Wikipedia

Tony Sidaway

Joined 26 November 2004
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
SDZeroBot (talk | contribs)
Bots
835,769 edits
Nomination of Usenet II for deletion at AfD
 
Line 1:
{{not around|3=8 October 2021}}
{{Users/TopNav|username=Tony_Sidaway}}
{{Message box|image=Info.svg|text=Older messages can be found in the history of this talk page.}}
{| align=right
== Nomination of [[:OpenBSD security features]] for deletion ==
{{User Tony Sidaway/User}}
<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">[[File:Ambox warning orange.svg|48px|alt=|link=]]</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article '''[[:OpenBSD security features]]''' is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to [[Wikipedia:List of policies and guidelines|Wikipedia's policies and guidelines]] or whether it should be [[Wikipedia:Deletion policy|deleted]].
|}
<div style="align: center; padding: 1em; border: dashed 2px black; background-color: skyblue;">
This is [[User:Tony Sidaway|my]] '''[[User_talk:Tony Sidaway|talk page]]'''. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Tony_Sidaway&action=edit&section=new Click here to leave a new message.]</div>
{{User:Tony Sidaway/Templates/TalkArchiveBar}}
== User:BGC on new revert spree ==
 
The article will be discussed at [[Wikipedia: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.
[[User:BGC]] has again resumed systematically reverting album articles to his preferred text, deleting all recent contributions from other editors and using inappropriate/misleading edit summaries when he uses edit summaries at all. Beyond the usual issues, he is adding various star images back to infoboxes, despite the recently established consensus to remove them. He is also systematically deleting all admin warnings from his talk page, usually no more than a day or so after each is posted. [[User:Monicasdude|Monicasdude]] 15:36, 4 January 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 --> [[User:Tonystewart14|Tonystewart14]] ([[User talk:Tonystewart14|talk]]) 03:06, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
== Missing the Forest... ==
 
== ArbCom 2017 election voter message ==
I just have to add a comment to this talk page, in light of the ongoing struggle over administrator priviledge and userboxes. I try hard to assume good faith, and I certainly would like to have the same assumed of my actions. Having contributed a number of userboxes, and finding them deleted without notice, I was confused. Upon digging deeper, I saw that the problem was much more serious that a few templates being deleted out of process. There are a number of admins that seem to think that they have the right to dictate to the masses what is and is not acceptable content in the user space. This is wrong. User space is where wikipedians are allowed to express their POV, personal convictions, and interests. Admins do have a responsibility to wikipedia, but first and foremost it should be recognized that wikipedia only exists because of wikipedians. Actions such as mass purges, mass deletions, and mass edits without explanation, are basically the most disruptive possible avenue available. In the grand scheme of things, userboxes are basically unimportant, but they have become the most critical issue on the wikipedia at present because they have been attacked by administrators without comment or explanation, outside of process, and with no regard for the impact this has on the community. I am unhappy with your part in this, Tony, and I expected better. I feel that admins should learn from their mistakes, and the mistakes of others, but I am afraid I see these being repeated. If you feel you have the right, then you are welcome to exercise it - but you will destroy the wikipedia if you destroy the desire of wikipedians to participate. I think you should take some time to admire the forest before you start chopping down the trees that others have planted with love. --[[User:Dschor|Dschor]] 22:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
::Dschor, please see: ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Kelly_Martin/original#Outside_view_by_MegamanZero]) -[[User:MegamanZero|MegamanZero]]|[[User talk:MegamanZero|Talk]] 22:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 
{{Ivmbox|Hello, Tony Sidaway. Voting in the '''[[WP:ACE2017|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 encyclopedia comes before the community, every single time. The encyclopedia is the forest. Sticking silly labels on your user page must not be mistaken for participating in the production of an encyclopedia. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 22:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
::Mr. Sidaway, who makes the encyclopedia..? -[[User:MegamanZero|MegamanZero]]|[[User talk:MegamanZero|Talk]] 23:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
:::Very true. However, deleting the templates was not related to the production of an encyclopedia - they weren't part of it. The resulting uproar isn't producing an encyclopedia either. In fact, I'd go so far as to say it's actively ''hurting'' the encyclopedia. [[User:Friday|Friday]] [[User talk:Friday|(talk)]] 23:04, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 
The [[WP:ARBCOM|Arbitration Committee]] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration|Wikipedia 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 [[WP:BAN|site bans]], [[WP:TBAN|topic bans]], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy|arbitration policy]] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Not at all. Deleting these particular userboxes can never, ever, hurt the enyclopedia, and the resulting uproar is just so much silly shouting. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 23:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2017/Candidates|the candidates]] and submit your choices on the '''[[Special:SecurePoll/vote/400|voting page]]'''. [[User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] ([[User talk:MediaWiki message delivery|talk]]) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
:Sigh. It's this kind of dismissive attitude toward legitimate criticism that will surely cause you to lose a lot of respect from your peers. You need to realize that reasonable people can reasonably disagree. Your actions are not above reproach; not everyone who criticizes them is silly or ridiculous. [[User:Friday|Friday]] [[User talk:Friday|(talk)]] 01:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
|Scale of justice 2.svg|imagesize=40px}}
<!-- Message sent by User:Xaosflux@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2017/Coordination/MMS/11&oldid=813413898 -->
== Nomination of [[:Joycelyn O'Brien]] for deletion ==
<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">[[File:Ambox warning orange.svg|48px|alt=|link=]]</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article '''[[:Joycelyn O'Brien]]''' is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to [[Wikipedia:List of policies and guidelines|Wikipedia's policies and guidelines]] or whether it should be [[Wikipedia:Deletion policy|deleted]].
 
The article will be discussed at [[Wikipedia: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.
Here's the deal: if arbcom changes from its current universal rejection of the userboxes case to accepting it on the basis that there is something else going on than a ridiculous fuss about userboxes, then I'll agree that the criticism of my actions in deleting lots of userboxes that could be used in pushing points of view was something other than "silly shouting." --02:26, 5 January 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 --> [[User:Soetermans|<span class="smallcaps" style="font-variant:small-caps;">soetermans</span>]]. [[User talk: Soetermans|<sup>↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A <span class="smallcaps" style="font-variant:small-caps;">'''TALK'''</span></sup>]] 22:33, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
:Perhaps all of this is silly shouting, but the subject is important to the future of the wikipedia. Arbcom is not going to take the case because they would be setting a precedent that would be used against other admins - you can't expect administrators to act responsibly at this point, can you? They are protecting their own rear ends. Just apologize for pissing off hundreds of fellow wikipedians, and we can all get on with the encyclopedia. And next time maybe use the deletion process rather than provoke a shouting match? It's about being civil. --[[User:Dschor|Dschor]] 11:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 
== ArbCom 2018 election voter message ==
Not sure about your reasoning here. Administrators are already bound by everything applying to other editors. I don't think any one needs to apologise for acting in the interets of Wikipedia. For instance, deletion of unused fair use images happens every day, as does removal of such images from userspace. This intensely annoys many people, but it still has to go on. Nobody owns any part of Wikipedia, "my" userpage only exists insofar as it advances the project. As one becomes an experienced editor, one must take these facts on board. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 20:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 
{{Ivmbox|Hello, Tony Sidaway. Voting in the '''[[WP:ACE2018|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.
== Wheel wars ==
 
The [[WP:ARBCOM|Arbitration Committee]] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration|Wikipedia 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 [[WP:BAN|site bans]], [[WP:TBAN|topic bans]], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy|arbitration policy]] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
In the light of recent controversies I have done some investigation into wheel warring, and have found you to be one of the three most often involved parties. As I believe wheel warring is disruptive to the Wiki, I have requested the ArbCom to look into this. Please take a look at [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Wheel warring]]. [[User:Radiant!|R]][[User_talk:Radiant!|adiant]][[meta:mergist|_<font color="orange">&gt;|&lt;</font>]] 23:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2018/Candidates|the candidates]] and submit your choices on the '''[[Special:SecurePoll/vote/710|voting page]]'''. [[User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] ([[User talk:MediaWiki message delivery|talk]]) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
==Userbox deletion noms==
|Scale of justice 2.svg|imagesize=40px}}
Man have you stirred up a hornet's nest.[[User:Gateman1997|Gateman1997]] 23:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
<!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2018/Coordination/MMS/11&oldid=866998401 -->
:Easily avoided with '''discussion''' beforehand. Simple, really. I am inquiring what's so hard about it.-[[User:MegamanZero|MegamanZero]]|[[User talk:MegamanZero|Talk]] 23:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
::Now I'm sure Tony was acting in good faith. I vehemntly disagree with him, as do the majority of Wikipedians by the look of the way the vote is shaping up but that's neither here nor there. I have to agree though that THIS was not the way to go about this. The shit storm that has been generated is doing nothing to improve the project.[[User:Gateman1997|Gateman1997]] 23:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
:::I agree. But you're right. This is ''not'' the way to handle this situation. -[[User:MegamanZero|MegamanZero]]|[[User talk:MegamanZero|Talk]] 23:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
:::Not necessarily the majority. Just the most vocal. [[User:Sam Korn|<nowiki>[[Sam Korn]]</nowiki>]] 23:33, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
::::My my last estimation it is 25:1 keep:delete on that vote... that's a pretty strong majority, by any standard. If anything the "vocal" ones are the people this week who keep insisting userboxes are evil.[[User:Gateman1997|Gateman1997]] 23:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
:::::I believe that's a majority of those who care, not of Wikipedians. [[User:Sam Korn|<nowiki>[[Sam Korn]]</nowiki>]] 23:37, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
::::::Probably not wrong in terms of it's 20:1 or whatever of those who care. But frankly if that's the case then this should be closed lickity split as consensus says keep em.[[User:Gateman1997|Gateman1997]] 23:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
:::::::::::That pretty much sums up the fact to me that something is not quite right. 25:1..?! Geez. Just ''please'' talk first. -[[User:MegamanZero|MegamanZero]]|[[User talk:MegamanZero|Talk]] 23:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 
== Task force climate change ==
There was enough discussion beforehand. The userboxes I deleted are clearly a problem for Wikipedia. I've no idea where the 25:1 figure comes from. Unless you're counting votes. Um, you're not counting votes, are you? :) --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 23:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
:No just reading the consensus opinion on the TFD you created. Consensus says you are wrong.[[User:Gateman1997|Gateman1997]] 23:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
::Indeed. You ignored others viewpoints. Okay, you're up to at least a bazillion situations today regarding inconsideration. This means you're ignoring your own concensus, you're ignoring the reason everyone disagreed with the TFD, you're ignoring that rfc, you're ignoring at least two weeks and probably more of people telling you to stop deleting sans discussion. And yes, I'm aware that the rfar is being turned down by arbcom (thank goodness). This doesn't mean you have carte blanche to delete until they tell you to stop. -[[User:MegamanZero|MegamanZero]]|[[User talk:MegamanZero|Talk]] 00:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
:::Well do give him credit for going through the proper process. More then one other users has totally bypassed it this week and just outright deleted. We asked that person to follow process and Tony has done just that. And process is now proving that users want the supposed userless userboxes so we were justified in asking for the process to be followed. I'm actually torn on this. On one hand I think Tony has gone off the deep end for doing this, but on the other hand he's actually helping by following process and creating a precedent that we keep userboxes like these.[[User:Gateman1997|Gateman1997]] 00:12, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
::::Agreed. This is why I choose him as a mentor. But...this situation still reminds me of bad memories (you know...'''that''' rfc)-[[User:MegamanZero|MegamanZero]]|[[User talk:MegamanZero|Talk]] 00:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
:::::Yeah bad memories indeed. If we can get past the division this has created the people who like the userboxes will actually come out in a stronger position then before this TFD and the detractors will be in the weaker position. So overall I'm not that upset with Tony right now.[[User:Gateman1997|Gateman1997]] 00:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
::::::Don't really mind userboxes ethier way. I just want people to be civil in dealing with this situation more. That's all I want. I believe that's all of the people want. -[[User:MegamanZero|MegamanZero]]|[[User talk:MegamanZero|Talk]] 00:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
:::::::Actually this debate though heated has remained fairly civil. Surely it's no worse then the school debates got at their peak.[[User:Gateman1997|Gateman1997]] 00:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 
Hello Tony Sidaway,
It fundamentally doesn't matter to Wikipedia how many people get upset over their precious userboxes. They exist only insofar as they're useful to Wikipedia. If they prove a liability, then they will die even if a couple of hundred editors of Wikipedia participate in a straw poll demanding them back. Wikipedia editors are here to edit Wikipedia, not to pretend that Wikipedia is a democracy or indeed any kind of government. Shape up or ship out. Adapt to Wikipedia or die. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 00:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
*You may have to abide by the same sentiments if consensus goes against you.[[User:Gateman1997|Gateman1997]] 00:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
*Following an earlier remark by gateman1997: it's just about possible that the TfD doesn't establish a majority for keeping userboxes, since many of the keep votes were asking for decisions about the fate of the templates to be deferred until after the policy is hammered out. --- [[User:Chalst|Charles Stewart]] 00:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
**I know all about the "hammering out" that's been going on. That has also been widely in favor of keeping the userboxes. The main bone of contention revolves around the categories attached to userboxes less then the boxes themselves in most other discussions.[[User:Gateman1997|Gateman1997]] 00:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
***I should say that what I wrote hasn't been true for 16 hours or so: my what a hornet's nest. It's been stirred up, I think, by putting TfD notices on the templates themselves, and not the talk page. --- [[User:Chalst|Charles Stewart]] 02:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
:This seems an irresponsible view to have. If Wikipedia editors get upset and LEAVE (as some have already done), then that's BAD for Wikipedia. Your acts in proposing the deletion of those templates and keeping this conflagration going even after the Kelly Martin debacle are causing more strife than the templates ever did. That's BAD for Wikipedia. Wikipedia thrives on consensus; if an overwhelming majority of editors disagree with you, and think that the userboxes are useful, then that is closer to conesnsus than your personal opinion. Anything else is partisanship, which is BAD for Wikipedia. So yes, it does matter. -- [[User:Hinotori|Hinotori]]<sup><small>[[User_talk:Hinotori|(talk)]]|[[Special:Contributions/Hinotori|(ctrb)]]</small></sup> 04:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 
You are currently noted as a participant of the [[Wikipedia: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'm looking at the userbox policy discussion and, in all honesty, I see no problems there. There has also been extremely productive discussion on the mailing list. There is a general awareness of the serious problems posed by userboxes that represent points of view, and the need for vigilance and care in handling them. I came back to Wikipedia less than 48 hours ago after a break to celebrate New Year with my family and to work on the [[meta:User:Tony_Sidaway/vandalism|vandalism]] tool, but I count this day-and-a-bit as the most productive times I have exprerienced on Wikipedia in terms of hammering out policy. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 00:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
*You may be right in that respect. Not much has changed in that policy, but at least there is a more solid sense of one. However I think this policy debate is really starting to eat into productivity.[[User:Gateman1997|Gateman1997]] 01:00, 5 January 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.
It's okay, it's not like I felt like doing any actual editing right now. I'm in a coding mindet right now so I don't want to break the spell. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 02:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 
[[User:Femkemilene|Femke Nijsse]] ([[User talk:Femkemilene|talk]]) 16:36, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 
== Re: Time I stopped being a curmudgeon about signs of appreciation's barnstar ==
*Thank you for nominating these boxes for deletion. Before it was a small but vocal group of users and admins mass deleting this stuff for POV. But thanks to your use of process, every single person that has a userbox on their page (read everybody) has now been mobilized to stop their user pages from being deleted. Now that everyone is involved in the debate I feel much more confident that the userboxes are safe. You have done a great service to userboxes. Congrats.--'''[[User:God_of_War|God of]][[User Talk:God_of_War| War]]''' 09:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
*:I think some policy changes are in order. The userboxes are adolescent and have multiplied tremendously over the past month. Please read [[WP:NOT]] especially [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox Wikipedia is not a soapbox] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_democracy Wikipedia is not a Democracy]--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 09:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 
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 (magazine)|The Escapist]]'' fare of the time, several days a week, so we saw that blow up real-time! Dude, I mean...'''''dude'''''. Dang.
I suspect that your confidence in the mere process is misplaced. It doesn't matter how many people are "mobilized", if those items prove deleterius to Wikipedia they die. Wikipedia is not a democracy. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 09:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 
...
What's the problem at all with e.g. [[Template:user religion interest]] or [[Template:user humanist]]? Would you be so kind to explain '''why''' you consider the statement that someone is ''interested'' in religios topics (on a userpage) offensive? So why not being consistent and delete all user pages? Regards, --[[User:Junyi|Junyi]] [[User Talk:Junyi|論]] 12:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 
Thank you for all your hard work, there and elsewhere! Thank you very much! —[[User:Geekdiva|Geekdiva]] ([[User talk:Geekdiva|talk]]) 10:33, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
:Yes, I am also curious about [[Template:User religion interest]], as it appears that this is one of the (very few) userboxes that not only is truly NPOV but actually has the potential to help us write articles by making it easier to locate people who are informed on topics related to religion. I'm assuming that you just listed everything that was on [[Wikipedia:Userboxes/Religion]]? - [[User:AdelaMae|AdelaMae]] <sup>([[User_talk:AdelaMae|talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/AdelaMae|contribs]])</sup> 11:27, 6 January 2006 (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. [[User talk:Tony Sidaway|TS]] 22:23, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm just not sure why Tony Sidaway is the sole arbiter of what's "deleterious" to Wikipedia. [[User:Grace Note|Grace Note]] 01:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 
== How to control global warming listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] ==
I don't believe that anybody had ever suggested that I am--until you did just there. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 11:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
[[File:Information.svg|30px|left]]
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 [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 July 8#How to control global warming|the redirect discussion]] if you wish to do so. <!-- from Template:RFDNote --> — <span style="font-family:gill sans">[[User:the Man in Question|the Man in Question]]</span> [[User talk:the Man in Question|<small>(in question)</small>]] 23:56, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 
== KudosMoving to inactive ==
[[Image:Shovel black.jpg|right|300px|thumb|For tireless defense of [[WP:NOT]], I hereby award you this fine shovel so that you will now be best equiped to deal with all the "stuff" you come across.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 03:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC)]]
Congrats to you for taking the bull by the horns and nuking those adolescent userboxes...I can see that they do nothing but help to create polarizations in what is supposed to be a collaborative NPOV effort to write an encyclopedia. By deleting those userboxes, you definitely utilize the defining points of what [[WP:NOT|Wikipedia is not]]. This isn't a chat room, a gathering place or a blog. It is a serious effort to build a better encyclopedia. I'd give you a barnstar, but you said you hate them...so instead I'll just give you my support.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 02:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 
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! [[User:NewsAndEventsGuy|NewsAndEventsGuy]] ([[User talk:NewsAndEventsGuy|talk]]) 20:40, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Oh you can still give me an award. Go to commons and find me a picture of something star-shaped (I've used. starfish etc in the past) and pop it here and I'll be delighted. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 02:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 
== Hope you're doing well, whatever you're up to ==
Oh that's perfect! Thank you. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 03:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 
[[File:Wikipe-tan head.png|60px]]
== Alternatives to Userboxes ==
 
Thanks for the good wishes. I'm largely disengaging from all social forums, as indicated [https://mobile.twitter.com/TonySidaway/status/1159137537983750155 here] [brief Twitter thread]. There's still time for me to reconnect with my solipsistic side, I hope. Only by shutting out [[All You Zombies|all you zombies]] can I have any peace, which for some reason seems to involve lots of microcontroller stuff and obscure programming languages. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|TS]] 13:38, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
I know you have been active in trying to remove 'group identification' userboxes so I'd like to run something past you. This morning I put together {{template|User Infobox}} as a possible alternative way for people to present this kind of information. Currently it is only used at [[User:CBDunkerson]]. Userboxes allow 'standardized' presentation of information... but they aren't the only way to do that. This infobox isn't 'ready for prime time' yet, but I think what I have built so far shows that it can be expanded out to cover most/all of what currently appears in userboxes. Objections that 'group information' lets people know who they are dealing with could be met equally well by this. However, since this is text it wouldn't facilitate 'networking' in the ways we have been seeing lately. Let me know if you think it is worth pursuing. --[[User:CBDunkerson|CBD]] <big><sub>[[User talk:CBDunkerson|&#x260E;]]</sub></big> <sup>[[Special:Emailuser/CBDunkerson|&#x2709;]]</sup> 03:26, 5 January 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 [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bf5TgVRGND4 just what the doctor ordered] [[User:NewsAndEventsGuy|NewsAndEventsGuy]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|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. [[User:NewsAndEventsGuy|NewsAndEventsGuy]] ([[User talk:NewsAndEventsGuy|talk]]) 20:18, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
==[[Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion|Speedy deletion]] nomination of [[:Category:Triassic turtles]]==
[[File:Ambox warning pn.svg|48px|left|alt=|link=]]
 
A tag has been placed on [[:Category:Triassic turtles]] requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under [[WP:CSD#C1|section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion]], because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a [[:Category:Disambiguation categories|disambiguation category]], a [[:Category:Wikipedia soft redirected categories|category redirect]], a [[:Category:Wikipedia featured topics categories|featured topics category]], under discussion at [[Wikipedia:Categories for discussion|Categories for discussion]], or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.
I'm not really sure if I can work out what you're trying to do here. Some kind of container for userboxes? Wouldn't it flog the servers to death by its use of double transclusion? --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 09:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
:Hrrrm? No, the userboxes are just tagged on at the end there because the infobox will not (and should not) cover every conceivable topic. Calling those user boxes does perform 'double transclusion', but no moreso than all the current 'Babel-#' templates. The general idea here is to put things like 'religion', 'politics', 'interests', et cetera into a text infobox. People can still 'declare their views' (meeting anti-censorship crowd objection), others can still 'understand who they are talking to' (meeting 'defining bias' objection), it is still in a consistent format for easier reference... but since it is text there are no attached categories or templates to check 'What links here' on. --[[User:CBDunkerson|CBD]] <big><sub>[[User talk:CBDunkerson|&#x260E;]]</sub></big> <sup>[[Special:Emailuser/CBDunkerson|&#x2709;]]</sup> 11:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may '''contest the nomination''' by [[:Category:Triassic turtles|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 [[Wikipedia:List of policies|Wikipedia's policies and guidelines]]. <!-- Template:Db-catempty-notice --> <!-- Template:Db-csd-notice-custom --> <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 17:32, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Oh I see. I didn't realise that there would be no cats and no "what links here". This does sound good, though I'm not so sure it is likely to catch on. In any case this is excellent work and I hope you have success in promoting this alternative form. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 12:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 
== SomeUsername good grace?Eligible ==
I'm attempting in this, as much as possible, to concern myself with errors that ''I've'' made rather than the almost limitless supply of errors that ''others'' have made. To this end, can I ask you to refrain from comments like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Webcomics/Proposed_decision&diff=prev&oldid=33926142 this?] <br/> [[User:Aaron Brenneman|<font color="#2f4f4f">brenneman</font>]][[User Talk:Aaron Brenneman|<font color="#2f4f4f"><sup>(t)</sup></font>]][[Special:Contributions/Aaron Brenneman|<font color="#2f4f4f"><sup>(c)</sup></font>]] 04:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
::Please do so. -[[User:MegamanZero|MegamanZero]]|[[User talk:MegamanZero|Talk]] 05:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 
My username is suitable for Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. If you find the username being challenged, and this makes it difficult to improve Wikipedia, 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. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|TS]] 22:43, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
== [[Wikipedia:Proposed deletion|Proposed deletion]] of [[:List of locations in Pirates of the Caribbean]] ==
[[File:Ambox warning yellow.svg|left|link=|alt=Notice|48px|]]
 
The article [[:List of locations in Pirates of the Caribbean]] has been [[Wikipedia:Proposed deletion|proposed for deletion]]&#32;because of the following concern:
I cannot possibly refrain from comments like that. Could you explain why you think that I should? I'm quite utterly baffled. The case was not a trivial one and attempts to depict it as such are simply incorrect. In my comment, I limited myself to a bare, factual recounting of ''some'' of the findings of fact, against both you and Snowpinner. How else was I to argue that there was nothing trivial about the findings of fact if I did not mention the very same non-trivial findings of fact? I'm quite good at making arguments for and against, but I cannot make a good argument without mentioning facts. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 09:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
<blockquote>Fails [[WP:LISTN]]. It's all [[WP:PLOT]] information aside from trivial filming ___location details. It is in no way a justified spin-out.</blockquote>
::Ara ara,
Let me explain the reaons why as you put it, ''you should possibly refrain from comments like that'':
 
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be [[WP:DEL#REASON|deleted for any of several reasons]].
I don't care what snowspinner was doing, I don't care what Aaron was doing, I don't care how justified your reason was,I don't care if they called you a poopie-head, I don't care if they insulted your mother. Breaching of civility is not allowed. If you're going to tell someone about behavior, fine, and make sure you be more civil in your dealings and '''be considerate''', but don't bother being disrespectful and nasty concenrning people's actions that they're going to be reprimanded for anyway.
 
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your [[Help:edit summary|edit summary]] or on [[Talk:List of locations in Pirates of the Caribbean|the article's talk page]].
As such, I believe you need to think about what you say, and your previous statements ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ATony_Sidaway&diff=32930432&oldid=32930220 here]) and ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tony_Sidaway&diff=next&oldid=32930432 here]) hit the nail on the head as far as regarding as what you should do in future dealings with your fellow wikipedians(well said), and perhaps a cooling-off period. Please consider that the rules against un-civility apply to you as well as people in the wrong. You are better than that, and I hold you in high regard as a wikipedian and admin. <s>Please stop making me think otherwise with commments such as these.<s/> -[[User:MegamanZero|MegamanZero]]|[[User talk:MegamanZero|Talk]] 18:06, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the [[Wikipedia:Proposed deletion|proposed deletion process]], but other [[Wikipedia:deletion process|deletion process]]es exist. In particular, the [[Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion|speedy deletion]] process can result in deletion without discussion, and [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion|articles for deletion]] allows discussion to reach [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] for deletion.<!-- Template:Proposed deletion notify --> [[User:TTN|TTN]] ([[User talk:TTN|talk]]) 12:25, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
You lost me there. My statement was in no way, shape or form uncivil. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 20:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
==Orphaned non-free image File:SuperOffice Logo.png==
::I'll take your word for it. If you don't feel it was un-civil then I will assume you were making that comment in good faith. -[[User:MegamanZero|MegamanZero]]|[[User talk:MegamanZero|Talk]] 21:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
[[File:Ambox warning blue.svg|35px|text-top|left|⚠|link=]] 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 Wikipedia under a [[WP:FU|claim of fair use]]. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia (see [[Wikipedia:Non-free content#Policy|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 [[wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#F5|section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion]]. Thank you.<!-- Template:Di-orphaned fair use-notice --> --[[User:B-bot|B-bot]] ([[User talk:B-bot|talk]]) 04:59, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
==Sorry about the refactor==
I just wanted to say I'm sorry about refactoring the TFD on userboxes. I should have waited longer for objections before jumping in and making the change. For what it's worth, after reading Interiot's response I definitely won't do this again (though it makes me wonder why people on AFD do it when it's discouraged so much in the guide to deletion). —[[User:Locke Cole|Locke Cole]] • [[User talk:Locke Cole|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Locke Cole|c]] 10:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 
== ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message ==
: No problem. I absolutely understand why you did it, in the early days I myself was tempted to do so because it seemed to me to make things better. I learned. :) --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 12:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 
<table class="messagebox " style="border: 1px solid #AAA; background: ivory; padding: 0.5em; width: 100%;">
== More Kudos ==
<tr><td style="vertical-align:middle; padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">[[File:Scale of justice 2.svg|40px]]</td><td>Hello! Voting in the '''[[WP:ACE2020|2020 Arbitration Committee elections]]''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2020|end}}-1 day}}. All '''[[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2020#Election timeline|eligible users]]''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
 
The [[WP:ARBCOM|Arbitration Committee]] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration|Wikipedia 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 [[WP:BAN|site bans]], [[WP:TBAN|topic bans]], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy|arbitration policy]] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Thanks for your efforts on the userbox affair. It's not surprising the way things went given the fact that a TfD notice was included on every affected userbox - effectively a call to arms for userbox supporters, which is what you were trying to stop in the first place! It might be worth trying again in the future if the voting reforms are ever worked out. I have awared you the Supernova of Common Sense for your efforts. [[User:Qarnos|Qarnos]] 14:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 
If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2020/Candidates|the candidates]] and submit your choices on the '''[[Special:SecurePoll/vote/{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2020|poll}}|voting page]]'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. [[User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] ([[User talk:MediaWiki message delivery|talk]]) 01:19, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
: Thank you! You were most considerate in choosing a pretty supernova instead of one of those horrible bits of cast iron. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 15:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
</td></tr>
</table>
<!-- Message sent by User:Xaosflux@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2020/Coordination/MMS/01&oldid=990307860 -->
 
== Hi Tony, I'm back!Userboxes ==
 
Hey Tony. I made a user box using one of your quotes. [[User:Slightsmile/Userboxes/wikilawyering]]. [[User:Slightsmile|<span style="color: navy;">Slight</span>]][[User talk:Slightsmile|<i style="color: teal;">Smile</i>]] 17:41, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi Tony,
 
== [[Wikipedia:Proposed deletion|Proposed deletion]] of [[:Kronstadt mutinies]] ==
It's been ages since I last logged into my Wikipedia account. Hope you've been doing well all this time. I wanted to quickly ask you to unlock my userpage, so that I would make some changes/updates there.
[[File:Ambox warning yellow.svg|left|link=|alt=Notice|48px|]]
 
The article [[:Kronstadt mutinies]] has been [[Wikipedia:Proposed deletion|proposed for deletion]]&#32;because of the following concern:
As to the reasons of my long absence, it's pretty much simple: I simply realized that Wikipedia cannot be a reliable source of information as long as there is no clear and strict mechanisms to prevent vandalism and anon user editing.
<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 Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be [[WP:DEL#REASON|deleted for any of several reasons]].
In July I had lots of work and realized that I won't be able to edit WP as much as earlier. And then, after several weeks, I realized that I am no more a fan of Wikipedia as before.
 
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your [[Help:edit summary|edit summary]] or on [[Talk:Kronstadt mutinies|the article's talk page]].
Nevertheless, today I logged into my account and checked some pages and saw some vandal (most probably that Baku ibne/Osmanoglou vandal) messages alleging that I'm dead, that I'm a "spy" etc etc. (?!) Here are the diff links of some of such postings which I found (maybe there are more: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Caucasus_%28geographic_region%29&diff=prev&oldid=34083795 in Caucasus talkpage], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Safavids&diff=prev&oldid=34083958 in Safavids talkpage (identical)], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh/Archive3&diff=prev&oldid=34084233 in Nagorno-KArabakh archived talkpage (identical)], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Azerbaijan&diff=prev&oldid=34084502 in Azerbaijan talkpage (identical)]. I was even more surprised that no editor deleted this nonsense.
 
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the [[Wikipedia:Proposed deletion|proposed deletion process]], but other [[Wikipedia:deletion process|deletion process]]es exist. In particular, the [[Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion|speedy deletion]] process can result in deletion without discussion, and [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion|articles for deletion]] allows discussion to reach [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] for deletion.<!-- Template:Proposed deletion notify --> [[User:PatGallacher|PatGallacher]] ([[User talk:PatGallacher|talk]]) 13:02, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
I decided to resume my activities in Wikipedia. But from now on, I am not going to waste my time by engaging into disputes with either Armenian or Kurdish/Persian or any other (sock-)users. I will simply create new entries and make edits, and if some editor introduces POV or vandalizes, so let be it. I'm not going to bother. However, if other decent editors would need my feedback and comments on any issue, I will gladly help as much as I can. This is going to be my new strategy of activities in Wikipedia from now on. Bests, --[[User:Tabib|Tabib]] 07:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 
== CurtisCoordinators Malinowskiand help needed ==
 
[[File:School.svg|40px]] Hi, if you are active on Wikipedia and are still interested in helping out with urgent tasks on our large [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools|'''Schools Project''']], please let us know [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Schools#Project_coordinators|here]]. 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 [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/Participants list|here]].</small>
_ _ Hi, Tony. Yeah, this is one reason i don't often execute speedies unless i've just nom'ed one, which makes me feel a need to make up for adding to the burden: we talk abt "claiming notability" as if that were a yes/no, but gosh, claiming it is not much more objective than is being it, which we debate at length on AfD. <br>
<!-- Message sent by User:Kudpung@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Schools/Participants_list&oldid=1041253844 -->
_ _ CT just extradited back from NYC a woman w/ many clients, who was taking up to at least $20K a head from people (and accepting jewelry from others w/o sufficient cash) for her unfulfilled promises to do immigration paperwork. CT is also progressing on charging the ring of motor-vehicles employees in Bridgeport who were getting similar figures for providing drivers licenses to ineligibles; they were clearing enough that one of them had hired a storage locker for her 500 pairs of new shoes. -- That's in addition to the governor and two of the mayors of the state's largest 3 cities, who've gone to prison in the last 1-3 yrs behind influence-peddling investigations. (I say "behind ... investigations" bcz the federal wiretaps turned up the Repub. mayor's phone calls to a prostitute, extorting sex with her pre-pubescent daughter, and they kind of forgot about the monetary corruption.) But are the garden-variety scammers and corrupt individual officials notable in a world with the savings-&-loan and Enron scandals? (Not to be so PoV as to mention the apparently legal scam of defunding pensions. Oops, i mentioned it.) I'm inclined to see the fraud rings and influence peddlers as "gyps that pass in the night", by which i mean three-day-wonder stories, and CM as a ''small-time'' example of the genre.<br>
_ _ I'm not sure if your focus in writing is to influence my A7 criteria or to promote his having an article. As to the former, i'm not convinced but i'm swayed somewhat by your view: i respect this opinion, especially in light of your others that i recall seeing, and it will no doubt affect my own future decisions on nom'g or exec't'g speedies. As to the latter focus, keep in mind this was a speedy, and IMO as such it bears roughly zero precedential weight against other articles on the same topic, i.e. in this case the same person. If your concern is great enough, IMO you'd make a better author of a replacement than the original author was. If i'm mistaken in thinking you wielded a mop and assuming you still do, i'd be glad to retrieve onto a talk page, as resources, as much as you think helpful of the deleted material.<br>--[[User:Jerzy|Jerzy]]•[[User talk:Jerzy|t]] 17:59, 7 January 2006 (UTC)<br>
 
== ArbComA votekitten for you! ==
 
[[File:Cute grey kitten.jpg|left|150px]]
Up until a week ago or so you were unquestionably at the top of the list of people I wanted to vote for in the ArbCom elections. I've watched you for a long time doing largely thankless work in unprotecting and undeleting pages, checking blocks and holding other admins accountable. I think you're doing an excellent job under difficult circumstances.
i love kittens!!111
 
[[User:Namehumor|Namehumor]] ([[User talk:Namehumor|talk]]) 17:12, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
I must admit that I don't quite get where you're going with this userbox thing but I'm going to go by my long term judgment of you rather than making my decision based on the recent uproar :)
<br style="clear: both;"/>
==[[Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion|Speedy deletion]] nomination of [[:Gradient Analytics]]==
[[File:Ambox warning pn.svg|48px|left|alt=|link=]]
{{Quote box|quote=<p>If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read [[WP:Your first article|the guide to writing your first article]].</p><p>You may want to consider using the [[Wikipedia:Article wizard|Article Wizard]] to help you create articles.</p>|width=20%|align=right}}
A tag has been placed on [[:Gradient Analytics]] requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under [[Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#A7|section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion]], because the article appears to be about a company, corporation or organization that does not [[Wikipedia:Credible claim of significance|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 [[Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#Articles|criteria for speedy deletion]], such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about [[Wikipedia:Notability|what is generally accepted as notable]].
 
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may '''contest the nomination''' by [[:Gradient Analytics|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 [[Wikipedia:List of policies|Wikipedia'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 {{Querylink|Special:Log|qs=type=delete&page=Gradient+Analytics|deleting administrator}}. <!-- Template:Db-notability-notice --><!-- Template:Db-csd-notice-custom --> – [[User:Srich32977|S. Rich]] ([[User talk:Srich32977|talk]]) 06:43, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
So I'm definitely voting for you and I wish you the best of luck in the elections! --[[User:Haukurth|Haukur]] 11:58, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
== [[Wikipedia:Proposed deletion|Proposed deletion]] of [[:File:Svedeesh Cheff.png]] ==
[[File:Ambox warning yellow.svg|left|link=|alt=Notice|48px|]]
 
The file [[:File:Svedeesh Cheff.png]] has been [[Wikipedia:Proposed deletion|proposed for deletion]]&#32;because of the following concern:
: Oh the userbox thing is part of the package. I'll always try my best to act in the interests of Wikipedia. If you want to see where this fits in with the current arbitration committee, you might look at the response by arbitrators to an arbitration request that was filed against me and Snowspinner by [[User:Radiant!]] recently. Not everybody views the bureaucracy as being that important; indeed many of us see it as something to be ruthlessly smashed and trampled wherever it is necessary to do so. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 12:16, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
<blockquote>'''Unused Wikipedia screenshot, no obvious use.'''</blockquote>
 
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be [[WP:DEL#REASON|deleted for any of several reasons]].
::I don't have a problem with sidelining bureaucracy to get things done, the problem is that you didn't actually get anything done :) We have more userboxes than ever and people are more defensive of them than ever. If userboxes are a problem &mdash; and your argument that they are seems valid to me &mdash; then that problem has become worse and not better. - [[User:Haukurth|Haukur]] 14:27, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your [[Help:edit summary|edit summary]] or on [[File talk:Svedeesh Cheff.png|the file's talk page]].
:: First I had to alter perceptions. Before I deleted them, Kelly Martin's actions were seen by some people as the actions of a rogue administrator, and there was an RfC that turned into a lynch mob. My actions and those of Ambi and Snowspinner have placed the proponents of religion- and belief-based userboxes on the defensive and brought more minds to focus on this, as well as the fair use issue, which is far from trivial. Yes, a lot of people reacted defensively, but if something needs to be done then it is far more likely to be done--it doesn't matter how many people want their userboxes, those that are shown to be damaging to Wikipedia will be deleted (see [http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-January/036631.html Jimbo's statement of opinion on this]). --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 15:14, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 
Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the [[Wikipedia:Proposed deletion|proposed deletion process]], but other [[Wikipedia:deletion process|deletion process]]es exist. In particular, the [[Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion|speedy deletion]] process can result in deletion without discussion, and [[Wikipedia:Files for discussion|files for discussion]] allows discussion to reach [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] for deletion.<!-- Template:Proposed deletion notify --> --[[User:Minorax|<span style="font-family: monospace, monospace; color:#69C;">Minorax</span>]]<sup>&laquo;&brvbar;[[User talk:Minorax|'''talk''']]&brvbar;&raquo;</sup> 14:02, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
:::Hmm... perhaps. But "shown to be damaging" to whose satisfaction? If those who see the damage are in a minority then I don't think they will get anywhere until they can convince the rest. Well, most of the rest, anyhow :) - [[User:Haukurth|Haukur]] 15:29, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 
== A goat for you! ==
: To whose satisfaction? Oh, a word in Jimmy Wales' ear should be enough if clear damage can be shown. I'd act before that, of course, and leave him and arbcom to pick up the pieces. It's not quite Dirty Harry, but there's some of that "do ya feel lucky, punk?" ethic about the whole thing. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 19:59, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 
[[File:Boer Goat (8742860752).jpg|left|150px]]
::Okay, I can accept that Jimbo's views count for a lot and that he can dictate rules and issue decrees. But it's still really frustrating when he decides something which goes against community consensus - like the voting system we're going to start using in a few hours.
Hope you're doing well Tony.
 
[[User:Herostratus|Herostratus]] ([[User talk:Herostratus|talk]]) 16:09, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
::Anyway, I think I've now got a pretty good idea on where you stand in all this so thanks for taking the time to chat :) - [[User:Haukurth|Haukur]] 20:08, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
<br style="clear: both;"/>
== "[[:Prince Charles]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] ==
[[File:Information.svg|30px]]
The redirect <span class="plainlinks">[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prince_Charles&redirect=no Prince Charles]</span> has been listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|redirects for discussion]] to determine whether its use and function meets the [[Wikipedia:Redirect|redirect guidelines]]. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink|Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 14#Prince Charles}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- from Template:RFDNote --> [[User:Векочел|Векочел]] ([[User talk: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]]==
[[File:Ambox warning orange.svg|30px]] [[: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 [[WP:MfD|deletion]]. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 1/Old cast list with references]] and please be sure to [[WP:SIG|sign your comments]] with four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>). 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.<!-- Template:Mfd notice --> [[User:HouseBlaster|House]][[Special:Contributions/HouseBlaster|Blaster]]<sup>[[User talk:HouseBlaster|talk]]</sup> 22:10, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
== [[Wikipedia:Proposed deletion|Proposed deletion]] of [[:Joseph Long (actor)]] ==
[[File:Ambox warning yellow.svg|left|link=|alt=Notice|48px|]]
 
The article [[:Joseph Long (actor)]] has been [[Wikipedia:Proposed deletion|proposed for deletion]]&#32;because of the following concern:
The community exists to produce an encyclopedia, and has no function beyond that. It cannot dictate to the owner. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 20:48, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
<blockquote>'''Has worked as an actor but not had the roles to meet [[WP:ENT]] / [[WP:GNG]]. Long-time unref BLP.'''</blockquote>
 
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be [[WP:DEL#REASON|deleted for any of several reasons]].
:Jimbo Wales exists to produce an encyclopedia, and has no function beyond that. Does that sound reasonable to you? :) Hopefully not. Likewise we must realize that the community consists of people who have all sorts of reasons for existing. Keeping those people happy by providing them with a nice and friendly environment will help produce an encyclopedia. - [[User:Haukurth|Haukur]] 21:14, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your [[Help:edit summary|edit summary]] or on [[Talk:Joseph Long (actor)|the article's talk page]].
Well it's not a very nice environment if it encourages factionalism, which is why I took the trouble of deleting some 70 or 80 templates that had the effect of turning Wikipedia into a population of users indexed by factional allegiance earlier this week. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 21:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the [[Wikipedia:Proposed deletion|proposed deletion process]], but other [[Wikipedia:deletion process|deletion process]]es exist. In particular, the [[Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion|speedy deletion]] process can result in deletion without discussion, and [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion|articles for deletion]] allows discussion to reach [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] for deletion.<!-- Template:Proposed deletion notify --> [[User:Boleyn|Boleyn]] ([[User talk:Boleyn|talk]]) 07:14, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
:I understand your reasoning and it's valid. People like to belong to groups and some good editors, like [[User:Angr]], have argued that the userbox groups make a more friendly environment. Others, like you, have put forward good arguments for why they may contribute to a divided and hostile environment. But the point is that it is completely valid to debate the matter from the point of view of what makes for a good community. We can then define a good community as one which is effective in writing an encyclopedia. That would be a useful definition.
== [[Wikipedia:Proposed deletion|Proposed deletion]] of [[:Gradient Analytics]] ==
[[File:Ambox warning yellow.svg|left|link=|alt=Notice|48px|]]
 
The article [[:Gradient Analytics]] has been [[Wikipedia:Proposed deletion|proposed for deletion]]&#32;because of the following concern:
:And in case there was any doubt I'm certainly all for writing an encyclopedia :) The edit I made before this one was to create a new article. Most of my user space edits are related to book-keeping in a [[User:Haukurth/Handbook|personal missing articles project]]. I haven't seen any need to put userboxes on my user page, factional or otherwise. But so far it seems to me that trying to stop people from declaring their allegiance to Benedict XVI with a funny little box will either be futile or more damaging to the project than allowing them to use it. - [[User:Haukurth|Haukur]] 21:47, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
<blockquote>'''Notability-- cannot find secondary sources discussing the company'''</blockquote>
 
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be [[WP:DEL#REASON|deleted for any of several reasons]].
Declaring allegiance is not a big deal. Creating categories separating Wikipedians by allegiance (which is what the userboxes in question do) is a very big deal. That's what's divisive. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 03:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your [[Help:edit summary|edit summary]] or on [[Talk:Gradient Analytics|the article's talk page]].
== I'm puzzled... ==
by [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Tony_Sidaway_2&curid=2961189&diff=34359476&oldid=33848881 this.] I thought you were ''against'' redirects of this nature? - [[User:Aaron Brenneman|<font color="#2f4f4f">brenneman</font>]][[User Talk:Aaron Brenneman|<font color="#2f4f4f"><sup>(t)</sup></font>]][[Special:Contributions/Aaron Brenneman|<font color="#2f4f4f"><sup>(c)</sup></font>]] 12:21, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the [[Wikipedia:Proposed deletion|proposed deletion process]], but other [[Wikipedia:deletion process|deletion process]]es exist. In particular, the [[Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion|speedy deletion]] process can result in deletion without discussion, and [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion|articles for deletion]] allows discussion to reach [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] for deletion.<!-- Template:Proposed deletion notify --> [[User:Queenofconfusion|Queenofconfusion]] ([[User talk:Queenofconfusion|talk]]) 11:54, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Absolutely not. The redirect is from Wikipedia space and is an appropriate use of that space. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 12:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
::Brrr... that sure wasn't obvious. Thanks for that. - [[User:Aaron Brenneman|<font color="#2f4f4f">brenneman</font>]][[User Talk:Aaron Brenneman|<font color="#2f4f4f"><sup>(t)</sup></font>]][[Special:Contributions/Aaron Brenneman|<font color="#2f4f4f"><sup>(c)</sup></font>]] 12:34, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 
== Nomination of [[:Usenet II]] for deletion ==
You'd have to have seen the deletion log in which I gave my reasons for deleting the original redirects, which were in article space. We do tolerate article-space shortcuts for policy pages, but I'm not happy about extending this tolerance to individual RfCs. The avoidance of typing the word "Wikipedia" isn't a good enough reason; this is an encyclopedia and we do expect people to occasionally type quite long words. :) --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 13:07, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">[[File:Ambox warning orange.svg|48px|alt=|link=]]</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article [[:Usenet II]], to which you have [https://xtools.wmflabs.org/authorship/en.wikipedia.org/Usenet_II significantly contributed], is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to [[Wikipedia:List of policies and guidelines|Wikipedia's policies and guidelines]] or if it should be [[Wikipedia:Deletion policy|deleted]].
 
The discussion will take place at '''[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Usenet II (2nd nomination)]]''' until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.
:Can't we just say that pages starting with "WP:" belong to the project namespace by policy fiat, even though it contradicts what the mediawiki installation says? No vaid article could ever begin like that and it would make this overfine nuance go away... --- [[User:Chalst|Charles Stewart]] 01:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 
To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit [[User:SDZeroBot/AfD notifier|the configuration page]]. Delivered by ''[[User:SDZeroBot|SDZeroBot]]'' ([[User talk:SDZeroBot|talk]]) 01:02, 27 July 2025 (UTC)<!-- User:SDZeroBot/AfD notifier/template -->
: Until the WP pages are moved out of article space (which I'm sure you're aware isn't actually difficult to do if you know which file to tweak and which SQL update statements to execute), regrettably we cannot make such a fiat. The WP redirects have no good reason for existence, and if people are starting to make redirects to such ephemera as requests for comment I think it's appropriate to draw the line there. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 03:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 
::I don't see why not. From the software POV, the whole point about namespaces is to influence what happens with [[m:Message substitution]], but that doesn't arise with redirects. If we simply said that for the purposes of policy, that we count pages in the article space that begin "WP:" and are redirects to pages in the project space as being project pages, what could be the problem? For the sake of tidiness we can fix the software to handle multiple prefixes as being the same namespace, but there are several ways to do that and the mediawiki gnomes can take their time of deciding which is the neatest. --- [[User:Chalst|Charles Stewart]] 05:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 
===Oh yeah ===
About the edit I complained about (up there). It appeares to me to both innaccurately summarise the proceedings in a manner slanted heavily in favour of critisicim, and to have a sniff of crowing. The second I'll be accused of failing to assume good faith for even ''mentioning'', but that's still how it is. You make it hard to mind my own business with edits like that. - [[User:Aaron Brenneman|<font color="#2f4f4f">brenneman</font>]][[User Talk:Aaron Brenneman|<font color="#2f4f4f"><sup>(t)</sup></font>]][[Special:Contributions/Aaron Brenneman|<font color="#2f4f4f"><sup>(c)</sup></font>]] 12:34, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 
: Well I could have been more complete; actually I only summarised ''some'' of the findings of fact in the case, and with (to be scrupulously picky) a slight slant towards findings against Snowspinner. The sole purpose of this was to refute a couple of claims that in my view were somewhat dismissive, claiming as they did that the findings of fact in the case were "trivial". If I could have done it without actually mentioning the findings of fact, I would have, but I'm not a magician. I wasn't crowing, rather I was trying to refute what seemed to me to be an attempt to write off the case--something that was somewhat at odds with the arbitrators' decision to take the case and with their final decision. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 13:11, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
::Ah, I'm well and truly over it, just thought that I'd answer the question while I was here. Thanks. - [[User:Aaron Brenneman|<font color="#2f4f4f">brenneman</font>]][[User Talk:Aaron Brenneman|<font color="#2f4f4f"><sup>(t)</sup></font>]][[Special:Contributions/Aaron Brenneman|<font color="#2f4f4f"><sup>(c)</sup></font>]] 13:22, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
:: I believe, above, you actually meant "attempt to refute." I agree with you that the arbitrators final decision, and the fact that they thoroughly rebuffed your attempts to frame the case in terms of policy, should not be written off. Regards, [[User:Nandesuka|Nandesuka]] 14:12, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 
:: I disagree with this interpretation. If Aaron will forgive me for once again making reference to the proposed decision in this nearly-closed case:
::: ''Aaron Brenneman is admonished to be respectful of consensus in creating and altering Wikipedia policy. While boldness in editing is valuable on Wikipedia, it is no use to Wikipedia to have written policies that create dissent.''
:: There is also a factual finding (number 6 in the list) of Aaron's use of inflammatory language in his descriptions of the case (eg: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dragonfiend&diff=28948603&oldid=28932574 "foaming at the mouth"]), and of his dismissal (number 4 in the list) of Snowpinner's argument by saying, in effect that only sock puppets agreed with it [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Notability_%28websites%29&diff=28884476&oldid=28878536].
:: I got the policy affirmations that I was after and the committee took a very high proportion of the proposed decision verbatim from my drafting. I'm very pleased that the committee re-affirmed the primacy of the encyclopedia over the community (principle 7) and an affirmation for the first time that well stated opinions of new users must not be dismissed without good reason (principle 6)
:: It would have been even better if we could have had a statement on user talk page spamming, but events (in the form of the userbox situation and the Catholic Alliance MD) have overtaken us and I'm happy that campaigning of that kind will have a far higher, and less reputable, profile for the foreseeable future. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 15:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
::: We'll simply have to agree to disagree on this &mdash; the committee took only a miniscule percentage of your proposed findings of fact and requested remedies, ''if'' one counts those findings of fact that you withdrew when it became clear that your requests, unreasonable on their face as they were, did not merit serious consideration. In any event, as I said on the talk page, it is a happy outcome for Aaron, for you, and for Wikipedia that most of your requests were dismissed or withdrawn, since they would have grossly hurt the project. [[User:Nandesuka|Nandesuka]] 15:09, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 
: I'm happy to differ with you on this, by reference to the facts. Looking at the workshop, I currently see six proposed findings of fact drafted by me: 1.2 "Aaron Brenneman edits deletion policy", 3.3 "Webcomics community opinion", 5.1 "Dragonfiend and Aaron Brenneman discuss the deletion of some webcomics articles", 7.2 "Dismissal of AfD results", 9 "Bad faith", and 21 "Aaron Brenneman holds a straw poll". 1.2 became, with some evidence added by arbitrators, proposed finding of fact 1, "Aaron Brenneman's edits to deletion policy." 3.3, shorn of some incidental detail of Eric Burns' career, became proposed finding of fact 2, "Outside opinion on Wikipedia's handling of webcomics". Similarly 5.1 became the basis for the various versions of proposed finding of fact 3, 7.2 is copied almost word-for-word to proposed finding of fact 4.
 
: Of the 6 that are in the current copy of the workshop, only 2 make no appearance in the proposed decision and all four of those that do have substantial support from the arbitrators. In addition, substantial modifications that I made to Snowspinner's workshop proposal 14 "Biting the newbies" by merging from my workshop proposal 6, have found their way directly into proposed finding of fact 6, "Aaron Brenneman's warnings to new users".
 
: Of those workshop proposals on fact that I withdraw, 2 "Assumptions of bad faith by Aaron Brenneman and Dragonfiend", was handled better in subsequent proposals by myself and Snowspinner that made it into the final decision, my workshop proposal 4 "Eric Burns" was merged into 3.2 and is now the first part of proposed finding of fact 2, my 6 was merged into 14 which is now, as previously noted, substantially proposed finding of fact 6. Workshop proposal on fact number 8, "Snowspinner" was withdrawn but the material was merged into 7 and appears in proposed finding of fact 4.
 
: Now it's possible that I may have missed some "unreasonable" workshop proposal on finding of fact, but a due diligence search by me turns none up. The near-unanimity by the active members on this case convinces me that this was an exemplary workshop in which I played an honest role and contributed greatly to Wikipedia by reducing the clerical burden on the committee. Of the eight proposed findings of fact adopted by arbitrators, I contributed all or most of the content to five of them. Without crowing, I can say that this is a remarkably high percentage.
 
: On the proposed remedies, one of the two was originated by me, the other proposed by Snowspinner and adopted as extended (to include myself) by me. Although I had told Aaron that I sought and expected a "waggy finger" for Aaron on this, I also considered and proposed the merits of other remedies. In the sense that these were all alternatives to the one that was selected, it can be said that the others were not selected by the committee, but as they were mutually exclusive proposals you could have said that anyway, no matter which one had been selected. One remedy that I made involving censuring myself for over-eager factoring was summarily removed by an arbitrator.
 
: You say "it is a happy outcome for Aaron, for you, and for Wikipedia that most of your requests were dismissed or withdrawn, since they would have grossly hurt the project." This is clearly factually incorrect. Where they were withdrawn the material was merged, and adoption of four out of six (and the additional material that made its way into proposed finding of fact number 4) is hardly dismissal. I agree that it's a very happy outcome for Wikipedia. I expect that you'll continue to take your own view on the matter, but having performed this exhaustive analysis for my own entertainment I'm happy to say that it is without merit on the facts of the case. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 16:11, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 
:: I do encourage anyone who is interested in this tempest in a teapot to visit [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Webcomics/Workshop#Proposed_remedies|the workshop page]] to decide for themselves whether Tony's version of the story is correct. For now, I'll just note that just looking at the remedies supported by Tony that Arbcom ''didn't'' adopt, we find: "Aaron Brenneman admonished to seek consensus on policy", "Aaron Brenneman banned from editing Wikipedia policy", "Aaron Brenneman banned from editing deletion-related Wikipedia policy", "Aaron Brenneman on probation", "Dragonfiend not to make webcomics nominations", "Aaron Brenneman to Assume Good faith", "Aaron Brenneman advised to avoid altering deletion debates", and "A Note to the Community." Similar observations could be made about the findings of fact. It is left as the exercise to the reader to decide exactly how due was Tony's diligence in summarizing the issues here. [[User:Nandesuka|Nandesuka]] 17:08, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 
Nandesuka, enough playing to the gallery. This is a personal talk page, so address your comments to me. I have addressed all of the above in my analysis. Also I notice a little sloppiness creeping in. First you were talking about proposals that I ''originated'', and now you extend that to include several proposals that I did not originate but did respond favorably to, and even some (Dragonfiend not to make webcomics nominations and A Note to the Community) which I unequivocally opposed. And, most alarmingly, one "Aaron Brenneman admonished to seek consensus on policy", which ''was'' adopted by the committee and was drafted by me.
 
I notice that my opposition to "A Note to the community" was expressed in wording that I find most poignant and apt: "Let the message to the community be embodied by a strong finding on consensus and policy-formation, which I believe to be at the heart of this case." Which of course is what they did in telling Aaron in words drafted by me: " to be respectful of consensus in creating and altering Wikipedia policy. While boldness in editing is valuable on Wikipedia, it is no use to Wikipedia to have written policies that create dissent.".
 
You're welcome to your opinion, but I observe only that you don't seem to be able to support it with verifiable fact. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 17:21, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 
==Arbcom vote==
 
I'm pretty sure that was the system I put in place. If you mean that the questions should appear on the vote page rather than linked to then I wanted to avoid that due to technical issues. I'm expecting a lot of votes. I want to do what I can to keep the pages as small as posible.[[User:Geni|Geni]] 17:00, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 
: No problems. I don't mind where it all goes as long as we don't end up with confusion of how, when and where to vote, and I assume you're taking care of that. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 17:08, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 
::I thought I had. Which part of the instructions need carifying?.[[User:Geni|Geni]] 17:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 
: Probably none. I probably wasn't paying attention and managed to get into a muddle. I have full confidence in your abilities, thanks for your hard work, --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 17:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 
::You are not the only person to have been confused. I've updated it to reflect the current setup. What do you think?[[User:Geni|Geni]] 18:57, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 
:::WRT Everyking I can't see anything too bad. Yes it's a bit of a pile on but that is to be expected in this election. In theory it think it is [[User:Nightstallion]]'s job to dealing with any problems now the vote has started. It don't want to get involved in the running of the vote unless no one else can be found.[[User:Geni|Geni]] 01:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 
Never mind, I looked at the election setup and you've done a brilliant job. There are provisions for uninvolved parties to remove lengthy comments, which is all I wanted to see. I've gone through a lot of the pages voting and (although it's madly early) have no problems with any conduct I have seen so far. A good start. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 02:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 
== Lynch mobs ==
 
Referring to those who disagree with you as a "lynch mob" is a bit rude, and definitely unhelpful. I see you've done it a number of times. Any chance I could convince you to express your opinions with less inflammatory language? [[User:Friday|Friday]] [[User talk:Friday|(talk)]] 19:44, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 
: By sheer coincidence I had a similar thought myself a few minutes ago. I've refactored my comment on [[Wikipedia:RFC/KM]] and improved it into the bargain by restoring focus to the encyclopedia. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 19:56, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 
== You are welcome ==
 
If your message on my Talk Page was a thank you for my vote, you are welcome. I am sorry but I do not really get what you meant. But anyway, best of luck with the rest of the elections. [[User:Batmanand|Batmanand]] 08:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 
== ArbCom - Nandesuka ==
Out of curiosity, and please do not feel it is rude not to answer, why did you oppose Nandesuka's ArbCom candidacy? --- [[User:Chalst|Charles Stewart]] 08:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 
: A series of intentional personal attacks for which he has expressed neither acknowledgement nor remorse [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ATheresa_knott&diff=34400518&oldid=34328272]. --08:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 
To be fair, having looked at his candidacy statement, there's no way I could have supported him. He entered late, skipping any chance for most people to question him, and fielded a couple of tame questions that revealed that he was running on a populist ticket, based on the extraordinary conclusion that arbcom showed timidity in rejecting the "wheel war" case. This would be the one where two of the three arbitrators who had rejected were Fred Bauder and JamesF, both up for re-election and with plenty to lose from making a decision that fails to play to the populists. What, are they supposed to be afraid of little old me? --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 09:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 
:Well, I've asked him what value he thinks hearing the case would serve. --- [[User:Chalst|Charles Stewart]] 09:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 
== Withdrawal ==
 
You got a lot of support. Keep up the good work even if it won't be within the committee! :) - [[User:Haukurth|Haukur]] 08:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 
: Thanks. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 08:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 
:I'm not a Wikipedia insider and am a sporadic editor so I may be missing something here. You seem like a very strong candidate. Perhaps there are more "Wikipolitics" than an occasional dabbling editor can see. I echo the keep up the good work sentiment. [[User:Crunch|Crunch]] 13:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 
== Well, least I got a chance to chime in ==
 
Sorry to see you withdraw. For the record, there is substantial opposition to a number of candidates and Jimbo may change his mind again anyway.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 08:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 
: From what I can see, at present we've got some pretty good candidates in the top 10 or so of the running, and these all have thumping great endorsement votes. There are one or two unsuitable candidates in the second ten, particularly among late entries who have leapt on some bandwagon or other. I don't see any reason why Jimbo would want to change his mind, and I don't see any pressing reason to veto any of the top 8 at present, who are (subject to settling):
 
# [[Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_January_2006/Vote/Mindspillage|Mindspillage]]
# [[Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_January_2006/Vote/SimonP|SimonP]]
# [[Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_January_2006/Vote/Filiocht|Filiocht]]
# [[Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_January_2006/Vote/Charles Matthews|Charles Matthews]]
# [[Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_January_2006/Vote/Dmcdevit|Dmcdevit]]
# [[Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_January_2006/Vote/Morven|Morven]]
# [[Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_January_2006/Vote/James F.|James F.]]
# [[Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_January_2006/Vote/Fred Bauder|Fred Bauder]]
 
I opposed one of these, Morven, because of a weak candidate statement but on reading his answers to questions I've decided to switch to support. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 09:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 
::Tony, how did you calculate that these are the top eight so far? Morven, for example, has only 37 supports and JamesF, 69. There are others with more, I believe, as well as more supports than opposes. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] <sup><font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font></sup> 11:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 
::: The calculation is done on percentages of those voting who voted support. So on this calculation, even though mindspillage at one point had 130 support votes to 65 for SimonP, SimonP had the edge because as a proportion of total votes case for or against him, he had the higher percentage.
 
::: http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/arbcom?
 
::: It's also complicated somewhat by the fact that the software doing the calculation is fallible and subject to lag. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 20:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 
::::Thanks, Tony. Interesting. I hope the candidates won't be picked that way, though, because it would seem odd to prioritize someone with 36 votes over someone with 125 just because they had fewer people opposing percentage-wise. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] <sup><font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font></sup> 20:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 
:Sorry to see you withdraw myself, even if I did oppose :) - I thought you could "win it" as they say, and I do admire some of the work you do here like afds and catching invalid speedies. I do agree that those are good candidates too, although I opposed half of them and supported Fred and Dmcdevit whom I hope make it in.<small>[[User:RN|WhiteNight]] <sup><font color="#6BA800">[[User talk:RN|T]]</font> | <font color="#0033FF">[[Special:Emailuser/RN|@]]</font> | <font color="#FF0000">[[Special:Contributions/RN|C]]</font></sup></small> 10:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 
::Just wanted to say your withdrawal is gracious and does you credit. I abstained on your nom - because although you have the patience of a saint with newbies and problem users (<s>barn</s>star pending), OTOH you don't cope well with editors with whom you disagree with on policy issues. Tony you are a maverick, and we need mavericks (even if they can be a pain in the ass), but IMO the judicial bench isn't the best place for them. Keep up your good work. You are my benchmark - every time I go to speedy, I think ‘would Tony quibble this’ and, ‘if in doubt, I don’t delete’. --[[User:Doc glasgow|Doc]] [[User talk:Doc glasgow|<sup>ask?</sup>]] 11:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 
:Hi Tony. I would like to say that I opposed your Arbcom candidacy because I disagree with you on the scope of IAR. With regards to Wikipedia in general, I think you are a good person to have on board. [[User:Sjakkalle|Sjakkalle]] [[User talk:Sjakkalle|<small>(Check!)</small>]] 11:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 
:Wow, the voting started shaping up amazingly fast. I'd planned few votes, but I'm sorry I didn't get there in time to add my support. [[User:Demi|Demi]] <sup>[[User_talk:Demi|T]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Demi|C]]</sub> 18:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 
Well it would have been welcome. I don't mind sitting it out, though. I think it unlikely that my overall vote would have shifted more than three or four percentage points from where it was when I quit. On the talk page I've indicated that I'm prepared to do arbitration duty if required and as I'm probably one of the better qualified candidates this could conceivably come to pass, but this doesn't require me to sit around biting my fingernails for two weeks over it. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 18:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 
:I'm very sorry I didn't get to record my support before you withdrew. I selfishly hope that next time, you will consider the value of letting the process play out so I may comment on your finer qualities. [[User:Unfocused|<FONT COLOR="#66CCFF">Un</FONT>]][[User talk:Unfocused|<FONT COLOR="#0000CC">focused</FONT>]] 20:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 
== Your request ==
 
I've responded you your request on my talk page for examples by providing three. Please do respond there, as I am not watching this page. - [[User:Aaron Brenneman|<font color="#2f4f4f">brenneman</font>]][[User Talk:Aaron Brenneman|<font color="#2f4f4f"><sup>(t)</sup></font>]][[Special:Contributions/Aaron Brenneman|<font color="#2f4f4f"><sup>(c)</sup></font>]] 19:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 
== Mediation ==
 
As my mentor, I am subject to inquire your opinion on this issue: Why is no one commenting on my mediation request? Its odd, because its been there for several weeks now. I tried an inquery on Redwolf's page, but no response. Happen as it might, I believe mediating would be a very good position for me. -[[User:MegamanZero|MegamanZero]]|[[User talk:MegamanZero|Talk]] 20:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 
I don't know. Have you thought of emailing him or contacting him on IRC? --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 20:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 
*I'll try e-mail, but regarding IRC, that's out of the question because I can't get it to work. However, may I askk your opinion on my attempt to gain this position? I mean, I believe I'd be quite competent at it, and seeing the number of issues between users lately, I'm eager to offer my assistance. -[[User:MegamanZero|MegamanZero]]|[[User talk:MegamanZero|Talk]] 20:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tony_Sidaway"