and edits have not been verified for a long time and are in need of citations for ages now on the same article, ]. ]

==SOrry I just noticed something==

You know what user:Grandmaster was delete my work saying citations were needed but all the sections claiming Azaris are Turks needed citations for a very long period of time now and he never bothered to give verfications is this not double standards? Take a look at the article. This is outrageous I just realized it. ]

::Additionally Baku never tried to help me or tlk to me as he claims. This is totally false ]

Once again for the music here is all the proof collected ] in case you find it hard to follow from the talk page. ]


: Thanks for putting all these messages here. I'm not sure I can help if your point is simply that he is wrong and you are right. I am not an adjudicator, and it would be wrong for me to use my administrator powers to side with anyone on a question of fact. In wikipedia we work by discussion and consensus, within some requirements such as verifiability, neutral point of view and so on. If you can work within that framework to convince other editors that your content is valuable and well referenced, then you shouldn't have any problems contributing to articles. --] 00:55, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

== Signature ==

Please avoid removing parts of other people's signatures. It comes off as control-freakish and could be considered rude. Thanks. --] 15:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

: I'm just refactoring the discussion to make it easier to edit. It's actually incredibly rude to inflict that monstrosity on shared areas of the wiki. --] 15:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

: If you must remove the sig, then cut it, edit what you want, then paste it back in. But do not remove them. people think that is annoying. --] 15:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

::While I by no means agree with everything Tony does, I must admit that he has a point about your signature. Particularly for our editors who are working at lower resolution, your signature does take up an awfully large portion of the edit window. As a rule of thumb, I'd suggest that any signature that is usually larger than your comments is ''much'' too large. Respectfully, people also think that extremely large signatures are annoying. ](]) 15:21, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Not sure what D-Day means by ''removing'' a signature. I didn't mean to completely remove any signatures and I apologise if that is what has happened. --] 15:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

: The length of many signatures are a result of added functionality the editor has added as a courtesy, like linking to their contributions or talk pages, or the green 'e' badges of Esperanza. In my case, my signature is also symbolic for me. Please don't edit it. Thanks, and happy editing!--] 16:18, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Talk pages are public space provided for discussion. They may occasionally be refactored for readability. --] 16:22, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

: Well, please be careful about not cutting off pieces of comments; you fixed it when it happened on this talk page, but not when it . Thanks. ] 20:13, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

: Sorry about that. But you do see from this I hope, the difficulties. It's very, very difficult to spot comments amid signature in all that gobbledygook. --] 22:47, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

'''Please stop'''
It's Very Rude to alter other people's signed comments. To put it off to "refactoring" is very poor indeed. --] 23:19, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

: Oh stuff and nonsense! Fiddlesticks, even! If a talk page is messed up with all kinds of silly and unnecessary html formatting, it's a good idea to refactor it. Though of course it's decidedly bad form to change the wording, and I'll apologist if I ever mess up. But really the change to sections that are refactored in this way is so beneficial that I'm hardly likely to stop. It's as if all the signature silliness of the past year had been evaporated. Suddenly the entire section can be read from beginning to end, even in edit mode. Which to be frank, was a very useful benefit that I'd quite forgotten about. --] 23:32, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
::Than at least have the courtesy to leave an informative edit summary whenever you do so. In fact, please attempt to leave more helpful edit summaries in general. You might refer to ]. Oh, yes, and -> '''''Civility warning 4''''' To refer to other editor's contributions as "stuff and nonsense" is uncivil. Please do recall that the Arbitration Committee has asked you to be civil.<br/>] 03:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

: You do recall, I ''hope'', that the arbitration committee has asked ''you'' to be civil. That probably includes, I suggest, not harping on matters of such piddling silliness.

: I apologise for describing your comments on my refactoring of signatures as "Stuff and nonsense" and "fiddlesticks". I continue to regard your suggestion as quite unacceptable.

: I disagree with the suggestion that edits to remove disfiguring html, etc, when performed in the course of another edit, must be marked. This would only draw unmerited attention to trivial edits. It can safely be assumed that any conscientious editor will try to perform such good housekeeping as might be necessary on a talk page. --] 03:09, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

::I find it difficult to understand argument for ''not'' using clear edit summaries. I'd refer you to ] where it states, ''"Make it explicit that you have refactored something"'' quite plainly. It also states ''"e aware that not every editor will agree with your refactoring"'' something that is clearly the case here. In the event that you have been made aware that disagreement over some edits may occur, to ''choose'' to not label those edits is at best rude and worst duplicitous, per ArbCom past decisions on ]

::I also find it difficult to understand how I am meant to accept an apology for the use of the words "Stuff and nonsense" that '''''begins''''' with "piddling silliness." As for me, if ever you perceive me to be uncivil, a neutrally worded comment to that effect is always welcome.

::] 03:37, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

::: I admit, you find it easy to drag me to the edge of civility by piling on an endless deluge of utterly trivial complaints. Now go forth and try out your newfound technique on others, if you must. But off this wiki and well out of this editor's face. --] 03:50, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

:::: Tony, surely no one has ever dragged you to any place that you haven't walked &mdash; or, in this case, "rushed headlong" &mdash; yourself. ] 04:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

==For Aaron==
I just noticed this . I think it's excellent advice. Please keep off my talk page, I'll keep off yours. You know we both trust Doc Glasgow and Mark Gallagher, Kat and Greg, so you're not short of people to complain to, and I'm sure I'll get to hear of it should you ever make a complaint to them about me. --] 04:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
:Trusting those folks could get you into trouble, Tony. Be careful. --] 05:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

==Peppers==
Tony, your deletion of the Peppers talk page was obviously inappropriate. I ask you to go ahead and undo it yourself, or I'm taking it to DRV. ] 05:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I used to think it was worth having an article on this guy, but over time my opinions have changed. Just let it go. He's non-notable, and unlike many non-notable people, there's nothing he's ever going to do from now on out that is going to increase his notability. Five years from now no one will even remember the name. Let it go. --] 05:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
:This doesn't even have anything to do with the issue of the notability of Peppers. This is about the existence of the talk page. ] 05:20, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
::Actually, this is about administrators who think they own the project. --] 05:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
:::Well, yes, that's true. ] 05:34, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
::::Spare it, please. --] 05:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
:: I don't think it would be right to undelete that page for a while, but I could well be wrong. Why not take this to ]? --] 05:38, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
:::Aside from the highly unusual nature of such an action, and the general importance we Wikipedians place on talk page discussion, your action was clearly not endorsed by the readers of the talk page, since a vote to shut it down resulted in a definite "no consensus". So how do you justify it? There has to be something more than your own wish, I would hope. I will list of DRV if necessary but I'd rather appeal to you to be sensible first. ] 06:57, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
::: I justify it as a furtherance of Jimbo's intent, to give us all a good long rest from the issue so that we can come back in a year or two's time and decide whether this subject really needs an article. We cannot really do this while some editors insist on agonising about it for months on end on the talk page. ---] 07:03, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
::::Then you can blank and protect. Destruction of the public record is not acceptable. Personaly I prefer to know where complaining is likely to take place but I understand that not everyone shares this view.] 08:48, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Wow, that was ''not'' cool. I'm sorry, but destroying public record of what's very evidently a contentious topic is not the way to douse any controversy that's arisen. It's actions to quash comments like that which make rational, rules-respecting people like me wonder why we should dedicate time to this project. --] 17:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
: My action seems to enjoy very strong support in the review. We have to balance the potential alienation of people like you (whose work is, I assure you, greatly appreciated) with the alienation of people who, looking at the extremely trivial nature of the subject matter and the intensity of the discussion for months on end ''over a matter that Jimbo himself has asked us to put aside for one year'', decide that the site is not for them. --] 17:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

::If that is the kind of thing that will drive them away then I think theywould not last more than say 30 seconds on our colour articles 20 on the articles of a few elements and the whole what to call various cities in non english speaking coutries thing would probably have a simular effect. Can you even show that such people exist?] 17:29, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
:::Those subjects differ from the Brian Peppers nonsense in a very simple and important way. Colours, elements and foreign cities are of worldwide interest. Brian Peppers is of no interest to anyone, apart from Farkers, SA goons, Newgroundlings and general assorted nerds. --]<sup>]</sup> 17:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

::::Well see the rest of ] then.] 17:55, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I'm a bit late getting to you about this, but I'm saying this as someone who wants the debate to end with both sides happy. I can assure you (if you read my comments) that I do not support the recreation of this article in any way, shape, or form, but shoving a sock in people's mouths, particularly those of us who were against the talk page deletion AND do good works around here, such as write and source articles, look to improve articles, and revert vandalism, and telling us that we're in a tiny minority of crazy Wikipedians (such as one particular admin (not you) who shall remain anonymous because I believe in ]) is just insulting. And insults are against policy last time I checked. I agree wholeheartedly with Jimbo's intent that this should be set aside, but forcing Jimbo's doctrine down our throats is not the way to go, and Jimbo himself has said this many a time. People like me, ], and ] (the latter two seem to think it's okay to remake the article; I just think a redirect to ] is all we need) make useful contributions just like those who are for the deletion. It's insulting to us when people think otherwise, which some of the deletionists seem to think. ] 15:31, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

: Before you describe me as a "deletionist", you should be aware that I created the original version of the last incarnation of the Brian Peppers article after the previous incarnation has been deleted after discussion.

: I deleted the talk page because I think this is the only way to ensure that we do really have a chance of forgetting the subject and thus come back to it with fresh minds at some point. --] 15:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

== Bad idea ==

Tony, why are you deleting Jay Maynard's arguments? I think that's a really bad idea; you should be incorporating his ideas, not giving the appearance of trying to silence him. We're trying to ''build consensus'', not swing hammers around. -]<sup>(])</sup> 17:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

: It's a free-form pure-wiki style collaboration. If I delete crap, I've no idea whose crap I'm deleting. I delete crap in the hope that we'll end up with a more sensible summary of the issues than we have at present. I'm sorry if my deletion of crap seems to always hit the same guy's arguments. --] 17:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

::Your lack of willingness to interact with people in this dispute as human beings deserving of respect is making things worse. You are prolonging the userbox controversy by your discourtesy. For the sake of Misplaced Pages, please find a way to avoid alienating quite so many contributors. -]<sup>(])</sup> 21:02, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

In the same vein, and in reply to your edit summary, "The suggestion that administrators are just acting rogue here is insuppportable," I hope you realize that what I was suggesting by asking for your input is that your addressing this point frankly rather than ignoring it is ''more'' helpful to the goal of ending all this bullshit drama. I hope you understand where I'm coming from. -]<sup>(])</sup> 21:02, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


: I'm not really that concerned about that. Once a person becomes acculturated to Misplaced Pages, these things make sense. I don't have to bear the full weight of educating every single new Misplaced Pages editor, although sometimes I get the impression that some people think that I should. --] 22:45, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

== Cleanup Taskforce ==

Greetings. You are receiving ] because you have a task on your Cleanup Taskforce desk that has not been updated for over 30 days. If you do not wish to complete this task please assign it to another ] who has space on their desk. If you do not wish to receive cleanup requests on your desk any more, you may remove yourself from ]. If you or someone else has completed the task, you can close it by adding <nowiki>{{cleanup taskforce closed|ARTICLE NAME HERE}}</nowiki> to the article's talk page and removing it from ]. If you have a status update (e.g. you intend to work on it in the future) or need help, you can update the collaboration page (which is linked from your desk). Also feel free to reply to the person who left you this message. --] 19:45, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

: Replied. --] 22:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

== Sandifer ==

Tony, why did you close the Sandifer AfD? Is it not supposed to stay up for five days? Also, as someone who voted in it, are you allowed to close it? ] ] 22:38, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

: Whatever. I think it was better to close it now and get on with things. --] 22:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't get involved much with AfD and so I don't know what the accepted practises are. Does your decision mean the article should be deleted or not? It seems to have left things hanging, and I couldn't see any reason to close early (though, as I said, I'm not familiar with how AfDs are usually conducted). ] ] 23:28, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

:: My actions means that I think the decision has been made. The article probably shouldn't exist on its own but there is something to this and it probably belongs somewhere. If someone strongly disagrees this may go back to review or just be re-opened. When I do this kind of thing it depends a lot on people accepting my closing argument, and thinking "yeah, that makes a kind of sense" even if they don't personally agree on the precise details of the close. In short, I've tried to take everybody's opinion into account and if I've failed badly then someone else will come in and fix it. --] 23:38, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the decision makes some sense, but it's still not clear there was a need to make it before the five days was up. In any event, anyone can add information about what happened to Phil to another article (e.g. ]), so that doesn't require the decision of an admin, which is why I'm confused. ]|]23:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

: The community runs best, I've found, when editors feel free to make bold decisions. In my opinion the "five days" thing is a bit unnecessary when practically everybody has a go and comments in the first day or two. --] 23:53, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I rather think you've taken no-ones views into account, and so I've reopened the debate. -]<small><sup>]</sup></small> 00:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

: No worries. --] 01:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

== My sig ==

Tony,

I appreciate your thought and respect in writing your comment. I have gotten a few comments here and there in the past about it, as well. However,
# Most of that wikicode is a result of coloring, not the images
# The two images I use are ''_very_'' important to myself and my identity, and I would like to keep them there. I believe that they are small enough to not create a nuisance.

Blessed Be :) --] 01:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

: Well they create a huge nuisance for me. Please knock it off. --] 01:46, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

::Well, since you put it that way, I won't even think of it. ] 04:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

==]==
Since you closed as keep deleted. I am not going to tag it g4 again even if I do believe it qualifies, but maybe it needs to be revisted given the current frankenstate of T2. ] 01:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

: Lost me there. T2 is basically T1, and this was a unanimous endorsement. --] 01:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
::I may agree with you, but it certainly is being debated (and edit warred over) still. ] 01:50, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

:Could you show me where the related edit warring is occurring? I only see a G4 recreation that seems to have resulted from a premature, or erroneous, unprotecting of the deletedpage template. --] 01:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
:I meant the edit warring on Misplaced Pages:Criteria for speedy deletion itself over T2, which apparently died down when someone protected the page. ] 02:00, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

: Oh yes, people edit war over written policy all the time. It doesn't stop us doing things. We work according to Misplaced Pages policy, and in a certain sense we ''create'' it, while the written policy struggles to catch up. --] 02:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
:My take on it is that policy is whatever you can do without people making too big of a fuss over it (outside of the immutable policies that are the foundation). Operating without Hammurabi's code does have the problem of people disagreeing over what is policy though; and certainly has scaling problems in a community of this size.
:The current state of T2 really does not affect the deletion of this template. It showed up on my watchlist with an N, so I tagged it. When that failed I came here. I'm sorry if I misled you with my comment about the possibily ambiguous state of T2. ] 02:27, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

::Of course, reverting all comments on the fact that the DRV was closed early helps minimize dissent. --] 05:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)!

== Deletion ==

Please do me a favor and delete my userpage and talkpage. I'm departing the project as its obvious this editor is stepping on more toes than doing the productive work I wish to do. -]<sup>]</sup> 10:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

: Get some sleep. See you in the morning. --] 12:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

::Its in the afternoon here.

::As one of my best friends on this site it would be very appreciated if you'd take it seriously. You know I don't joke about things such as this. -]<sup>]</sup> 12:58, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

: I do take it seriously. I see that you have been editing continuously, with one or two short breaks, for ten hours, and conclude that you are upset mainly because you need sleep. --] 13:12, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
:: Oh but you don't. I didn't go to work today so I could sleep in. I'm absolutely fine. Please just do as I ask of you. The various editors who don't respect this position are already being very uncooperative. Please reconsider. The project will perfom just fine without me. -]<sup>]</sup> 13:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

: You probably need a wikibreak. --] 13:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
:: An indefinite one. Please do as I ask. Look, if you desire, you have my e-mail. Save the explanations for there. Per the speedy policy and "right to leave" meta entry this is not really a difficult of request. -]<sup>]</sup> 13:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
:::Thanks. There's a list of subpages over at ] as well. And please block the account indefinitely. -]<sup>]</sup> 16:25, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
:::: Woah, well, can we offer you the right to return too? :) That and permanent blocks are technically somewhat problematic, as it might prevent others from editing too. ] 16:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

== Linuxbeak ==

Actually, it might be interesting to see what Linuxbeak can do. I don't have a strong opinion, but it might be interesting to discuss the matter sometime soon, I suppose. :) {{unsigned|Kim Bruning}}
: Oops, sorry, that was me. Do you have time on irc sometime soon? ] 13:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

== ] ==

The voting on ] ended earlier today. I crossed out your comment based on ] edit so that your comments were kept. —]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 01:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

: Okay. But I hope you don't imagine that policy can be made if proposals are so inadequately polled that the poll isn't properly advertised and only lasts for seven days. --] 01:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

::Yea, I have problems with how it was done, too. I'm just following what it said. I think that it will need another straw poll that is listed as you said. —]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 02:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

: It isn't going to happen. Even this poll gave a pretty inadequate degree of support, and it seems to have been deliberately packed by the userboxers. --] 04:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

== Template India/US Relations ==

Hello, I am ], and I have created the userpage template that advocated USA and Indian relations. I have noticed that you deleted this template, and frankly, it is very upsetting that it was done. This is even more upsetting by the fact that if you looked at the Regional Politics sections of userbox templates, you would find that there are very similar templates advocating US relations with those countries, namely China, Germany, and Bosnia, notice, that none of these have been deleted. This leads me to the conclusion that this template has been deleted without much thought, and is definitely discriminatory. I would like to kindly ask you to undelete the template, or if it really has been deleted because it went against any of the rules of Misplaced Pages, at least, have the consideration to delete the other templates that have the same message but of different countries. I have already marked the template for deletion review in the talk page of the template. --] 02:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

: Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia. It isn't a place to campaign for international relations. I'll get around to deleting the others in my own good time. --] 04:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

== Random Userbox question ==

Hi, just before you closed the UK political party template DRV, I asked you a question. Referring to the diff link you gave from Jimbo. Are userboxes of this nature (political/beliefs) still allowed in the User namespace? Just not the Template one? - ] 04:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

: Yes, thanks for coming back to me on that one. The content of the user page is covered by ]. You can create (or copy) a box there saying you're a member of X or Y party, or going into a fair degree of depth about your political opinions. Expression of personal opinions in user space is somewhat deprecated, but tolerated. Remember that the user page isn't a homepage. It's assumed that you're perfectly capable of obtaining a free or paid-for blog elsewhere. --] 05:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

::Thanks for the clarification. I've only taken a look at the Userbox issue today, and the proposed policy seemed to be a lot more lax then the CSD category. It's not like I'm going to use any userboxes, I just wanted to know what the score was. Cheers. - ]]] 05:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

There are quite a lot of proposed userbox policies. None of them have a hope, in my opinion, of gaining consensus. The last one that got anywhere near consensus was deliberately sabotaged; the culprit was arbcommed but by then the damage was done. --] 05:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

:It seems that the simplest solution at this point might be to transclude boxes directly from userspace. Any thoughts? --] 05:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

:: Not ideal. Code copying is better. --] 05:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

:::The german wiki got a User named ] ... where all the the userboxes went. ] 08:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


== Userboxes == == Userboxes ==
Hi! FWIW, I think the consensus on userboxes has moved from your position. I have outlined some risks in <s>my</s> the risks section, as I think userboxes are a huge influence on Misplaced Pages because of the way they affect new users' expectations. I don't understand how you can have such strong opinions about them and still think that text is just as effective. But either way, I'm glad you have made your opinions felt in this debate, and I hope you are around to influence the consensus when it is determined. ] 17:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

: You havee been seriously misled. Nearly every single experienced Wikipedian is strongly against these, and T1 is backed by arbcom and Jimbo. Just look at the May poll. The heavyweights are almost universally against the proposal. Consensus is moving so heavily in my direction that we've already wiped out the worst of the belief-based userboxes and they'll be dead and gone for the most part in a few months time. And good riddance. --] 17:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

:: More experienced users may be against, but newer users are more in favour (partly because of expectations raised by seeing legions of user boxes). So consensus has been moving against you. This great battle will decide how far it moves: if POV user boxes are kept, old users will get swamped by ever larger legions of userboxians; if userboxes are tidied up, current users will be brought into line and new users will expect the same without a fight. A lot hangs on this debate. This is why it's important you hang around. ] 18:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

: Talking about "new users" isn't going to impress me, is it? These editors are not acculturated and they won't be permitted to make changes that effectively negate our fundamental policies. The bad userboxes will be wiped out, it's just a matter of how we do it. T1 deletion has become so much more powerful over the past few months that we're successfully deleting religion-based boxes that were previously thought too difficult to delete. New users in time will come to realise that Misplaced Pages is first and foremost an ''encyclopedia''. --] 18:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

::How can I help? Where can I sound off and/or vote?

::Also, what is your opinion of barnstars? Beyond being basically useless, some of these go beyond "thanks for hard work" to approach belief-based userboxes - e.g. the newly-created "Islamic barnstar". Can't the intent of many deleted userboxes be approximated by a barnstar? E.g., "The Green Energy barnstar?"] 18:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

: Barstars are just little gifts from one user to another expressing appreciation. Not generally controversial. --] 18:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

::Generally, no. I was just pointing out how they might be subverted to mark userpages according to the logic of POV userboxes.

::Anyhow, where can I go to get involved in the userbox discussion? I'd delete the vast majority of them if I could - any that don't directly relate to creating a respectable encyclopedia.] 19:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

::: The discussions are hard to avoid. You could start ], where I will continue and leave Tony in peace for a while. ] 19:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

== greetingz ==

prob heard this 9000 times, but I heard you have the deleted content from ] (or at least it's talk page) preserved somewhere? ]] 20:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

: I'm not distrubuting any material on that subject at present. --] 20:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

== divisive and inflammatory ==

i oppose your decision to remove <nowiki>{{User anarchist}}</nowiki>. i feel inflamed by this move and a deep sense of division from you over it.
] 21:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

: What part of which article on the wiki was it part of? How did it help you to write better articles? Have you thought of just writing "I am an anarchist" on your user page? --] 22:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

::Hey Tony, that argument of "What part of which article on the wiki was it part of?" seems a little bit silly, unless there was recently a policy to get rid of userboxes all together. You're obviously against userboxes, but I suggest (being that your an admin, and expected to higher standards) that you be sure of specific policies to get rid of certain userboxes before you do that, and not just say it doesn't help write an encyclopedia. Just some advice, --] 22:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

: As it happens, there is a policy to get rid of divisive and inflammatory userboxes. As it happens, Misplaced Pages is an ''encyclopedia'' (yes, most of our policies, astonishingly enough, reflect this unavoidable fact!), so unsuitable templates don't belong here and will be deleted. --] 22:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

:: as it happens, this whole userboxes-are-evil purge fest causes more inflammation and division than just about any given userbox. and, as for the purpose of wikipedia being an ''encyclopedia'', i have to say that i rather resent the amount of time i've had to invest in figuring out where my userboxes have gone. this is time i had earmarked for working ]. ] 15:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I too oppose the deletion of <nowiki>{{User Anarchist}}</nowiki> There are still userboxes relating to political parties, and to delete a userbox which expresses a similar personal belief is discriminatory, unfair, and frankly, just plain fucked-up. I wish to have such a userbox on my page, and I would appreciate it, if you will not restore the box, if you would give the the code for it. I have no access to the code, since I am not an admin. <span style="background-color: #008000"><font color="#ffffff">]</font></span> 01:18, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

: Something like this:

: ''(unsightly mess deleted--see history)''

----

== WP:PP ==

Sorry to be thorn, but you listed User Aethiest in the wrong section. Note that all you have to do is protect it and put in a good summary. ] will paste it on WP:PP durings its sweeps. Thanks.''']'''<sup>]</sup> 23:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

: Thanks. I'll remember that. --] 23:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

== Sorry to again bugger you ==
But I'd like your reasons for the deletion of ] as well as ].
While they are POV templates I fail to see how they met the T1 criteria. Please elaborate. ] 00:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
: They were both divisive. To describe that as "POV" is to miss the point. "I like oranges" is expressing a point of view. Both templates take positions on hotly debated ethical issues; when presented as templates, they encourage Misplaced Pages editors to take a position on these issues, which isn't what writing an encyclopedia is about at all. --] 01:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
::I agree that they were controversial. Still I would not call them divisive. "I prefer using Windows" and "I perfer using Linux" or "I only use IE" and "I only use FireFox" could probably ignite similary strong debates in the right cicles. I understand that our Point of View are too different on this issue to be bridged. Thus I will list them on DRV, and let the community decide. Best wishes ] 01:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

: Well that's the idea. I have no problem with reviewing a speedy. --] 01:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

::However, the T1 criterion states: "divisive and inflammatory." Unless it meets the second requirement it should not qualify. —]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 01:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
::: No, that's nonsense. Why would we leave an inflammatory userbox hanging around? "Oh it's inflammatory and everybody is equally repelled by it, so you can't speedy it because it isn't divisive!" Ridiculous argument. Same goes for divisive templates. They're shit, too, so they get deleted. --] 01:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
::::There is a reason that the criterion says and. I do not consider cannabis particularly divisive or inflammatory but I believe that some people would and will not support undeletion. —]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 01:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

So if I have this right you are now saying T1 is not the basis of your actions and you are acting outside detailed policies like T1 because there is an overriding policy - making a great encyclopaedia. ] 16:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

: You obviously have it completely wrong. Obviously we all work towards making a great encyclopedia. By permitting the deletion of divisive and inflammaotry templates, T1 helps us all in that task. --] 17:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

:: Obvious but wrong, as they say. My copy of T1 ] allows removal of userboxes which are divisive and inflammatory. Not the removal of divisive userboxes and inflammatory userboxes. As it happens, I am happy with removing userboxes which are divisive or inflammatory, but this is not allowed by T1. ] 18:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikilawyering, historically, doesn't get very far on Misplaced Pages. --] 18:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

: I'm just pointing out why people are giving you so much flak - you are not implementing T1. It's a pity this issue wasn't nipped in the bud before userboxes became so popular. If it is not agreed soon, the only consistent solution is to ban all POV userboxes. And obviously all decorous sigs too, though these I find can add to the visual appeal of a long debate. ] 18:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

::''"the only consistent solution is to ban all POV userboxes"'' ... I used to be on the other side of the debate you know, but at this point I'm starting to think there ''is no other solution''. '''Ban them all'''. And stop buggering Tony! (unless Tony LIKES being buggered...) But do feel free to keep bugging him as needed. :) '''<font color="green">]</font><font color="blue">]</font>''']: ]/] 22:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

::: I started off in favour of anything goes. But the more I see of this debate, the more I want to keep things focused on the encyclopaedia and not allow irrelevant rubbish, even if it is non-offensive. I might even change my Green Energy vote if someone (perhaps a new ++Admin) feels inclined to include the userbox so I can see it. ] 22:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

:::: Was code copied into the discussion... not sure where it went after that, it seems to be gone again. '''<font color="green">]</font><font color="blue">]</font>''']: ]/] 22:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

== Hi Tony ==

How are you ?

<s>I am trying to understand this edit: </s> (Now understood. it was amove to the right place)

Please also read this : ] and if you have extar time:-) : ]

Best Regards,
Zeq

Sorry to bother you again: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3AIsraeli_apartheid_%28phrase%29&diff=56085333&oldid=56084831 . also you may want to rad before that edit how Homey represent your actions (moving his request to the right place) as endorsment of his rediculus accuastions against me. I urge you to review his actions in light of all his 45 edits to this article and in light of his over all violations of many policies and false accuastions he made against several editors (including other admins: Humus, Jayjg) ] 06:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


*Hi Tony, intersted in view on this . best, ] 04:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorted. --] 03:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

== Just curious ==

Why did you change my sig on this talk page to a generic <nowiki>]</nowiki>, as it is considered rude to alter other people's comments on talk pages, regardless of spelling or grammar or formatting problems, etc..? ] 07:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

: Refactoring to make the page easier to edit by removing large and unnecessary material. Don't edit Misplaced Pages if you don't want your material to be edited mercilessly. That applies especially to huge and unsightly signatures! --] 10:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

::Well, since it is my signature, I am kindly asking you to now stop changing it (even on this talk page). I have a link to my userpage, my talk page, my contributions page, and my esperanza page. Those are the pages that are useful links for people. Also, there is a lot of unnecessary comments that people write on talk pages that, without them would, be easier to edit, but we can't just go factor them out. My signature is barely larger than the example sigs at ]. As a matter of fact, when seen on the page (not the edit page, but the actual one), my sig is the exact same size as ]. Thank you, ] 21:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

: Oh don't be such a silly sausage. --] 22:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

== Signature. ==

I don't want to seem rude, offensive or incivil (and I don't want us to butt heads again) but I'm asking very nicely: Could you ''please'' not tamper with my signature when I'm posting to someone else's talk page? I've changed my signature a few times and it doesn't in any way breach Misplaced Pages policy. Also, it is ''my'' signature and I happen to like it the way it is. To me, it is not anything even ''remotely'' approaching "huge and unsightly". (Also, for the record, I prefer my username with a small n)

If you see something wrong with my signature, I would really appreciate it if you would post a comment on my talk page and let me know exactly what you disagree with and why. If phrased acceptably (WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, phrased as a request, etc), I will consider changing it.

Thank you for your time. — ] <sup>(])</sup> 10:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

: See my response to ]. It's probably a good idea to aggressively refactor talk pages to remove unnecessary and intrusive material from the end of comments, as this makes the page much easier for others to edit. --] 10:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Tony. I can't believe you are changing people's signatures on decision review pages . When I first joined, the much missed JzG mentioned you, and WP is certainly more interesting as a result of your actions. But please relax a little. Much loved as you are, by talking on so much at once single handed, you risk burning out and/or coming unstuck. There are 1,000,000 users here after all. ] 11:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

: I only fix the signature where it's a serious obstacle to editing. This is pretty normal refactoring. I don't prevent the editor using the signature; I only do something to alleviate the worst of the damage caused by large and unnecessary amounts of html/wikitext gibberish in discussion areas. --] 11:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep up the good work, Tony. Some of those signatures are just awful ;-).<br>] 31 May 2006 (UTC)

: No worries. :) --] 11:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

== Louisville, Kentucky dispute ==

Hi - I need some clarification. Should links to categories that are lists of users be included in the main Article space? ...

: I've protected this article. --] 13:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

:: I'm not sure protection is really necessary - as I am not planning on reverting anymore. I'm just looking for some clarification - since it seems so obvious to me that the style guide states that self-references are not to be used and ] (who I assume read the style guide links I provided) disagrees. '''Thanks for such a quick and decisive response!''' <font color="#06C">]</font> 13:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

: Okay. Please apply for unprotection as soon as you think it's ready. --] 13:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
:: Will do - thx! <font color="#06C">]</font> 14:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

== Template:user liberty ==

Although it doesn't fall into T1 or T2, the fair use image mandates deletion. However, the image '''is''' clearly allowable on my user page (as descriptive) and on that of the Party. Could I have a copy of the template for inclusion (not transclusion)? &mdash; ] | ] 14:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

:No problem with letting you have a copy, but if the image is only a "fair use" one how can it possibly be permissible on a userpage? --] 14:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh I asked about this on the admin channel and someone explained what you probably meant (it was a new idea to me). He said you should probably read:
* ]

The content of the userbox when deleted was as follows:

: ''(ugly code removed)''

An earlier version was as follows:

: ''(ugly code removed)''

It had an inclusion of ] sized to 43 pixels.


NOTE: as far as I can ascertain, that image is freely licensed, not fair use. --] 18:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

:I thought the discussion involved it being a '''trademark''' fair use (which is allowable when referring to the entity), rather than it being a '''copyright''' fair use (which would only be allowable in article pages where appropriate). Nonetheless, I found a copy through links in the DRV, and copied that copy to my userspace. I'd prefer to convert it to the {{tl|Userbox}} template than the existing HTML, but we can't have everything. (If you're willing to excise this section of your talk page, so am I.) &mdash; ] | ] 18:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
:: ''Especially since I duplicated a previous section head''. &mdash; ] | ] 18:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

== user satanist ==

"Closing this because such a template would obviously bring Misplaced Pages into disrepute."

I think you need to add the reworded {{tl|user cannabis}} to your home page. That seems the only thing that can account for such an absurd statement. It's hard to imagine any self-identification with ] is bringing "Misplaced Pages into disrepute", except in regard ]. Now, some of the redirects which I've suggested be deleted would bring Misplaced Pages into disrepute if anyone knew they were there....

(Yes, I'm assuming good faith and lack of judgement.) &mdash; ] | ] 19:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

: I don't think I could put it better than I have. There isn't going to be a satanist userbox on Misplaced Pages, no matter how many people vote for it. --] 19:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

::That's a rather blatant rejection of the validity of religious freedom of a fair number of devout satanists, some of whom may be Misplaced Pages users. I don't think you are or should be in a position to be deciding whose religions are ''ok'' for userboxes, Tony. ] 20:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

:: FYI, I have ANI'ed this. ]. ] 20:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

: Which redirects, by the way? You can send them to me in email if you prefer. --] 20:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

:Are you opposed to all religion userboxes, or are you opposed to the Satanism one in particular? ] 01:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Every single one, including the atheism one. --] 03:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

== To let you know ==

] --] 00:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


==Category:So-and-so Wikipedians==

Though not a userbox, it would seem to me that such categories as <nowiki>]</nowiki> perform exactly the same non-encyclopedic purpose. Any ideas on this?] 07:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

== Aww, HEC ==

Your recent behavior at ] has been very far from what we expect of ] editors. Specifically, you reverted more than once on a silly formatting issue, and your civility was lacking in the very same edit with your "disgusting mess" comment. More importantly, I think you're utterly failing to abide by the spirit of the "Request input from the wider community when necessary" HEC guideline- many people have asked you nicely to stop, and you've responded with scorn. I'm bringing this to your attention as per your preference. Please, tone down the combativeness! What you're doing is quite unharmonious. ] ] 16:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


: I'm sorry, but I'll have to completely disagree with you there. I reverted once and will not revert again. Please stop being so disingenuous, and remember that a considerable doubt hangs over your own head as to your civility. --] 16:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

:: I believe it is going to far to change my signature on an endorsement. ] (Chuck) 16:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

::: It would help if you could just explain ''why'' this is a problem. --] 22:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

== Point? ==

Tony, I know you realize that many different editors have asked you to stop with your signature editing. Your continuing to do so sure looks like an act intended to annoy, rather than intended to improve the encyclopedia. This is called ] and ], and it's not a helpful thing. You're a big boy, you shouldn't have to be told this over and over. Stop it. ] ] 19:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

: I just don't see what the problem is. What I do doesn't harm them in any way, and it vastly improves the editing environment. Moreover if you actually read the document you have cited you will realise that it doesn't say what you think it says. You're not the only person to think that something is automatically disruptive because it annoys some people, and you're not the only person who either hasn't read ] or has read it and didn't understand it. So no problems there. You'll get over it.

: Moreover you've seen that at least a dozen other editors see nothing wrong with this kind of refactoring and think it improves the environment. From my conversations with others not involved in this infantile RfC, I'm convinced that the claims of disruption are completely unmerited. --] 22:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
::If you'd try listening to people ''outside'' of your little fan club, you might get a different story. Oh well, I'm done trying to talk sense into you. If you're determined to go the way of Ed Poor, be my guest. ] ] 22:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
::: I think you've completely flipped on this one. You seem to think I'm out on some kind of crusade. The opposite is the case. Any editor can improve the environment. One doesn't require permission, or a fan club. --] 22:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

== Comment ==

Tony, I believe you have some sort of pathology that requires you to look for trouble. You are not content if things are peaceful. You need to be right all the time, and you need to be the center of attention. This is the only explaination for your behavior that I can come up with. Your actions during this nth RfC have been single-mindedly disruptive. I don't think you are even trying to prove a point, but are trying to continue your joyride of being right there in the middle of controversy. I ask you to take a look at yourself and see if my words are true. --] 00:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

: No, it's just a puerile complaint uninvited by me and taken to excessive lengths in the face of quite sensible support for my position by some well known and well respected editors. This seems to happen a lot. Perhaps a pathology of Misplaced Pages itself. I can give you a long list of people who have experienced this kind of silliness at RfC while doing nothing that need bother any reasonable person. --] 00:18, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
::There ''is'' another possibility- the people trying to get you to cut it out ''might'' be reasonable people with a legitimate concern. If you were a tad less convinced of your own infallibility you might be able to recognize that possibility. There are those who agree with you that certain signatures are annoying, but I suspect those who support your handling of this debacle are growing fewer by the hour. ] ]

::: I suspect that you're trying to whistle up a wind. The RfC has failed because the complaint is transparently fatuous. --] 00:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
:::: "Failed"? Your adversarial outlook is showing. RFCs don't succeed or fail, they're used to invite further input on an issue. This one's gotten quite a lot of input so far. ] ] 00:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

::: Yes of course they succeed or fail. They succeed when legitimate grievances are aired and a dispute is resolved. The current one has signally failed to convince me (and, I notice, a large number of other editors) that there is any real dispute here. --] 01:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

::How many people have had as many RfCs as you have? (Apart from RfCs from people who went on to be banned) Look at it this way: I don't use POV userboxes, or have a fancy signature, but I dislike the way you've handled userboxes and signatures. Doesn't that mean anything? ] 00:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

: I do a lot of controversial stuff. This means I'm a little unpopular. But quite effective, just the same. You might like to actually ''look'' at all those RfCs some time. All of them. There's really not a lot of substance there--if there were, I wouldn't have prevailed. --] 00:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

::Anyone who talks about "prevailing" at a RfC has the wrong attitude. ] 00:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I haven't said anything about prevailing at RfC. In fact I've been quite forthright about the RfC's failure. I see that quite a large number of other editors share my opinion about the appropriateness of refactoring, and those who have complained about the practice have not proven able adequately to explain the problem. There has been no meeting of minds; I sincerely doubt that such a meeting is possible. I still think the complaint was without substance. --] 01:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

:Tony Sidaway said;
:''I do a lot of controversial stuff. This means I'm a little unpopular. But quite effective, just the same. You might like to actually look at all those RfCs some time. All of them. There's really not a lot of substance there--if there were, '''I wouldn't have prevailed'''...''
:Then he said;
:''I haven't said anything about prevailing at RfC.''
:Sorry, but something seems very wrong with the above sentences... ] 01:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

:: Don't confuse him with facts. :-) ] 02:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Well the fact is that I haven't said anything about prevailing at RfC. There seems to have been some kind of leap between what I said (that I have prevailed, which is historically quite true) and what someone else claimed I said (that I "prevailed at RfC", whatever that might mean). --] 02:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

:Ok guys, grammar lesson! First, we have the sentence;
:''You might like to actually look at all those RfCs some time. All of them. There's really not a lot of substance there--if there were, I wouldn't have prevailed...''
Now, lets dissect that sentence.
:''You might like to actually look at all those RfCs some time. All of them (the RfCs). There's really not a lot of substance there ''(in the RFC)''--if there were (substance in the RfC), I wouldn't have prevailed... (in the RfC)''
:See? The english language can be fun!
:So it could be a simple misunderstanding on my part, but the way your answer is worded implies that you prevailed on the RfC. ] 03:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

: Yes, I can see that you have misread what I said. I could only reiterate what I said above. I think there's a subtlety of meaning that's eluding you, and for some reason you're seeing what is not there. --] 03:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

::Well, I'm not sure what there is to misread... care to tell me what this subtlety is? All that I can get out of it (and I don't mean this incivilly) slightly boasting about how you "won" an RfC because they had nothing on you. Which in its own doesn't seem right, for some reason. ] 03:18, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I think this is one of those problems that one sometimes gets into on an electronic forum. There is a quite odd sense of hostility about the early complaints on this page that, eventually, seems to have filtered into the RfC itself. Once it went that way, perhaps in a reaction to the quite strong support I received or possibly because I wasn't exactly diplomatic about what I saw as the failings of the complaint, there developed a kind of antagonism. I would hazard a guess that a pugnacious and antagonistic reading of my words, which mean what they say and no more, has in this case led to a misunderstanding. Perhaps it would help if, whatever the meaning of "prevailed at RfC", you were to cast it out of your mind, for it is not mine. Then perhaps the meaning of my sentence will stand out clearly. --] 03:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

:Wait, you did not just Jedi Mind Trick me; ''cast it out of your mind, for it is not mine...'' Well, I'm not being hostile, or antagonistic; I'd simply like to know what you mean by you prevailing at RfC. However, you interestingly managed to dodge that artillery shell, so I think I'll give up before this escalates. If you choose to answer my question I'd be greatly appreciative. Thanks, ] ] 03:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

::Try this way around: ''I do a lot of controversial stuff. This means I'm a little unpopular. But quite effective, just the same. You might like to actually ''look'' at all those RfCs some time. All of them. (the RFCs) There's really not a lot of substance there--if there were, I wouldn't have prevailed. (with the controversial stuff)''

::Or to put it another way, the RFCs reflect that the controversial stuff is unpopular, but don't actually prove it's uneffective.

::Also, if this is a "refactored" section, wow. It's such a huge difference editing this and looking for comments up above. Yikes. --] 03:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

:: I think the problem here is that Master of Puppets still thinks that I said above that I prevailed at RfC. We'll just have to leave it. --] 09:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

== Userboxes ==

Hi Tony. I have a problem with your constant speedy deletion of userboxes. While I understand that you may not like them, they are useful to many others, and some of us just plain like them.

You deleted <nowiki>{{User Anarchist))</nowiki> while myself and others were using it. I get the feeling, from scanning your talk page, that you've done this with quite a large number of userboxes. The big problem is that we like them, and we made them. Now, they're gone without a trace, because you didn't give reasons. If you wish to delete such things, I suggest in the interest of fairness, that you open full debates on the matter. This is an unfair conflict, as you are an administrator, while I and others who've portested your actions are not. I don't think that that's what administrators are for. Thank you. ] 01:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

: Yes, I know that you like the political userboxes; however they are not suitable for Misplaced Pages and tend to be speedy deleted under the T1 criterion. --] 01:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

::<s>I think they are perfectly suitable for Misplaced Pages. What is this "T1 criterion" ? ] 02:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)</s>

::I've read through the criteria for deletion , and I think they are helpful. Generally speaking, an Anarchist know more about Anarchism than a Fascist, or another Totalitarian. I'm more inclined to be helpful in actually ''improving'' ]-related articles than most people.

::I'm also a Vegan, and because of that, I know a lot more about Veganism than most Omnivorous humans. Therefore the Vegan userbox is useful. Parallel, though not under scrutiny at present. I think that the Anarchism userbox is useful, and Anarchism includes a rather wide range of articles, therefore is fairly notable. ] 02:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
:::This is why some userboxes are being changed from "This user is a foobarist" to "This user is interested in foobarism" ''']''' (]) <em><strong>]</strong></em> 11:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

== Response to the response ==

I'll concede to your point that there is a very large difference between the two RfAs that you have presented to me, and that in the edit mode, the one from last year looks much cleaner too. I'm not sure if it's me being relatively new to the game, but I've never found it hard to navigate discussion pages to add my comments in where I found it needed. Using section edits and being able to easily pick out changes in list markup and noticing keywords such as <tt><nowiki>[[User:</nowiki></tt> and timestamps I've found it to be relatively simple to navigate in edit mode. (I'll also give you that my argument here can be viewed as flawed, because it supposes that people treat wiki markup like programming languages and have the ability over time to develop an eye for such patterns).

With reference to the ongoing discussions on analogies, I would like to try my hand and put forth an argument for equating a signature to one's personal appearance. In my experiences with business environments for day to day environments, when we interact with coworkers we wear clothes and our hair in ways we like to be comfortable, while conforming to (imho) rather loose but pratical restrictions and our coworkers are influenced by both our choice in appearance and in our words. In a formal business environment (like shareholders meetings, executive presentations and similar events) we are expected to conform to much tighter guidelines (but still have a choice as to what color tie to wear). (They say purple is the new power color... but that's very much off topic).

I'm thinking that perhaps there could be a compromise in this. What would you think to having a software change to add a new "magic word" that would automatically be substituted with one's username and talk page link, and we made a policy that instead of using the 4 tildes, we would be required to use the new magic word on official operational pages/votes (such as RfA, RfC, etc) but would be free to use their signature in the community (i.e. talk pages). This way you get the benefits of having clean operational environments, and we get the ability to style our personal appearance how we see fit within reason. (And you'll still be allowed to change signatures to how you see fit on your talk page too).

I'd be interested in your feedback on this. Regards ] 02:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

PS... Lisp? I must applaud you sir. From my limited experience with it, that's a rather difficult language. (Try doing foreign function invocation using CLisp. *shudders*) ] 02:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

: I don't think a software solution is necessary or practicable. For serious signature problems there are the guidelines. For less serious problems a quick refactor is always a possibility.

: Lisp is actually much simpler to use and more expressive than any other language I've used. It just took a lot of getting into. --] 03:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

::I'll give you that it may not be necessary, but I think it would enable what I think could be an agreeable compromise for all involved parties. Furthermore, a quick hack would only involve the addition of few lines of code to the Parser::pstPass2 function (base code is taken from MW 1.6.5, but I don't think it has changed much since then):
<table class="diff">
<tr>
<td/>
<td class="diff-context"># Signatures</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>+</td>
<td class="diff-addedline">$username = $user->getName();</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>+</td>
<td class="diff-addedline">$userpage = $user->getUserPage();</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>+</td>
<td class="diff-addedline">$unText = ']';</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td/>
<td class="diff-context">$sigText = $this->getUserSig( $user );</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td/>
<td class="diff-context">$text = strtr( $text, array(</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>+</td>
<td class="diff-addedline">'<nowiki>~~~~~~~</nowiki>' => $unText,</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>+</td>
<td class="diff-addedline">'<nowiki>~~~~~~</nowiki>' => "$unText $d",</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td/>
<td class="diff-context">'<nowiki>~~~~~</nowiki>' => $d,</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td/>
<td class="diff-context">'<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>' => "$sigText $d",</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td/>
<td class="diff-context">'<nowiki>~~~</nowiki>' => $sigText</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td/>
<td class="diff-context"> ) );</td>
</tr>
</table>
::. A better solution would be to actually code up a few more hook points and create an extension, but this would be a fix that could probably be implemented within a matter of minutes (+ whatever required change documentation and propagation time). Regards, ] 04:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

== ] ==

Hi Tony. You unprotected the Jamaat page a while ago:- ]. There seems to be another edit war developing again with ] blanking referenced content without discussion or even any use of the "Edit summary" box. There has been an RfC about this but it doesn't seem to have made any difference:- ]. Could you keep an eye on the page please? ] 05:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

: Thanks. Watching. --] 18:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

== Proposed U.S. Law - Would it Affect Misplaced Pages? ==

There is yet another bill proposed in the U.S. congress that might have an affect on Misplaced Pages. My ''highly '''un'''educated'' guess is no - assuming no amendments. You are better positioned than I to pass this along to whomever might be appropriate to have look into it. Here is a link to a copy of the bill. ] 12:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
:Well, Tony will have his opinion, by my opinion is that it will have no effect on Misplaced Pages, unless Misplaced Pages is receiving discounted rates for being connected to the Internet. That's what the bill affects. Further, I also don't think that Misplaced Pages would be considered a commercial Web site. --] (]) 16:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

: I'm not in a good position to make a judgement on this; I'm British and I never heard of DOPA until fifteen minutes ago. With that caveat, here is my response.

: As I understand it, DOPA applies only to schools and libraries and the like that receive US Federal funds. Misplaced Pages is a private website operated by Wikimedia Foundation, which I believe is a private not-for-profit incorporated in Florida.

: As a potential networking site for pedophiles, Misplaced Pages could possibly be blocked by such institutions under some interpretations of this legislation. But it's quite likely that many schools and other such institutions block Misplaced Pages already as unsuitable. --] 22:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

== "Metrocat" ==

Not sure who this is (or whose sock he is), but as you were mentioned by name, thought I'd keep you up to date if you weren't already aware. See ya. --] <sup><font color="#3D9140">]</font></sup> 18:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

: Oh nothing much. --] 18:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

== Banned user ] engaging in personal attacks ==

Terryeo attacked myself and several other editors on the talk page ]. "Wikipediatrix, Stollery and Fahrenheit might attempt to bully an editor into accepting a lower standard in a single article,"--] 23:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

: Do you have some evidence that this is Terryeo? Anything you have, please, so I can take a look. --] 00:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

== Question about userboxes ==

Tony, hi.

What do you think of ]? In particular, do you agree with allowing advocacy userboxes, as long as they're in user space? -]<sup>(])</sup> 01:33, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

: I've no grave objections to it in principle. In practice I think the English and German wikipedias are different environments and we cannot predict whether applying the German solution here would work. I'd like to see how the proponents intend to treat the problem of use of userboxes for campaigning, vote-stacking and the like. This may not be a problem on German Misplaced Pages but is a serious one here. --] 01:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

== Christian template ==

I saw where you reprotected the template.

Do you think that it would be a reasonable idea to bring the issue to arbitration? Enough administrators have made it clear by actions and by statement that it doesn't matter what the DRVU consensus is, the userbox is going to get deleted as soon as it gets recreated. Would it be reasonable to bring the issue to arbitration where one way or another, it would be settled finally? Regardless of what the decision is, at least the wheel warring would stop. ] 07:58, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

: I'm not fond of the term, which I believe is ambiguous, but no admin activity on the template at any time qualifies as "wheel warring" under any definition adopted by the arbitration committee or the community. There was some bad edit warring on the template a few weeks ago, but this was resolved. Arbitration isn't used to determine content matters so I don't see what use it would be here. I'm reasonably happy with the situation at present though I was very concerned at the questionable edits last month. --] 08:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

::When you say that you are happy with the situation at present, are you referring to the fact that the template is currently deleted and protected or are you referring to the current cycle of deletions, undeletions, and DRVs? ] 08:31, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

::: Neither. I mean that I think that the wiki is operating as intended and there is nothing to stop the normal decision-making processes. The final disposition of the template itself isn't a cause for concern. My personal opinion is that it's obviously unsuitable for Misplaced Pages, but its presence on Misplaced Pages, ''per se'', doesn't pose a life-or-death threat to the wiki. --] 08:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
==Email==
Hey, I emailed something to you, might want to check your inbox :) --<small>] ]</small> 11:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

: Saw it. I'll take a look. --] 18:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

== Chooserr ==

You may also want to look at the top of his ] page. ] 14:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

: Yes, I already spotted it and removed it. Now to check his contributions to see if he has spammed it elsewhere. --] 14:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, you were a step ahead of me. I don't think you'll find any spam elsewhere, though. ] 14:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

== More troubling comments from Terryeo ==

Take a look at Terryeo's recent response to Anteaus Feldspar at ]. ("Those people whom you refuse to address are observing you, too.") Given his recent history of "keeping an eye on you" threats against Antaeus, this struck me as rather unsettling. ] 15:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

: I had a look at this but looking at Antaeus' comment I feel that Terryeo was goaded. I will warn him to remain cool but I have also warned Antaeus and I will not take action against Terryeo on this occasion because of the extenuating circumstances . --] 16:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

::Fair enough, and thanks for your response. I'm all for more civility on all sides. I do, however, think there is a qualitative distinction between rude or unecessarily harsh remarks (quite common on all sides in the neverending wrangles over the Scientology pages, alas) and this "you are being watched"/"hivemind" stuff which, in my view, crosses the line between simple rudeness and harassment, the latter being a much more severe offense. ] 19:33, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

:: I agree that it's especially important that Terryeo be careful about his choice of words. I have warned him and he has read and says he understands. I've asked him to come to me if he feels that he's being goaded; this should provide a way of dealing with it, without further raising the temperature. --] 19:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

:::Sounds good. Thanks again. ] 19:40, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

== Syzygy ==

Tony, you and I haven't agreed on much, but it looks like the planets have aligned on the matter of Chooserr's anti-abortion donation ads. When we actually agree on something, I suspect that means something. In any case, I was glad to walk away and let you handle it, as your sysop bit protects you against random threats.

However, you should know that I got a random threat from an uninvolved admin (well, uninvolved with the Chooserr incident anyhow; we have an ugly history together), accusing me of vandalism. Not asking you to do anything about it. Just keeping you in the loop as a matter of courtesy and record. ] 18:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

: I agree that edit was out of order. Please don't do stuff like that. --] 18:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

That's fine. I already talked to GTBacchus about it, and you made the whole thing irrelevant, anyhow. As far as I'm concerned, the real issue is that Nandesuka is beating a horse that's not only dead, but fully rendered into glue and dog food. ] 19:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

== My User Page ==

:Tony Sideways, I don't usually reply to other peoples comments on my own talk page - check ]'s talk page for my reply.

:As for the content its self all anyone had to do was show me the place where it says that it is in violation of wikipedia policy and I would have taken it down myself. From what I'd been told on my talk page was that it was "unacceptable", which could have been a reference to the person's personal beliefs on the issue rather than wikipedia policy. So please in the future at least talk to me before doing anything to my user page. ] 19:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

:Oh yeah, and please don't "warn" me. I told you above that I hadn't been informed as to how it was in violation, and hadn't in my mind at least been "abusing wikipedia". ] 19:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

::: ]. You've been told now. Happy? The other content of your user page is borderline and I won't do anything about it unless you step over the line again. --] 19:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

==Thanks!==

That's very fair and reasonable. Thanks a lot for that. I am ''very'' pleased that I don't have to spend more time on that issue. -- ] 20:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

:Tony, thanks both for this action and for that referenced in the section above. It's nice to see someone restoring some wan semblance of sobriety to user space.] 20:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

::I really thought the issue was solved, but unfortunately that didn't do it.. -- > -- ] 20:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

: Please stay away and I'll deal with it. --] 20:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

:: Great. Thank you. I'll do as you recommend and stay away from this issue for now. -- ] 20:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

::: There, I used my evil Cabalistic ] mind control powers to get him to revert his edit . --] 21:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

:Note that ] is, like ] and ] who has been restoring it and threatening Karl Meir not to remove it, a member of ], where Karl Meier has been singled out for scrutiny.] 20:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

: The individuals involved are accountable individually for their actions. --] 20:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

==], but not the usual==
Could you change the link to Jimbo's page to either be <span class="plainlinksneverexpand"></span> or ] instead of the current cross-namespace wikilink? ] 21:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

: I'm probably not the right person to do that. Please ask on ] and I guess it'll get done if it needs to be done. --] 21:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
::Seems to be fixed now. Tony, well done for nuking the Talk page. It needed doing. ] 22:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

== Blu's arbcom ==

Well, I'm not sure if I violated any protocol, but I added Blu's statement with his permission and then I read that only involved parties should edit the page. Oops.--] 22:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

: Your addition was perfectly in order. Misplaced Pages isn't a bureaucracy and there are no unreasonable rules against doing sensible things. Thank you. --] 23:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

== A question ==

How is the signal to noise ratio of this sig? {{User:ILovePlankton/IS}}

: It's good for editing, but not without its drawbacks.
:# no timestamp is visible in edit mode
:# See ]
: I appreciate your consideration in trying to find a more satisfactory signature. Thank you. --] 02:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
::No problem, I just forgot to put 5 tildes to make a timestamp, but I guess it doesn't matter anyways. ] 13:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

==Re: Ban==
<cite id=Re:_Ban_reply_1> </cite> You notified me about the notice you've put up on the administrators' noticeboard, and invited me to respond there. Yet I was banned shortly after your notification on my user talk page, before I actually responded there. Is it legitimate for administrators to ban a user based merely on materials presented by one side of a dispute? I am awaiting explanation and illustration from you. Thank you. &mdash; ]] 11:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

: Under the general probation you can be banned by any three administrators. While your input might have been useful, it wasn't necessary. --] 13:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

::Yet the three administrators must be impartial, neutral and unbiased, and should not have merely relied on evidence submitted. They have the full burden to collect all necessary materials to ensure the decision they make is fair and just. In my case it was apparent the decision was made based only upon submission by user:SchmuckyTheCat, who has a record of mispresenting facts (as I've detailed at WP:AE, like what I did to his every single submission about me). &mdash; ]] 14:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

: Please stop wikilawyering. --] 14:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

::Is this what victims who're defending their interests should expect from some of the administrators? It would be disappointing if fairness and justice is not considered important on Misplaced Pages. &mdash; ]] 14:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

: You have been through ''three'' arbitration cases. At the third you were placed on general probation. You were recently blocked for two weeks under that general probation because your activities have been disruptive. It was hoped that you would learn from this. Please try to do so. --] 14:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

::The first and second cases are actually the same case. Whether the third case was appropriately and properly opened was questioned. It was for that reason I requested for reconsideration of its opening, and also for that reason it was not possible for me to submit anything to the case until the matter was addressed. My recent edits were considered disruptive because only user:SchmuckyTheCat's submission was taken into account. &mdash; ]] 15:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

: Please understand the following:
:* '''Three''' administrators have examined your edits and found them to be disruptive.
:* Schmucky the Cat cannot stop us looking at whatever edits we like. He isn't in the frame here.
:* You may appeal the arbitration case to the Arbitration Committee or to Jimbo.

: --] 15:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

::There is no clue if they've examined all necessary materials . The one who cast the third vote (and didn't sign) was user:SchmuckyTheCat's advocate. I requested for reviewing the opening of the case before the case was closed. Obviously they didn't care. &mdash; ]] 15:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

:Administrators wield delegated power under the general probation. If you think we've treated you unfairly, please take this back to arbitration. --] 15:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
::At this moment I want to know how much evidence they had actually examined when they made the decision. I'd also want to know why you invited me to respond there. It seemed to be a good sign that you're dealing with it seriously and in a unbiased manner, but it turned out to be a bad one. &mdash; ]] 15:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

==explain==
Please explain yourself? --]\<sup>]</sup> 12:12, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

: You mean ? See . --] 13:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

== ] ==

See . -]<sup>]</sup> 15:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

: My personal taste is for applications with a bare minimum of brief comments. It shouldn't be necessary to add more than is present. --] 15:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

== Thanks (2) ==

Thanks for Fixing my comment I made a few more changes in light of you edit --] 17:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

: No worries. --] 22:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

==Userboxuser==
Well, if you're going to block userboxuser, then you might as well block ] also. --<font size="1">]&nbsp;<sup>]&middot;]</sup></font> 19:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

: Feel free to do it yourself. --] 22:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

::I'm not an admin. --<font size="1">]&nbsp;<sup>]&middot;]</sup></font> 22:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

== Userbox not in metric ==

Is there a specific reason why you have speedy deleted this user box. I thought the first time that maybe because the userbox name contained the word sucks. Now I am just puzzled by it. Can you please explain?&mdash;] 02:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

:I have reported this to vandalism. This is clearly a POV delete of a userbox that isn't exaclty new that wasn't put through the proper channels. ] 03:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Whatever. They were deleted because they are divisive and inflammatory. --] 03:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
:They most certainly were not. I have seen silimar boxes for British/American English and the Metric folks not wanting to use Imperial measurements.&mdash;] 03:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

: Please provide links and I'll delete any such divisive and inflammatory userboxes. --] 03:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

== I am doing it by hand ==

it isn't automatic, and I had no clue there was a rule against it, so next time please ]. ] 04:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

: Oh I'm assuming good faith, but your edit summaries tell me that you used a tool called "VandalProof" to perform the edits. --] 04:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
::Yes I did, I am saying WP:AGF the fact that I didn't intentionally abuse it, and that I had no idea I am not supposed to do that. ] 04:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

: Could you try to avoid using shortcuts as jargon? It's intensely irritating. --] 04:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
:: I can vouch for the manual nature of it - I didn't receive a thankyou for my contribution. ] 18:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

==delete userid==
Thinking I needed a second userid in order to have two simultaneous sessions of Misplaced Pages up at once (to read and to edit), I created hmains2. I now know I do not need this. Can you delete hmains2 for me. Thanks ] 05:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

: In general we do not delete usernames. If you want to stop using the account, that's fine. Perhaps it would be courteous to redirect the user and talk pages to your main account. --] 12:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

== ] article ==

Hello there. I didn't know where to bring this, and decided to search for a long standing member of the community.

There is something very irritating in this article: people keep reverting each other about the fact that she is married and has a daughter, but never as often as to break a 3-revert rule. In just the 50 item history page there are changes on , (where it is commented that ''someone has deleted it a half dozen times now''), , , , , ( on 14th), () (), (), , ( and ), (, , and ).

Currently it is reverted whether to name the husband and child or not, as happened on ( and ), (), ( and ), and .

IPs (a few times the same one, then apparently dynamic ones) were first removing the reference to the marriage stating it is personal life information, and now removing the names. In the ] there is a discussion with a link that back ups claims the information is public as it was given during an interview with her.

Sorry for bothering with all the diffs, but I want to stress how serious this is, and I am not sure where to inform this. What should be done in this case? -- ] 15:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

: It seemed to me that some recent edits had the nature of vandalism rather than genuine attempts to improve. Definitely there has been a lot of warring so I have semiprotected so that, if we do see further edits, at least we'll see who is making them. --] 21:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

== Logging blocks for people on personal attack parole ==

Tony, I just saw your message on ] about Xed, and it reminded me of a message from ] that I hadn't got round to answering. I blocked {{User5|Boothy443}} on 3 June for edit, and also for being abusive towards the people who had warned him about it. It was a three day block. I did it without any awareness that he was already on parole, but just after the block, Jnk informed me of ]. Should I have reported the block there? Thanks. ] ] 16:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

: I think it would help if you did. Some enforcement regimes are progressive (the arbitrators decide on this in their final decision in the arbitration) and administrators take the history of past infractions into account in calculating a reasonable block period. --] 16:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

== you asked us to tell you. ==

]'s sig is confusing. I couldn't tell it was him when he voted my RFA. ] 22:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

: I agree that it's borderline, but I'm not convinced that people shouldn't use easily distinguishable nicknames and the like (I have issues with people who insist on aliasing their username to something common like "Pete" of "Jack", but fuddlemark is fairly unique). --] 22:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
:: OK. By the way, you know I do respect you, but sometimes you can be far too stubborn. ] 23:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

: It's my fourth best trait. After intelligence, charisma and sexual magnetism. --] 23:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

==Not that I mind the initiative...==
...but, just so you know, I do usually carry out the closings I make. Pleased to see you on the ball, though! :) Best wishes, ] 00:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

: :) --] 00:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

==Any opinion on this?==

Hi Tony,

Wondering if you might offer an opinion on this.] 00:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

: Silly. Deleted the db template. --] 00:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

::It didn't seem silly to me at all. What am I doing wrong? Is there some other procedure I should be following?] 00:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Your argument is complex and, although it may succeed, it doesn't seem to be a good argument for speedy deletion. For instance, if you disagree with the use of the word "Allah" why not use the talk page to discuss the possibility of removing it? If this fails, try tfd. --] 00:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

:The problem, as I've just posted on talk, isn't that it says Allah per se, but that this word is well-understood among Muslims as a marker of sectarian identity. The English hand writes, "This user edits Islam-related pages", while the Arabic hand writes, "This user is a Muslim". That's plainly deceptive and, according to proposed T2, inappropriate.] 01:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

As I said, this is a complex argument and unsuitable for speedy deletion. You need to make it on the talk page and have the image removed if your argument prevails, or at tfd if you decide that the template needs to be deleted. --] 01:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

:I think I get it now: it's not deletion that's the problem, but ''speedy'' deletion. I've only been around for a few months, and am still learning about such processes. Thanks for indulging me.] 01:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

== Hi ==
How do you know they were trolls? ] 01:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
* Good to see that ] is back. How long does she get to stay this time? --] 03:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

== Personal External Links ==

I asked Timothy Usher whether or not the link on ] user page is appropriate or not. He asked me to ask you so that is what I'm doing. ] 06:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

We need a fatwa on this. It's not solicitation, but it is an external link with some promotion, both on the user page and on the linked page. Personally, the user page gives me the creeps, for whatever that's worth (probably not much).] 06:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

: Looks like a perfectly normal user page to me. If it gives you the creeps, you should probably get out more. --] 11:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
::Thanks for weighing in.] 19:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

==Re: Drastic refactoring==
''You say "a few users seem to be suggesting that signatures should be drastically refactored every time they occur"''

''Who says this? --] 12:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)''

Maybe "every time they occur" was too strong, and "drastically" was a poor choice of words. But you're one of the people who wants to refactor signatures because they're too hard to edit. That's why we had the debate in the first place.

--{{vandal|Elkman}} 13:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

: Yes, "every time they occur" is too strong. And of course this is about refactoring signatures to remove unnecessary formatting where they interfere with editing. --] 13:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

:: OK, I admit I was wrong. Wrong, wrong, '''inexcusably wrong'''. So, go ahead and apply the well-deserved block for disruption. --{{vandal|Elkman}} 14:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
:::"Blocks are preventative, not punitive." --] 14:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

== ] ==

Can you chime in on this issue? As I don't see the harm in having this type of information in userspace but there seems to be quite a few editors who do - it seems (to me) more like the revival of old conflicts with Ed - For me, however, the issue is that it sets bad precedent to delete userspace material that is not clearly violating policy - maybe I should make the info into a userbox - LOL -<font color="#06C">]</font> 15:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

: Not really bothered about this. --] 00:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

== ] ==

Would you mind swinging by his page and further explaining his block? He has requested an explanation. It won't take but a minute or two. I'm sure you can spare it, and I think I can handle it from there. Thanks, Tony. --] <sup><font color="#3D9140">]</font></sup> 16:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

: Done. --] 16:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

==Unblock Metrocat==

I suggest you to apply the Wiki's rules first, you can't '''block''' someone if you don't have solid proofs. I want to see the CheckUser report that Metrocat is vandal. Otherwise I sugesst you to apply Wiki's rules. Without any ArbCom you can't block someone. --] 17:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

: Trolls are blocked all the time. No arbcom required. --] 17:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

== I'm completely wasting my time ==

There is a request for you to respond at ]. Apparently, I made a response to something she wrote, but she wanted your response, not mine. Now, she's pretty angry at me.

On an unrelated note, are my contributions actually valuable here, or am I just wasting my time on Misplaced Pages? I'm not sure anyone really wanted to hear about historic places or bridges in Minnesota. --{{vandal|Elkman}} 22:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

: Don't worry about Metrocat. Your work on Misplaced Pages is appreciated and if I didn't say so earlier that is my omission and my fault. --] 23:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

== WP:PP ==

You may be on 1RR, but there are a LOT of stale protections up there, I'd likely back you up if anyone wanted to accuse you of wheel warring, or mention the "tony sideway pro/unpro ratio".''']'''<sup>]</sup> 04:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

== Apology ==

:Tony, Thank you for the apology. ] 05:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

: np. --] 12:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

::I've been a bit busy lately, but I want to add my thanks too, Tony, and also for not taking offence at my comments. Cheers. ] ] 07:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

== naturalhomes ==

Hi,

How about that then...

Regards, Oliver ] 09:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

: Much better. --] 11:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

==Zeq==
Zeq, I've removed about half a dozen sections from this page because you're overloading me. Writing lots of material on my talk page is a good way of ensuring that I'll throw up my hands and say "enough." That's about the stage I'm at now. Now on Homey's edits, if he's doing something wrong then the thing to do is to follow ]. It is because somebody else did that in your case that you are now on probation. I suggest that you work on this together with SlimVirgin, who knows much more about this subject than I do. If Homey is causing problems (and at first sight it does seem to me that he may be) then you should be able to use that process to make sure that he stops or, if he won't, gets stopped.

The bans on Zeq have been announced in eight places:
* ]
* ]
* ]
* the talk pages of each individual article (four in all)
* On IRC, on the administrators' IRC channel

They have been logged on the arbitration page ].

They may be discussed on any of the discussion pages and, in the case of the arbitration page, on the related talk page.

My problem here is that one editor is persistently flooding me with vast amounts of impenetrable counter-arguments. I have therefore cleared them from my page. Some of the removed material was from Homey, others from Isarig, Ramallite or SlimVirgin. They are all accessible in the history of this page. This ban should probably be discussed now on ] if you're really sure that it was inappropriate.

Accusations that I have abused my administrator status will not be met sympathetically. These bans are in order under the probation applied to Zeq by the arbitration committee. --] 17:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

== Formal notice ==

]
With the amount of nonsense you are dealing with, I thought a Thank You would cheer you up a bit. :) --<small>] ]</small> 12:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

That's very sweet. Thank you. --] 12:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

== Manchester bombing ==

I've reverted your edit because there has been much debate in the past as to whether the bombing was a terrorist attack or not. The best compromise was to say it was "seen as" terrorism and to cite a source. Best leave it like that, to not open the debate again :) -- ]<sup>]</sup> 13:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

: Please see my discussion of this on the talk page of the article, ]. In particular, "seen by many" is classic weaseling. --] 13:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

==Bad user==

Alright? I was hoping you could have a looks at this user - ]. He really is a nasty piece of work (look at some of the stuff on the ] talk page and directed at ]. I realise some of my comments towards him could be construed as personal attacks. I couldn't help myself, he's very antagonistic (though I have been trying quite hard not to loose it with people - please judge ''me'' with that in mind). He has reams of evidence of poor behaviour and needs something doing about his general bad attitude. In fact, it's not even his personal attacks which I find most distasteful. It's his sumgness, the way he reacts to well-intentioned users by insulting them, branding them "morons" for simple mistakes. He seems to feel this is accepotable behaviour. Knock him down a peg would you please?--] 15:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

: I think you're all doing good work, and sometimes I know a bit of badinage is okay. Just remember that there is a human on the other end. I think you're both in danger of forgetting that (he may be as offended by your insults as you are by his). If you have to work together, I suggest that you bring ''specific'' problems to me before they degenerate to insults, and I'll do what I can to ensure that you can reach an amicable agreement. If someone is persistently engaging in newbie biting or general incivility, please make a report on ]. or ]. --] 17:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Aye, but this lad is a constant offender. I'm asking you to keep an eye on him because he is a constant offender, his attacks go beyond mere banter - it's a certain horrible level of condecending self rightious aloofness and he never seems to get collared for it. That other one you warned me about is some Jakson nut who has, under various guises, vandelised both my user page and the Jackson page. I've tried using ANI on him but no admins have taken any sort of action. Again. I appreciate the sentiment though. Cheers as always.--] 17:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

== OK ==

I will not bother you again. Do your work as you see fit. ] 18:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

== Rouge Admin Cabal ==

You really should add yourself to ] :-) ] 19:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
:I thought self noms were not done, that you had to be nomed by someone else. I've been waiting for someone to add me but I guess I haven't been wild enough. ] 17:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
::I waited for someone to add me... With Tony though, it would probably be gasoline on flames. ]<sup>]</sup> 17:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
::: You guys can all adopt me as a patron saint if you like! :) --] 18:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

]

As you wish. The face is Saint Dominic; I'm not good enough to pull your face out of a 1/4 profile snapshot. ]<sup>]</sup> 20:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

== Gregory Lauder-Frost ==

Tony, regardless of whether individuals said "keep" or "delete" there was a broad consensus among the non sock puppet editors in the AFD that ] is too long, too laden with filler, puffery, flattery and unencyclopedic details etc. Don't know if a reference to that can be included in your finding (it would make it easier to edit the article properly given the strong resistanced by GLF and his friends). I'm wondering if you could look at the article yourself and see what you can do in cutting it down to a more readable and encyclopedic form. Your doing this would produce less resistance than any of the editors who have thus far been involved. ] 13:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

: Anybody can go in and edit the article--which I agree probably needs to be trimmed a bit. --] 13:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

==User Christian result==
Hi,

I have restored the text of my decision regarding that template. Whatever your opinion regarding its quality, the DRV close is part of the record, and should remain. Although DRVs are not normally closed with extensive explanatory text, they are sometimes (See DRV for The Game (game)), especially when the DRV is the second or third in a series of DRVs. While the text certainly expresses my opinion, the opinion expressed is ''my interpretation of consensus'', which I take to be the definition of what a close entails. Best wishes, ] 15:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

: No problem, but I think you were going a bit too close to sermonizing. I also think that your suggestion that speedy deletion of abusive templates can be equated with disruption was absolutely unacceptable. --] 17:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

:"Sermonizing" is not unheard of in closures of lengthy disputes, and is, of course, in the eye of the beholder anyway. The last bit was just a suggestion, and was labelled as such; however, I do honestly believe that speedying ''that'' template as T1 at this point would be disruptive, and I would begin a dialogue on AN/I to that effect if it happened. Thankfully, the German solution appears to have rendered that point moot for now. Best wishes, ] 18:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

:: I was rather upset when Improv speedied that template so soon after the previous DRV and TfD, but Improv certainly isn't the kind of guy I'd describe as prone to disruptive behavior. I agree that the German fix is working for now and I look forward to that progressing to its logical conclusion. --] 18:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

:::While I do disagree with Improv's choice also, my suggestion of what should be considered disruptive was intended to apply only prospectively, not retrospectively. Best wishes, ] 18:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

== My sig ==

Yeah, I already changed it. I thought that it might have been too long, but I left it until Clyde told me. Thank you! (But I want to leave the RPOTD in there.) ] 17:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

: Replied. --] 18:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

::Is this any better? The only thing left is the picture of the day. <font face="Book Antiqua"><b>]]]</font></b> 20:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

: Much better. Not that bad. --] 20:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

== Please review admins comments ==

at ]
Tnx,
] 18:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Tony, Out of emanse respect I have given you time to review, refelct on your action and read what others have said.

I would like to draw your attention to the ] policy:

*In order to enforce probation it is necessary to attract the attention of a ] with <u> enough interst and energy <u>to investigate the matter and assume the risk of acting.
Patience is counseled.
* Striking out at users on probation is strongly discouraged.

I am aksing have you not lost your interst and energy to investigate this issue ?


'''Probation''' at Misplaced Pages is a formal, procedural warning against a Misplaced Pages editor, generally regarding specific conduct on a group of articles. It generally follows an Arbitration Committee finding that a particular user has edited one or more articles in a disruptive or objectionable way (e.g., by ]ring).

A user placed on probation by the Arbitration Committee is permitted to continue to edit in the subject areas in which they are on probation. If they edit an article in those subject areas in a disruptive or objectionable way, however, any ] who is not involved in the conflict may ban them from editing the article. The banned user may continue to edit the talk page, making suggestions as to content and discussing content. A ban may be imposed only for good cause which shall be documented in a section set aside for that purpose in the arbitration case. Banning without good cause or in bad faith shall be grounds for censure, restriction, or removal of administrative access.

I am asking if you have convinced my self that I was disruptive and did you documented why you think my editing (unlike others who edited in same article) has been a reason for a ban. I strongly suugest again that you consider that all other admins who commented on the case did not think as you and many simply reafused to take the request action by Homey. ] 09:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

You promised me and other:

I see your point. I'll examine the situation and may review the ban in that particular case. --Tony Sidaway 15:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

That you will re-examine. Tnx. ] 20:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

: I've re-examined. There is absolutely no dissent among admins that you have been placed on probation, and that since then your editing has shown some improvement but has been generally well below that expected of a Wikipedian. I announced the bans in eight places and have taken comments from all of them. I am not currently continuing with the review of the bans. They remain. Please stop badgering me about them. You will not persuade me that I was wrong; indeed your activities of the past few days only cement a feeling in my mind that you going to be a long term problem editor. --] 20:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

::Thank you for your time of rexamining the issue. Your characterzation of me as "below that expected of a Wikipedian" and "long term problem editor" shows you have extrapolated more from this issue that is warrnted. The result is that you have banned me from several articles at once, included one in which I have been a major poitive contributor to get it to be NPOV. You have banned me from this article on the ground of 1 (one) single edit - which according to all reviwers was a jutified edit (and they have told you so). If you are still unable to change your mind I can only guess it has something to do with a political issue since all the articles you banned me from (starting with nakba day) were on one subject. ] 09:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

PS Tony, the person that seems to be on a "self distruct" course here is not me. Getting to so many fights with people over user box (I can also think of your false accuastion to me about one such user box that I did not even placed) and signatures show beyong any doubt that you look for "form realted" over substance and calm. I don't want to know about you non-wiki life but such behaviour in general is not healthy to anyone, especially the people who preform these types of prefernces in their life. ] 09:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

PS 2 I have just been sent this: ] with the suggestion that since several admin have been made aware of the same complaint against me, ] while they refused to act on it your action in that issue may be a violation of the ArbCom case. I am looking into this. ] 09:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

== Signature (again). ==

I don't expect you to listen or consider other people's points of view (and what I'm doing is probably amounting to bashing my head against a brick wall), but kindly leave my signature alone.

What ''you'' are doing amounts to imposing your opinion/will on the entire site. (Damn what anyone else thinks about the matter, you'll continue doing what you want, regardless)

My signature does ''not'' in ''any'' way violate ], it's not long, it doesn't contain images, external links etc. I don't care if you don't like it, that doesn't give you the right to change it (on pages ''other'' than your talk). What matters here is that it does not violate policy. You have no reason to change it. Leave it alone. —&nbsp;]] <sup>(])</sup> 23:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

: Oh don't be such a silly sausage. "Imposing my will" indeed! --] 00:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Please don't inflame things any worse than they have to be on AN/I. I was hoping to guide this wholly lame drama back to the RFC where it can't get in the way. - ] 01:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

: Fine, have fun. --] 01:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

:: <s>Er, actually, I don't think it was you doing it, and I edit conflicted removing my comment. Someone's fiddling with Chnwnwnwnwnwwhatever's sig there, and I thought it was you, incorrectly. - ] 01:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)</s> No, I was wrong the second time, it was you (it was just that Freakofnature was reverting Chckwnwnwwn's reverts). But, hey, you'd say you'd stop, so no issue any more. - ] 01:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

: Well I won't get into an edit war about it. But I'll always do my best to improve the readability and editability of discussion areas of the wiki. --] 01:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

::Well, it's not so much the edit war as decreasing the readability and editability of AN by prolonging a useless flame war on it. Unfortunately, everyone else seems to be keeping it alive on their own. :/ - ] 03:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
::: At FreplySpang's suggestion, I moved the whole discussion to the talk page of the RfC, but somebody else moved it back. --] 03:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
:::: Yes, for a moment it looked like we might actually be able to contain the discussion to the RFC. ] 04:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

== haha ==
First off, Then what you do is vandalism too, think about it. Second I stopped caring when I found no one will ever do anything about you, I stopped caring when you don't seem to care that about half of wikipedias editors very much dislike what you are doing and you don't give a crap about them, and I stopped caring when I found out you bully people for fun.] 03:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

: No, it isn't vandalism. "'''Vandalism''' is any addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to reduce the quality of the encyclopedia."

: Your act was the deliberate removal of a comment by another person. My acts are the removal of unnecessary, unsightly and intrusive formatting while retaining the comments, thus improving the editing environment. --] 03:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
==<nowiki>{{refactored}}</nowiki>==
I created the {{]}} template. Feel free to change it. It currently produces this result: {{refactored|NoSeptember}}

Yuk! No thanks. Who cares what has been done to a signature? It's the comment that matters. --] 04:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
:I'm not surprised that you don't care for it, but others obviously do care about their sigs. I wonder how they would react to the use of this template, it sort of announces to the world: ''I had a fancy signature, but someone thought it was too fancy.'' ;-) ] 04:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

: My guess is they'd hate it worse than the little bespoke jobbies I've been knocking up. Thanks for trying. --]
::It's already been adopted by ] :-) ] 05:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

:::I have added a param for nicknames so now it can be {{tlx|refactored|Example User|Example}} if their names should have a nickname. --<font size="1">]&nbsp;<sup>]&middot;]</sup></font> 05:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

::::Just to add my two cents, I prefer this to simple refactoring, and almost don't mind it. Because it does say that that is not my original signature, which is what my original qualm was. {{Refactored|Chcknwnm|Chuck}}

: ''05:41, 9 June 2006''

No timestamp! :( --] 05:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
: Just add 5 ~'s, but that is only for someone using it as their sig. If refactoring someone else's sig, just be careful not to erase the date already there. ] 05:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

:Eah, I guess it only works after someone signs, and then someone else refactors. Should work though. ]]]<sup>]</sup> 05:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
:And now the optional time parameter has been added. Gee, these guys are smart. ] 05:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

== Re: Image ==

Hey, regarding the image. I wrote where I got it from but tagged it wrong, it shouldn't be tagged as copyrighted. I'll look to find which tag belongs there and change it. Thanks for the message. {{Refactored|Chcknwnm}} 05:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

: Okay. --] 11:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

== User_Zionist template deletion? ==

Just curious, but why was that template deleted? Did I miss a vote on the issue perhaps? Thanks. --] 09:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

: It was speedy deleted under speedy deletion criterion T1. --] 11:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

== Please see this ==

Please see this patently absurd - I'm being accused of a 3rr for readding an original research tag that didn't exist in the "version being reverted to" or the first three reverts. I added it after my 3rd reversion, it was illicilty removed (tags aren't supposed to be removed to the best of my knowledge) and then readded by me. ] 12:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

: This is why I always avoid edit warring. --] 12:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

== Apartheid outside of South Africa ==

Please also see ]. Editors have cut and paste the entire ] article despite the fact that a tag calling for the latter article to be merged into the former article has achieved on consensus on either ] or ]] 13:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

: Not much I personally could do to resolve this without risking getting too involved to be able to continue my oversight of Zeq and other editors on this issue. I note that it's been listed for deletion, so that should bring some external views to bear on the matter. --] 14:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

== Personal attack warning ==

Hello Tony :). While you obviously did not mean to, it seems that you may have accidentily let a personal attack slip out. Please see Misplaced Pages's ] policy. Comment on ''content'', not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to ] for disruption. Please ] and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. <!-- Template:No personal attacks --> (I am referring to in which you called a fellow editor "antisocial"). ] 17:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

: I could be convinced that referring to people with large and intrusive signatures as antisocial is a personal attack. For now, I'll let it stand. Could you explain? --] 17:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

:: Excuse me for mixing in here, but I think I may be able to explain: If you say the ''act'' is antisocial, that is about the act. If you say that the ''person'' is antisocial, that can easily be seen as a personal attack. It may not seem like a big deal, but aiming at the ''act'' rather than at the ''person'' is a rather essential part of conflict handling. -- ] 17:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

: I think I twigged. See in which I change the wording to focus on the antisocial nature of the acts rather than attaching the epithet to the people who repeatedly indulge in it. --] 17:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

::Excellent. Thanks! :) ] 17:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

:::By the way, I don't know how Tony feels about this, but I personally feel that {{tl|npa}} or {{tl|civil}} templates should not be used for established editors. They're useful for new users (or IPs) who may not know the rules, but they're not meant to be given out as punishment for naughtiness. When someone has been here for a while and can be assumed to know the policy, sending him a temple which informs him that "continued personal attacks may lead to ] for disruption" is a bit of an insult. Wouldn't it have been better just to have said that you didn't think he should have called other editors "antisocial"? ] ] 17:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

: It's not a huge deal, but in general I think warning templates are little use for anything outside the basic test1, 2, 3, etc. I seldom use even those any more. --] 18:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

::I got three {{tl|civil}} templates from Alienus two days ago for calling vandalism. :-) ] ] 18:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

:::AnnH has a pretty good point. Sorry about that, Tony! <b>]]] <sup>]</sup></b> 02:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

==Raul654 and Linuxbeak==
Thank you for responding and moving my comment to the appropriate place. ] 18:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

==More attacks from banned user ]==

Terryeo is again wikilawyering and making personal attacks:
]
He is attempting to get a guildeline enforced as a policy.
He also has been attempting to redefine the work "published"
so that he can weasel in his POV. --] 19:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

: Thanks. I'm aware of the background on this (scientology documents not officially published by the church but leaked in court cases and the like) and I'm watching closely. --] 19:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

== decolonization and POV ==

Please see ]. 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 ] 19:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

== Um, what please? ==

What? You call me a troll because I vocally criticise a Misplaced Pages policy that I very deeply consider flawed and harmful to the project? I feel very much insulted right now. I don't do this to get attention or whatever the current definition of a troll is. This very policy that I am talking about has been invoked again and again and again in the most ridiculous cases against - in my opinion - completely legitimate and worthy edits. And I must say - while a lot of negative things could be said about the individuals that invoked the policy in those cases, ultimately they are right: The policy formulation does not leave room for any interpretation. In many ways. Ahem.

Therefore, (also, for being of a smartass) I must reject your request and ask you to stay away from my user talk page for a bit. You won't change my opinion about the policy, or my decision to lobby to have it removed. I don't like to have cluttered up talk pages either - it'd be so much easier if people just listened to me instead of arguing all the time. But that's just not happening, sadly. ] 22:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

: Well maybe you're going about it the wrong way? Just a thought. --] 22:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm open for all suggestions. Should I bribe Jimbo or something? ] 22:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

:Worth a try! --] 23:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I will bribe him with the most valuable commodity on the internet: Loads of horse porn! He will be delighted. ] 23:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

== Defacing compliant sigs ==


:(removed template). No it is not vandalism, a POINT violation at worst. Block for that if you want to, but please at least do not call it "vandalism".''']''' 03:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

It is absolutely not a violation of ]. There is no good reason to block. --] 03:37, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
:OK, "disruption" is better word for it (at worst).''']''' 03:46, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

== My sig ==

Hmmm...you removed my sig, so I just made it a bit shorter now. If that is not good enough, then it will get hard for me to take you seriously, since sigs ''that'' mall are hardly a distraction. ] 03:29, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
:Actually, I just made it shorter, so it only links to talk (which is the only place people usually go anyway).] 03:32, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
: Whatever. Why does it have to be so obscenely large in the first place? --] 03:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
::Because HTML markup is retartedly long, it takes <nowiki><span style='color: ColorName'></nowiki> just to get in one color, and then you have to close it. But remember it is a ''signature'', not a name, do you sign real life things like "Tony Sideway" in perfect TNR font?''']''' 03:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
::: I've no idea what "TNR" might be. Yes, of course I write my name as clearly as possible, if that's what you mean. --] 01:17, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

<div style="clear: both"></div>{{{1|] }}}'''You have been temporarily ] from editing for disruption of Misplaced Pages.''' Please note that page blanking, addition of random text or spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, and repeated and blatant violation of ] are considered ]. If you wish to make useful contributions, you may come back after the block expires. <!-- Template:Test5 --> ] 03:47, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

* 03:57, 10 June 2006 Improv unblocked Tony Sidaway (contribs) (Remove unwarranted block)

Kirk, do please stop playing silly buggers. --] 03:49, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

:Another demonstration of your inability or unwillingness .... ] 04:46, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Do stop being a silly sausage, Kirk. --] 05:23, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

:Yeah, that's about what I expected. If it ain't your opinion, it must've come from a "silly sausage". Tell me, mate, if an Rfc involvong 100 equally respected users ended with 51% of the people supporting you and 49% not, what's your reaction to the 49%? ] 05:42, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

::RadioKirk, I'd be interested to hear how you arrived at your statistics, as the impression I get from the RfC is nearly 2:1 support for Sidaway. In any case, shouldn't you be posting it there?] 05:45, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

:::"if"="hypothetical question" ] 06:04, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

::::Note: "235" chars used merely to say ''if''. ] 06:11, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
::::Oh, there was ="hypothetical question," but I misread it as part of the sig chars in the diff &mdash; see how confusing it becomes? ] 06:21, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

:::::Only if you only read diffs ;) ] 06:27, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

== Please try and be civil :) ==

Hello again Tony. I noticed that your edit summary . Could be construed as uncivil. Although it should be a big deal, human nature (sadly) is such that people can get very upset when people are uncivil to them (with some people more so then others). As such, as you have saw with the recent block, people tend to react strongly to comments that they percieve to be uncivil. Obviously, you did not do it purposefully or maliciously, but I think that things could probably go more smoothly in the future if you attempt to be a more civil in the future. <b>] 04:46, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

:Tony,

:If I'd my way, in addition to abolishing all non-encylopedic userboxes and creative signatures, I'd also prohibit removal of messages from user talk pages, except those messages (e.g. vandalism) we'd be equally justified in removing from article talk pages. The common denominator is clear: users don't own their space.

:While I fully support what you're doing, and can only imagine what it'd be like to take the amount of flak you deal with on a daily basis, I will say that the editors who remove legitimate comments are, in nearly all cases, those whom I respect the least. You're an exception here, but you really shouldn't be. Removing legitimate comments looks defensive, lending criticisms an aura of suppressed truth they might not otherwise have earned, and ''is'' incivil. If a comment doesn't deserve a response, just let it stand without one. If your page gets too long, archive it. This should be policy for all users. But for now, it's just my advice.] 04:59, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

: We're going to have to differ on that one. Once I've read a very silly comment on my talk page, and remove it, nobody should try to put it back. In the case of steamingly stupid comments, such as Radiokirk's suggestion, the same applies. ] 05:26, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

::Well, true, there does come a point. However - and maybe this is unforgivably vicious of me - but I find it the best revenge to allow someone's totally stupid comment to sit there unanswered, as evidence of its signer's stupidity - as it's said, you know a man by his enemies. But I won't press this any further at this point; you've enough bullshit to deal with without dealing with mine.] 05:35, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

::: Absolutely. "Delicious revenge". But why should I? I'm not interested in revenge, only in removing stupid crap. --] 05:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
::::But publically calling it "crap" in the edit summary makes people upset (as detailed above) and probably violates ], no? ] 05:54, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
::: I beg to differ. If some editors persist in pushing bizarre and stupid arguments, it is not a bad idea to describe their arguments as "crap". It would be bad for the encyclopedia to entertain rubbish on the same footing as commonsense. --] 07:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

== Enough of this signature nonsense. ==

Tony, you can fix this entire situation and discuss with me exactly what you don't like about my signature and I'll consider changing it. You can be communicative and open for a change or I will revert every single change to my signature that I see you make. No discussion. Either be open to talk, I continue reverting your inconsiderate "refactoring" (of a signature that ''does not'' violate ] in ''any'' way, shape or form) or block me for disruption right now before I get to doing that. (Talking, for the less-informed of us, is that thing where you start typing words to someone else)

Tell me what you don't like about it, or leave it alone. "Refactor" it all you want on your own talk page, but the line gets drawn there. I don't mind being blocked if it means getting the message through to you. WP:POINT it may be, but you're no better.

If you think my signature is long, talk about it. Tell me why it's long. Tell me how I can change it. Be open, willing to talk, communicative. Otherwise, you have no say. Quite honestly (and someone has to say this), stop ].


Hey Tony. I made a user box using one of your quotes. ]. ]] 17:41, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
If you didn't have so many admins behind you because you're the ArbCom clerk (some of them are probably afraid of you, but I'm not), you'd have been blocked by now for ] ("refactoring" signatures is entirely disrupting Misplaced Pages to make your point). Consider that. --] 05:56, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


== ] of ] ==
: I don't require you to do anything. I have no problem with you or your signature, except insofar as I occasionally remove some of the unnecessary clutter in the course of normal talk page editing. --]
]


The article ] has been ]&#32;because of the following concern:
== Sig (again) ==
<blockquote>'''Might be some potential for a legitimate article here, but in this case such a poor starting point that we might as well start from scratch.'''</blockquote>


While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, pages may be ].
I may be grasping at straws at this point because you've been less than receptive to a calm discussion about my signature. If I remove the superscript, will you leave it (and me) alone? Please comment on my talk and be clear on what you don't like. I'm sick of this back-and-forth nonsense. Exactly ''what don't you like about my signature''. Stop beating around the bush and let's hear it. Since this is all about what ''you'' don't like, ''you'' have the power to end this. Thank you. --] 06:35, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your ] or on ].
: See above. I confess myself truly baffled. What is it you want of ''me''? I'm perfectly happy. --] 07:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the ], but other ]es exist. In particular, the ] process can result in deletion without discussion, and ] allows discussion to reach ] for deletion.<!-- Template:Proposed deletion notify --> ] (]) 13:02, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
== Look forward to working with you ==


== Coordinators and help needed ==
These two diffs ( ) by Georgewilliamherbert are really on point, I think. You removed them, in the only display of removal of thoughtful, well-meaning advice I've ever seen by a non-vandal. Vandals and you, that's who's in that club.


] Hi, if you are active on Misplaced Pages and are still interested in helping out with urgent tasks on our large ], please let us know ]. We look forward to hearing from you.<br><hr><small>Sent to project members 13:59, 29 August 2021 (UTC). You can opt of messages ].</small>
I really look forward to working with you Tony, when you come on board with the whole collaborative nature of this project - the part where people recognize that other people are really important, and go out of their way to be excellent to each other. It'll be good.
<!-- Message sent by User:Kudpung@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Schools/Participants_list&oldid=1041253844 -->


== A kitten for you! ==
If I had a long and obnoxious signature, the primary reason I'd be keeping it by now would be that you've set up a dynamic where the only way I can change it is by losing a battle of wills to you, and I fully understand why someone wouldn't want to do that. If you were smart about it, you would ask people to change their signatures in a way that they felt like they were being really cool by doing it, not really brow-beaten. These are skills you can work on, and improve.


]
Seriously, read at MeatballWiki, try to find some things out about how to motivate people to work with you rather than against you. "People skills" matter. This is Misplaced Pages, this is the future. Get sophisticated about it. -]<sup>(])</sup> 07:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
i love kittens!!111
:Tony, I hope you seriously consider everything GTBacchus has wisely said here. It doesn't matter if a lot of people agree with your point: the way you make it and go about things sriously rubs people the wrong way. I don't give a whit about signatures. If anything, I'm in your camp, and I think the ones you've been refactoring are rather absurd. I don't think it's worth ruffling feathers about. Sure, it's the wiki way to do something like changing it yourself when you don't like it, but once it begins to irritate others, it's not worth the payoff; it makes things worse for a minor grievance. What is more irritating than signatures is calling people silly sausages and telling them they're playing silly buggers, and staying stubbornly still, when a simple bit of patience would make this go away. Perhaps if I ws the kind to get worked up about these things (which is hard for me to imagine) I'd think these people were silly sausages, but I sure wouldn't ''say'' it and pollute the community over it, and I wouldn't continue to provoke them, even if it were on a silly point. ]·] 07:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


] (]) 17:12, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
Okay, I'll stop calling people silly sausages and telling them to stop playing silly buggers. I absolutely don't mean to ruffle feathers. --] 07:48, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
<br style="clear: both;"/>
==] nomination of ]==
]
{{Quote box|quote=<p>If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read ].</p><p>You may want to consider using the ] to help you create articles.</p>|width=20%|align=right}}
A tag has been placed on ] requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under ], because the article appears to be about a company, corporation or organization that does not ] how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the ], such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about ].


If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may '''contest the nomination''' by ] and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with ]. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the {{Querylink|Special:Log|qs=type=delete&page=Gradient+Analytics|deleting administrator}}. <!-- Template:Db-notability-notice --><!-- Template:Db-csd-notice-custom --> – ] (]) 06:43, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
:And, yet, this is what I've tried to communicate from the beginning; I do not mean to imply that ] and/or ] has in some manner achieved an "importance" of any kind that I or any other user has not, but how is the appeal from these two worth noting while mine was "tripe"? This is a serious question; among other things, it may help other users learn how to communicate with you in a manner that actually fosters communication. Given the response I have received from you even as I am hardly young, green, or "new", what can be done to foster a greater sense of community when you are approached in whatever fashion by those who '''are''' young, green and "new"? <tt>] ]</tt> 03:51, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
== ] of ] ==
]


The file ] has been ]&#32;because of the following concern:
== Proposal for resolving the sig problem ==
<blockquote>'''Unused Misplaced Pages screenshot, no obvious use.'''</blockquote>


While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, pages may be ].
Hello again Tony.


You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your ] or on ].
I understand your concern that large sigs can get annoying in the edit box. However, simply changing the sigs causes problems, I would like to propose an alternate solution. I have written ] for monobook.js that contracts the signatures of people who have enabled their signatures to be contracted to a barebones version when viewing them in the edit box and saves them normally when done. Nathan said that he was willing to alter his sig so that it could be contracted with this script. I hope this will satisfy you. --] 08:47, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the ], but other ]es exist. In particular, the ] process can result in deletion without discussion, and ] allows discussion to reach ] for deletion.<!-- Template:Proposed deletion notify --> --]<sup>&laquo;&brvbar;]&brvbar;&raquo;</sup> 14:02, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
: I think you're going about this in completely the wrong way. We should all simply trim our signatures to a reasonable length, and feel free to refactor discussions that contain an unnecessarily large amount of rubbish. --] 08:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


== A goat for you! ==
::Perhaps. However, given Nathan's large amount of support on the RFC, it is clear that there is a lack of consensus to make everyone trim their signatures. It is also clear at this point that people will not trim their signatures volentarily. In addition, this issue is taking up too much time from writing an encyclopedia (and I get the impression that the situation might even be escalated :( ). The script above will make it seem, however, that anyone who adds the requisite comments has the type of signature you desire in the edit box; thus, I was hoping it could solve this problem before it mushrooms into something larger. However, if you think a different approach should be taken, I'd happily consider helping; I just want this all to end, if you know what I mean. ] 16:32, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


]
::: I think you should reconsider the belief that Nathan has a "large amount of support". There is certainly no requirement for "making everyone trim their signatures"; that's simply a straw man.
Hope you're doing well Tony.


] (]) 16:09, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
::: Your script is not a solution to anything; the muddle will still be present in the edit box, which is where tha massive volume of some signatures causes a problem.
<br style="clear: both;"/>
== "]" listed at ] ==
]
The redirect <span class="plainlinks"></span> has been listed at ] to determine whether its use and function meets the ]. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 14#Prince Charles}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- from Template:RFDNote --> ] (]) 14:54, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
==MfD nomination of ]==
] ], a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for ]. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at ] and please be sure to ] with four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>). You are free to edit the content of ] during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you.<!-- Template:Mfd notice --> ]]<sup>]</sup> 22:10, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
== ] of ] ==
]


The article ] has been ]&#32;because of the following concern:
::: There is massive suport for the current ''de facto'' policy, by which anyone may refactor a discussion page to reduce clutter. If Nathan wants to drop his misconceived, failed RfC and stop his campaign, then he will find that he has more time to edit articles. --] 18:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
<blockquote>'''Has worked as an actor but not had the roles to meet ] / ]. Long-time unref BLP.'''</blockquote>


While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, pages may be ].
::::I think you are misunderstanding me as to what the script does. Please see of a screenshot of a test page and of a screenshot of editing that same test page.


You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your ] or on ].
::::I'm sorry if I misunderstood your argument; it was not my intent to make a straw man argument. While there is massive support for what you are doing, there is far from a consensus in favor for what you are doing. ] 19:45, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the ], but other ]es exist. In particular, the ] process can result in deletion without discussion, and ] allows discussion to reach ] for deletion.<!-- Template:Proposed deletion notify --> ] (]) 07:14, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
:: That's pretty, but it does nothing to remove the clutter from the page. There is a massive consensus that Misplaced Pages is a wiki and that clutter can be removed. The recent doomed attempt to change policy to disallow this has failed ''abysmally''. --] 01:12, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
== ] of ] ==
]


The article ] has been ]&#32;because of the following concern:
== ] ==
<blockquote>'''Notability-- cannot find secondary sources discussing the company'''</blockquote>


While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, pages may be ].
Hi. I see you've blocked ] as a sockpuppet of ]. I've looked at JamieAdams' talk history and the behaviour seems very out of character for Sweetiepetitie. I've never seen the latter be so provocative. I don't have the technical knowledge to explain the IP address, but I do notice that he/she has had problems with AOL proxies recently.<p>Anyhow, as far as I know, Sweetiepetie has done nothing to warrant being permablocked -- I've had the user's Userpage on my watchlist for a while now too, and follow the project he's mainly involved in. I'm going to unblock the user, awaiting your response with more information. ] 13:14, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
: Please take this to ], who performed the sock checks and told me that this editor was a sock of ]. --] 14:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your ] or on ].
== Scent of a personal attack against you ==


Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the ], but other ]es exist. In particular, the ] process can result in deletion without discussion, and ] allows discussion to reach ] for deletion.<!-- Template:Proposed deletion notify --> ] (]) 11:54, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
See ] for what has the scent of a personal attack directed against you by ]. Regards, User:Ceyockey (<small>'']''</small>) 02:18, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
: Oh it's not a big deal. I think I had some hassle from {{user5|THE_KING}}, a known problem editor, earlier this week and he's sore about the fact that I didn't waste a lot of time on him.. --] 02:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 11:54, 30 May 2024

This user may have left Misplaced Pages. Tony Sidaway has not edited Misplaced Pages since 8 October 2021. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

Nomination of OpenBSD security features for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article OpenBSD security features is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/OpenBSD security features until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Tonystewart14 (talk) 03:06, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Tony Sidaway. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Joycelyn O'Brien for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Joycelyn O'Brien is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Joycelyn O'Brien until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. soetermans. 22:33, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Tony Sidaway. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Task force climate change

Hello Tony Sidaway,

You are currently noted as a participant of the Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Environment/Climate change task force. With much of the activity in this task force about ten years ago, I think it's time for a revival. Global warming is getting a lot of attention in the media now and it's therefore important our articles are up-to-date, accurate and neutral.

I've updated the task force page and the to do list and invite you to have a look at the page again, add something to the TO DO list or start collaborating by improving one of our many articles. If climate change has lost your interest, feel free to remove your name from the participants list.

Femke Nijsse (talk) 16:36, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Re: Time I stopped being a curmudgeon about signs of appreciation's barnstar

You did THAT to the Gamergate article—in 2015?!?!!! That is one well deserved barnstar, lemme tell you! The nostalgia! My best friend and I were following The Jimquisition, Unskippable, Zero Punctuation and other then-The Escapist fare of the time, several days a week, so we saw that blow up real-time! Dude, I mean...dude. Dang.

...

Thank you for all your hard work, there and elsewhere! Thank you very much! —Geekdiva (talk) 10:33, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I worked hard on several controversial articles for a long time, and I think my work was appreciated. Global warming is one, Gamergate controversy is another, and there were many others. TS 22:23, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

How to control global warming listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect How to control global warming. Since you had some involvement with the How to control global warming redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. — the Man in Question (in question) 23:56, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Moving to inactive

Hi, FYI the climate change task force is now a stand-alone project (WP:WikiProject Climate change). You were once listed as active at the task force but from your contribs it appears you are in (semi?) wiki retirement. I've therefore taken liberty to move your name to the inactive list, but feel free to rejoin us any time! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:40, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Hope you're doing well, whatever you're up to

Thanks for the good wishes. I'm largely disengaging from all social forums, as indicated here . There's still time for me to reconnect with my solipsistic side, I hope. Only by shutting out all you zombies can I have any peace, which for some reason seems to involve lots of microcontroller stuff and obscure programming languages. --TS 13:38, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

If I could find it, I'd send you lyrics to a song where the singer, in first person, places a cell call to someone else, asking if the other party received his email. The conversation goes live into the mens room when the singer walks in on an occupied stall. He wants to talk about techno weenie who piled it all up on a sheet of plywood, doused it with crisco, set it afire, and disappeared into the Rockies leaving only an address at the corner store. But the ironic refrain claims the speaker isn't a victim of the techno world "oops, didn't know the stall was occ-uuuuu-piiiiied....." Good for you, and if you can stand a bit of zombi speak, I have just what the doctor ordered NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:28, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
I've returned to the coastline between the rivers Tyne and Wear, which I choose to call Mesopotamia for obvious reasons. Nature is very much evident here, where I grew up. I get out onto the coastal walks whenever I can. --TS 19:05, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
Awesome! I just returned from a forest school outting (classic version) with multiple families. The kiddos turned up many species of mushrooms, saprophytic vascular plants, a tree frog, multiple salamanders, various aquatic creepie crawlies which in our area indicate a stream has high water quality. This made me quite happy since not that long ago that stream had problems. Enjoy your anti digital reawakening! I haven't managed to pull the plug yet, obviously. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:18, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Triassic turtles

A tag has been placed on Category:Triassic turtles requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Liz 17:32, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Username Eligible

My username is suitable for Misplaced Pages editing? User:WeTalkWiki 14:33, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. I see no problem with your username, though I'm hardly up to date with current practice on Misplaced Pages. If you find the username being challenged, and this makes it difficult to improve Misplaced Pages, I believe you can ask for it to be changed. I'm sure you realise that the purpose of the wiki is to produce a great encyclopedia, it isn't for experiments in what constitutes a valid identifier. --TS 22:43, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of List of locations in Pirates of the Caribbean

Notice

The article List of locations in Pirates of the Caribbean has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:LISTN. It's all WP:PLOT information aside from trivial filming location details. It is in no way a justified spin-out.

While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. TTN (talk) 12:25, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:SuperOffice Logo.png

⚠
⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 04:59, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:19, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Userboxes

Hey Tony. I made a user box using one of your quotes. User:Slightsmile/Userboxes/wikilawyering. SlightSmile 17:41, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Kronstadt mutinies

Notice

The article Kronstadt mutinies has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Might be some potential for a legitimate article here, but in this case such a poor starting point that we might as well start from scratch.

While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. PatGallacher (talk) 13:02, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Coordinators and help needed

Hi, if you are active on Misplaced Pages and are still interested in helping out with urgent tasks on our large Schools Project, please let us know here. We look forward to hearing from you.

Sent to project members 13:59, 29 August 2021 (UTC). You can opt of messages here.

A kitten for you!

i love kittens!!111

Namehumor (talk) 17:12, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Gradient Analytics

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Gradient Analytics requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a company, corporation or organization that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. – S. Rich (talk) 06:43, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Svedeesh Cheff.png

Notice

The file File:Svedeesh Cheff.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unused Misplaced Pages screenshot, no obvious use.

While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --Minorax 14:02, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

A goat for you!

Hope you're doing well Tony.

Herostratus (talk) 16:09, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

"Prince Charles" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Prince Charles has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 14 § Prince Charles until a consensus is reached. Векочел (talk) 14:54, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Talk:Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 1/Old cast list with references

Talk:Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 1/Old cast list with references, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 1/Old cast list with references and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Talk:Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 1/Old cast list with references during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. HouseBlaster 22:10, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Joseph Long (actor)

Notice

The article Joseph Long (actor) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Has worked as an actor but not had the roles to meet WP:ENT / WP:GNG. Long-time unref BLP.

While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Boleyn (talk) 07:14, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Gradient Analytics

Notice

The article Gradient Analytics has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Notability-- cannot find secondary sources discussing the company

While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Queenofconfusion (talk) 11:54, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Categories: