Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Carcharoth (talk | contribs) at 02:05, 9 July 2007 (→WP:JENNA: comments). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

User:Tony Sidaway/OTRS review

Archives

no archives yet (create)

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

Re: TWINKLE Bug

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

Misplaced Pages:Consensus not numbers

While I agree with it, do you really need to prefix ] to every comment you make on requests for adminship? In my opinion, it is just as distracting and useless as *'''SUPER DUPER STRONG LESBIAN SUPPORT'''. Kotepho 15:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

It's my way of making a comment on a request for adminship without voting. Its utility is in linking to an explanation of why I use that method. --Tony Sidaway 15:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Reminder: don't forget the end tags, too

If you're going to remove the spoiler tags, don't forget the end spoiler tags as well. ;) David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 20:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Richard Gere

Hi Tony. You may wish to take a look at the Richard Gere talk page. Your removal has been reverted several times by an editor there. BCST2001 08:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:JENNA

Per your comments at WT:HARM, I've removed the "private individual" references from WP:HARM#TEST (inappropriate shortcut name fixed. Carcharoth 01:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)). Is this rewording OK? Walton 12:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

You didn't reply to my comment here - am I to assume you're satisfied with the current wording? Walton 18:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I've re-read it. I've noticed that my own standards are considerably tighter than those of other editors. For instance I consider inclusion of the name of Baby 81 to be an absolutely unacceptable intrusion into his privacy and of no value in the article; a large number of other editors don't seem to see that there is even a problem there. I'm reluctantly accepting the status quo for now but will quietly exert background influence until the thinking on this changes.

I don't understand this:

The only exception to this is in obviously frivolous cases, such as the redaction of names from a featured article.

If the article can appear on the main page, obviously the privacy argument is much stronger, so Featured Article status cannot conceivably make the redaction obviously frivolous where it was not already frivolous.

Redaction of names should not always be discussed. Insisting on discussing to the death a matter related privacy is in itself an invasion of privacy. This was clear in QZ discussions on the Badlydrawnjeff arbitration, and the arbitrators dropped enough hints to dissuade editors who insisted on re-inserting names.

Deletions, similarly, should not always be discussed openly. Email is better.

The "two-admin rule" is flawed. "At least one uninvolved administrator" is weaseling because any administrator who agrees with the first will be labelled as involved. It's in the nature of these things. --Tony Sidaway 19:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, how about this compromise? I've taken out the references to FA, and inserted some rough guidelines on the use of names in discussions. Walton 19:34, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Jumping in here. I know you think Jenna Bush is a good example. I happen to think she is eminently non-notable and hence a bad example, but regardless of that, do you think you could find some other examples, and another name and shortcut, before WP:JENNA catches on? We wouldn't want her to become notable for being an internal Misplaced Pages meme, now, would we? :-) Carcharoth 00:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe Euan Blair could be another example? Carcharoth 00:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

These examples are uniformly offensive. They are exercises in insensitivity. They are the antithesis of Misplaced Pages. Give an example like this a name, and you have invaded his privacy, or else missed the point. We are not, nor must we become, torturers. We are merely encyclopedists. We record only what is important, not what the ranting lunatics think is important. --Tony Sidaway 00:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I am going to rename and move WP:HARM#TEST (inappropriate shortcut name fixed. Carcharoth 01:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)). I hope it hasn't been used too widely. I think it all comes back to NPOV, and what Seraphimblade said:

"For example, let's say some political intern is caught up in a political embezzlement scandal, but that's all we really know about them. If the scandal is notable and they're a key part of the incident, we should certainly mention them in the event article, but we shouldn't present an article under their name, in which the only sourced information we can put is "John Doe was accused of involvement in the Big Bad 2008 Embezzlement Scandal." That's not a biography, and we would be violating NPOV's requirement of due weight by presenting that one incident as the sum total of that person's life. On the other hand, when a person is notable, we certainly can include negative information regarding them provided that it is already public knowledge and reliably sourced. Ted Kennedy is notable, so we include information about Chappaquiddick in his biography. Bill Clinton is notable, so we include information about the Lewinsky scandal in his biography. But those articles really are biographies, and cover far more aspects of those people's lives than involvement in one negative incident.

In the case of the Blair and Bush children, there is more to say about them than just the negative incidents. But not a lot. Just keep the articles short and sweet, and avoid the more obvious tabloid content. Just enough information for a curious reader following a link to find out who this person is, and no more. Dry informative facts, not salacious news stories and rumours. Carcharoth 01:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

It all comes down to Monicagate. Monica Lewinsky was a creation of the press. The story is that Clinton denied having sex with an intern, and then admitted to lying. The business with the dress, etc, are all encyclopedic. The intern's name is encyclpodic. Her dress size is not. Her shoe size is not. Where she graduated probably is not (and I mean really I would find the suggestion that it is *most* surprising). And so on.

When we get Wikipedians writing tripe like:

The affair led to a period of pop culture celebrity for Lewinsky as a younger-generation nexus of a political storm that was both lighthearted and extremely serious at the same time

then we have serious problems. We should not encourage the abuse of Misplaced Pages. --Tony Sidaway 01:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

So you think our Monica Lewinsky article should be a lot, lot shorter? Just a "footnote masquerading as a separate page", and only linked from the relevant articles to provide background information? That's my view anyway. It might be interesting to make this a real example. Try a Bill Clinton article where there is not link to a Monica Lewinsky article, but only a footnote (though a similar footnote would be needed in the other articles in which she is mentioned). Second, try a Bill Clinton article where there is a link to a very short, stubby Lewinsky article, more like a "main article" linked from a summary in the Clinton article. Thirdly, the present situation, the Bill Clinton article has a link to a full-blown biography of Monica Lewinsky. Could be interesting. Anyway, I've corrected all links to 'WP:JENNA', though the redirect itself is still here. I'm now going to ask the creator to nominate it for deletion. Carcharoth 02:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jessica Michalik

Tony, you closed the AFD Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jessica Michalik as a "delete" and advocated a redirect to replace it, but the article is still there. Please take a look and delete the article and add a redirect to the target article. Or am I misreading the AFD? Thanks. Edison 18:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

There were issues with the debate. Some people had turned up late and marshaled their valid points poorly, and at the deletion review a lot of facts emerged that had not been presented in the deletion debate. It was restored at the end of the review. See Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2007 June 25. --Tony Sidaway 18:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

QZ

I tried to get it speedied but an admin declined. Would you please take care of this BLP violation and the associated redirects? This user thinks that just because reliable sources are quoting rumors that makes the rumors reliable. -N 21:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the talk page. The MFD will take care of that if it's deletable. The redirects are not a problem. Basically this is old news and it's best to keep it very, very low key. If somebody pushes this one over the edge, well it may go to arbitration, but overreacting is not good. --Tony Sidaway 22:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Al Gore III

So... are you going to venture into this morass or not? :) Kaldari 23:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I see no problem there. If one materializes I may wade in. --Tony Sidaway 23:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Verified information

So now there's an invisible source in this article that I don't see saying Lehman is a person? Tony, don't be an ass. Are you that bent on deletion that you've read the DRV (you should have—you bitched about it) but would rather strip an article down to five words than copy/paste the sources you saw? Your actions are harmful to the encyclopedia, it would be better for it if you stopped editing than carrying on like you've been with this AfD. BigNate37 16:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Please add sourced and verifiable information about this person to the article. --Tony Sidaway 16:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Signature doctoring

Please do not modify my comments. Here is fine; do what you will in your userspace, but stop tampering with my signature elsewhere. BigNate37 17:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Your signature is exceptionally large and extremely ugly. Please don't complain if I edit a talk page to remove unnecessary clutter. --Tony Sidaway 17:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Not complaining about pulling out the colouring and clutter, I support that, but leaving in his talk page link would be helpful. --tjstrf talk 17:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I sometimes remember to do something like this: BigNate37. I'll try to take the time to do that in future. --Tony Sidaway 17:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

From WP:TALK#Behavior that is unacceptable, "As a rule, don't edit others' comments. Exceptions are described in the next section." The exceptions referred to say nothing about signatures. WP:SIG#Customizing your signature talks about "signatures that take up more than two or three lines". Mine is less than three on a conservatively narrow display, and only one and a half with Firefox fullscreened on my standard aspect ratio screen. Hence, stop editing my comments or back it up with policy. BigNate37 17:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Change your signature or stop complaining. --Tony Sidaway 17:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Tony, please stop editing my comments. Even after being off-wiki for a while, it is becoming difficult to keep a cool head when you change my signature everywhere you comment. BigNate37 03:04, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

It is my normal practice to edit talk pages for readability and editability. Your signature must not be treated as an opportunity for self-expression, it's solely there to identify you. Use your user page if you want to be creative. And stop bugging me. --Tony Sidaway 03:11, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Unless their chosen signature somehow leaves the page bollixed up, you have no more right to change it than they do to change yours to "Sony Tidaway." Edison 04:51, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Sony Tidaway would not correctly identify my username. Large amounts of unsightly clutter on user pages and in edit boxes degrade the discussion environment, and may be removed. --Tony Sidaway 09:59, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

spoilers self ref

I was using the spoiler self refs just as you are removing it. I wondered why it was there on spoilers (note the 's'), then refresh to spoiler --> not there. 70.80.113.243 04:56, 7 July 2007 (UTC) I think this reference is used quite often.

It's not normally needed. For instance in a section labelled "Plot summary" it's obvious that the plot will be discussed. Normal practice at present is to remove such unnecessary style tags. --Tony Sidaway 09:58, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Who decides what is needed and what isnt? 69.249.157.70 22:27, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Discussion and consensus. --Tony Sidaway 22:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

What discussion and consensus? I see a lot of debate but no consensus. 69.249.157.70 23:12, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

If there's no consensus, we don't place the tags. --Tony Sidaway 23:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Chronology of the Doctor Who universe

This is currently a Featured list candidate. Some concerns have been raised, principally about OR. I see from the talk page that you nearly AfD'd it for this reason, but appear to have subsequently got involved. I'd be interested in your opinion on its candidacy. If you feel too involved to "vote", your comments would still be appreciated. Cheers, Colin° 19:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm generally opposed to the concept of Featured Articles. Few if any of the articles with such designation seem to live up to the promise of being the best that Misplaced Pages can do. Moreover this article is an example of a kind that is very tricky to produce, because there is nothing much to go on. I haven't looked at it for ages, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if it's still infested with speculation about Rose's lost year. --Tony Sidaway 20:20, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Readability and editability

Tony, hi.

I noticed your statement above: "It is my normal practice to edit talk pages for readability and editability." I'm interested in this idea. Would you please, if you think about it sometime, send me an example of a talk page that you find to be a particularly egregious example of poor readability and editability?

I do some similar tidying up occasionally, and I'd like to compare notes on what different people do to make a talk page more readable, from their perspective. -GTBacchus 20:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

My strategy is to removed tripe that gets in the way of discussion when I find it. Obviously it wouldn't be much use to me to remove tripe that didn't affect my ability to understand and respond to discussion. But where my ability to discuss the material is adversely affected by the manner of its presentation, I will correct the problem. I think this is reasonable. --Tony Sidaway 00:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)