User talk:Tony Sidaway

Aerosol-PFC

Hello Toni,

first: thank you for help with my article aerosol-pfc!

since september there was no request or proposal or criticism what should be improved.

I conclude that the article is acceptable for that time until we get concret information to change the text. Please cancel the clean marker until that time.

Michael Kandler •

St Michael's Grammar School

Hi Tony. Since you were very helpful resolving a dispute over at J.T. Vallance recently regarding a merger, I wounder if you could help me again here. A small group of vandals continue to try to post an attack on the school ([1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] - all the same, and there might be more from the past), and have taken to berating me on the talk page for continually reverting. I can't handle the pressure of this daily fight any longer, and am looking for some assistance from an admin. Your help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Harro5 07:00, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like Carnildo got there before me. I've added the article to my watchlist. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 08:23, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if you'd weigh into this AFD. It and the St Michaels article led to me facing a RFC in the last few days, but that's over now and has vindicated me (I think you may have voted to support Bishonen's views), but this AFD remains to keep or delete a piece on a school principal. It has some value, but like the J.T. Vallance piece discussed in this section, I feel it shouldn't be setting a precedent to allow school principals to have bios on Wikipedia. I like the idea of a merge, but have a look and maybe a vote too. Thanks. Harro5 04:42, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I may well have been wrong about Agriculture/TheChief

See WP:ANI#Double-checking_DG - five minutes between two IPs that are remarkably unlikely to be in the same physical place. I'm still sure there's some strong links between the two, but this breaks the IP match. - David Gerard 12:23, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

An invitation

We have not had a good relationship over the past few weeks, but I want to let you know that I bear you no ill will and know you believe you were always working for what was best for the community. In the spirit of helping to heal differences and answer lingering questions I would like to extend an invitation to join me on my talk page for a discussion of what has taken place, any concerns you may have, and suggestions you may have on improving my relations with you and other Wikipedians. TheChief (PowWow) 17:35, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wooster Greeks

Since I normally reply on your talk page, I thought I'd let you know that I replied on mine this time. I'm going to see how it works out. -Splash^talk 23:34, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Haukur's RFA

Thanks, Tony, I really appreciated that. Your appraisal came at a time when I was feeling very depressed about the whole thing and it set me on the way to recovery. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 21:45, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Will work for......wikiburgers

Hey Mr. Sidaway, I've made a MAJOR overhawl to this article. Mind taking a look at it and telling me what you think of the quality..? Thanks.

- MegamanZero 6:04 6 November 2005

Pretty good, but you have to explain your terms. A general reader not already familiar with the game will not know what the Reploid Resistance is, or a Cyber-Elf. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 03:36, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Poll: Micronation Infobox

An info box template has recently been created by myself and O^O for use in Wikipedia articles about micronations and other unrecognised entities, to address longstanding concerns and edit wars that have resulted from the inappropriate use of the standard country infobox in these types of articles.

This new info box has so far been successfully incorporated into the following articles: Sealand, Republic of Rose Island, Independent State of Aramoana, Empire of Atlantium, Avram and Province of Bumbunga, and it is intended to incorporate it into most of the other articles in the [category] in due course.

However, one editor, Samboy has suggested that the micronation infobox should be excluded from Empire of Atlantium on the grounds that the article is "not notable" and because only 22% of micronation articles in Wikipedia currently have the info box (ie because the info box project is not yet complete).

As someone who has contributed to similar discussions in the past, I thought this might interest you. I have instituted a poll on this subject here, and invite you to review it if you are so inclined.

Thanks. --Gene_poole 06:11, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My personal issue with Gene Poole's action is that there is a conflict of interest here. One of the first micronations he added this infobox to is, conveniently enough, his own micronation. And, while he sets up a poll about whether we should add the template to the article, he did not mention the poll in WP:RFC, which is the best way to make the poll visible to people who have never been involved in the issue. Instead, he posts the existence of the poll on the user pages of a number of users who he feels are symphathetic to his micronation. You have felt that this kind of campaigning is dishonest. Samboy 07:23, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rangerdude

There is an active arbitration case concerning user:Rangerdude at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rangerdude/Evidence. I have presented evidence of Rangerdude's attacks about other editors, and I included a negative personal comment he made to you. The ArbCom is seeking greater involvement in their cases. -Willmcw 07:21, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rendalls House and Bradbys House

Thanks for your comment on my talk page. However for some (unknown, peculiar and totally illogical) reason the school filters block me from editing my own talk page so I hope you don't mind if I reply here. The Rendalls site information, including the housemasters list is taken from the house intranet site which I wrote. The housemasters and house history on there were taken from the school archives, which is the definitive place to look for these sort of things, as, surprisingly, up to date published lists are rare. Old Rendallians are from the same source. Unfortunately the consensus on the VfD page seemed to say that the policy was that sites for individual houses were unnecessary and unencyclopedic. However I feel you have found the right solution in the Houses of Harrow School page, and will add to this when I have a chance. Thanks for taking the time to leave me a message for me on this. --Oli 08:13, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute

Hi Mr. sidaway, MegamanZero here again. Me and user Wolf o' Donnel have a dispute issue over which version of the List of Mega Man Zero characters is more formated to stay in Wikipedia. I believe that I asked you to look at the new article a few days ago and asked what you think of it, an article i had put a lot of time and work into. User Wolf O donnel has reverted the old article, which would be fine if it were competent- the current version, while imformative, seeks to inform the reader about the characters in a game-style element; ie. it explains the characters from a gameplay viewpoint. The article is NOT a place for how to beat the game. Now I won't say I'm outright wrong, or he's outright wrong, so I would like you to act as the in-betweener for our little dispute. While the old revision is competent, it focuses too much on a gameplay standpoint. That's what gamefaqs is for. While I appreciate him leaving some of the links I created for the characters, I believe its somply rehashing what's already been said. Anyway, I'd like you to look at the 12:04, November 6, 2005 revision and the 11:17, November 7, 2005 revision and respond to me which one is more competent for wikipedia. Thanks. - MegamanZero 1:11 7 November 2005

The situation seems to have solved itself out Mr. Sidaway. I believe I got over irrational about the situation- The new page is back, and new content is being introduced- I guess I needed to do was explain my revisions. - MegamanZero 8:17 8 november 2005

Please call me Tony. I'm glad you managed to sort it out on your own--being able to discuss what you've done, listen to criticism and respond courteously, is a very important skill in Wikipedia editing. If you do a good job of that you'll be welcome anywhere on Wikipedia, and you'll find that most editors listen to and respect your opinion too. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 07:33, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious however...What happens in wikipedia if situations like ours aren't resolved...? Do the administrators step in, or what..? --MegamanZero

We may do if you aren't able to disagree in a civilised way, for instance if you got into an edit war depending on the seriousness of the situation we might protect an article for a few days to enforce discussion (Wikipedia:Protection policy), or block one or more editors for a short time to stop disruption (Wikipedia:Blocking policy).

And of course as experienced editors we're usually happy to lend a hand with advice. But if disagreements start to get seriously difficult to handle, our dispute resolution policy should be followed. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 09:07, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rendalls House

There was clear consensus among the AfD participants that the articles had no useful information to be merged anywhere at all, so I don't see how deleting them was a problem. With about half voting 'delete' and the other half 'redirect', I though delete and redirect was a good call. Keeping the articles with 'no consensus' would have been a bit silly in my opinion, since the AfD made it absolutely clear that nobody wanted to keep them. - ulayiti (talk) 16:51, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There were a significant number merge or plain redirect votes, both which imply keeping the history, and of the redirect votes the plain redirects were the substantial majority. I agree that it's a judgement call, but I follow the dictum of our deletion policy: if in doubt, don't delete. I still don't see what encyclopedic purpose was served by deleting material in this instance, since it will only be reimported into the wiki. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 17:15, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Do I get send userspace pages to regular deletion or to another location...I want to vanish this User:MONGO/RFA, especially since Agriculture appears to be gone anyway.--MONGO 04:48, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You just ask a friendly admin to delete it. Done. Let me know if you ever need it back. I still think you'd make an excellent administrator, and there are no shortage of people who want to nominate you. Just say the word when you're ready and I'll be glad to do the honor myself. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 05:30, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'm going to be doing a lot less editing for the next couple of weeks as my home computer is in the shop...maybe after that. Also...can you vamoose this for me? Appreciate your help.--MONGO 01:56, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to hear about your friend. My condolances.--MONGO 02:18, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Intervention

Remember the editing war/dispute over The Black Dahlia Murder band page? The opposite user seems to be back (this time under a registered name "Gofur") and he seems to be forgetting about the neutral concensus the three of us reached on the talk page on the band's genre. He also seems to be doing a bit of namecalling/insulting - if you have time to intervene later, I would really appreciate it. Thanks. Danteferno 09:58 08 November 2005 (UTC)

Why do you think it's the same editor? Please discuss the situation with this chap and arrive at a satisfactory conclusion. Don't edit war. I'll be watching. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 12:27, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

I am sorry to hear of your loss. My condolances. TheChief (PowWow) 20:19, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Article on the Memphis Mafia

I do not understand why User:Ted Wilkes has now deleted a perfectly well hyperlink to a website by the Memphis Mafia members from the Memphis Mafia page. See [7] He also deleted a passage that Elvis Presley "reportedly supplied the Memphis Mafia members with alcohol, illicit drugs, and prostitutes" from the same page. See [8]. He seems to suppress information which is not in line with his personal view. Onefortyone 20:29, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The edit war continues. See [9] and Talk:Memphis Mafia. Onefortyone 18:43, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Users Wyss and Ted Wilkes are still working together in repeatedly deleting my contributions to the article. They again removed external links to websites they do not like. See [10] and [11]. This behavior is unacceptable.

Kelly's RfB

Jimbo can vote for Kelly if he likes, that's Jimbo's decision. I don't really care that he's apparently the God of Wikipedia. Even though his approval is definately a positive feature, I have to make my decision upon my perceptions, not someone elses'. Karmafist 22:05, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

I am indeed honored that you find my editing of such significance that you have me on your Special:Watchlist. I guess you noticed I do a lot of articles that are on a Wikipedia Most Wanted list etc. With more than five hundred and fifty articles there is a lot of reading. Right now I am doing articles on Wall Street and its bankers and brokers, an area sorely lacking at Wikipedia and on which I am eminently qualified. Its too bad that another user has deployed certain tactics that have disrupted my work but I'll get back to Wall Street et al ASAP. I hope you enjoy these. Thank you again for such a compliment on my efforts. - Ted Wilkes 01:45, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's okay, I'm not going to lean over your shoulder. What happened was that (if you look up a couple of headings you'll see) someone else suggested that you were removing information from an article, and so I took a look to see what was up. Your explanation is plausible, so it's just a content dispute as far as I'm concerned. Just work it out with the other editors and all should be okay. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 18:05, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Note the following comments, I don't appreciate Tony unprotecting articles I have protected without consulting me, for the second time. As User:172 pointed out, I've been following this dispute and I protected the article for a reason. --Ryan Delaney talk 21:02, 8 November 2005 (UTC) [12] By the way, as a word of constructive criticism, you frequently convey the impression, at least from my observations, that you find it appropriate to talk to adults, even accomplished ones, on Wikipedia like children. Ryan's comment (and mine earlier) may be a sign that you may want to work on conveying the impression that you actually intend to listen to and consider users who disagree with you. At any rate, I'm not expecting a response or a reversal of your actions on the criticism of communism talk page. 172 | Talk 04:26, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's okay, Ryan and I sorted it all out in email. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 05:38, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

I just wanted to thank you for your support of my RfA which finally passed! I greatly appreciate it! Ramallite ^(talk) 04:37, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Request for arbitration

Though I may mention that I did a Request for arbitration on Winter Soldier Investigation. I mention you and Sasquatch as neutral parties. Travb 10:59, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Question about deletes

Is it possible for an administrtor to abuse his delete ability?

Is over 300 deletes on one and 400 deletes on another page normal?

If so, who can I report this too and where? Travb 10:59, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean by "delete ability" in this context. You mean one administrator has actually deleted a single article 300 times, or used his rollback capability to remove inserted text 300 times? Or what? 300 of either on one article by a single administrator would be extraordinary, but whether it's abusive would depend on the context. Administrators may revert hundreds of instances of vandalism, for instance. However it would be normal to use other techniques long before the count got to 300. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 17:25, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

it is just strange. I am new to wikipedia (less than 2 months) but have never seen 421 deletes on one wikipage and 323 deletes on another wikipage. I don't know if this is normal or what. I know they both have to do with what one user sees as "copyright violations"Travb 17:41, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

He's talking about this --Duk 18:09, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see now. Those are very special cases. What happened was the introduction of a substantial amount of copyright infringing material some time last year, which wasn't properly dealt with at the time. Recently it was decided that the only legal option we had was to delete everything since the introduction of the infringing material, and revert to the immediate prior version. Drastic, but a fact of life that just had to be faced up to. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 18:15, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your time. Travb 13:05, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vietnam Veterans Against the War

The anon and TDC are at it again on Vietnam Veterans Against the War with revert wars. I don't know how closely you are monitoring this, so thought I would give you heads up. Travb 10:59, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I warned TDC to stop a few days ago and he doesn't seem to have resumed since then. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 17:26, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Its all....

...Coming together. Mr. Sidaway. The new page is looking great and even more expanded than before, Wolf and I are making edits and discussing like friendly, civil people, and I plan to even make a in-depth page on Megaman Zero Geography. Its amazing what happens when we editors come together and work for a common goal for the readers of wikipedia. I look foward to my stay in the community of wikipedia for years to come. --MegamanZero 13:54 9 November 2005

I'm glad to hear it. It's great that you were both able to reach agreement. That's what it's all about!

Please call me Tony. :) --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 17:28, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Eek, WP:RPA

Isn't this pushing the line of what's an attack quite a bit? I'm not objecting to you removing it per se as tensions are high and some of the parties seem a bit fragile. It's just that calling it an attack seems too rough. Notify the offender that you've done so to let them re-phrase? - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 23:59, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's possible to interpret the edit as other than a personal attack--imputing as it does an extremely malicious intention to Kelly. I accept that it may not have been wise to remove it; RPA is like that. So I find my interpretation diametrically opposed to yours--yes obviously it was an attack, but removing it wasn't perhaps the best thing to do. Kelly is a big girl, she can deal with this stuff. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 00:09, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that I am not alone in finding the humour in us not even being able to agree on what we agree on. But what do you expect, I'm antipodean. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 00:27, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That was not intended as an a personal attack.(Although in retrospect back it is borderline) it was intended to notify Kelly of Durin's leaving. Prodego ^talk 16:56, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cystic Fibrosis

Hello Tony, I was sorry to read the edit summary for your latest user page edit, and I hope you're doing well. R e dwolf24 (talk) 09:43, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I second this. --Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 09:46, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So do I, it is very hard to lose a friend. -Greg Asche (talk) 04:55, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Me too. --MegamanZero 2:00 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Stacy Armstrong

Hello,

I noticed you voted to recreate the Stacy Armstrong article so you might be interested to know that an article for her exists as Stacy Kernweis her apparant married name. The same person who listed the original Armstrong article, fiend, has listed this one and he is misrpesenting the issues even though he knows that she worked as Stacy Armstrong he is using the low google count for Kernweis as a factor that this person is not of note. I think this is bad behavior for an admin to mislead people.

Anyway, I thought you might like to vote on it. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stacy Kernweis Plank 13:18, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Elvis Presley

The Elvis Presley article has been protected for three days. Is there a good reason for doing so?

Erased you as being notified

On the arbitration, since you are not the person being complained about, I erased you as being notified, but your comments are still on the arbitration page. I only notified the central players (anon and TDC) and the two "neutral" players, you and sasquatch. If this is incorrect, please re-add this information back--if I am supposed to contact everyone mentioned in the page, let me know.Travb 23:22, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I marked myself as notified because I've added myself to the case. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 23:28, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

global warming

Dear Tony, If I'm not mistaken, you're an administrator. Would you mind protecting the global warming article from editing? There are some schoolkids using it for a message board, and it's getting annoying to keep reverting it and warning them. Thanks--Alhutch 07:11, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody else beat me to it! :) --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 08:13, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah sorry :) Thanks anyways,--Alhutch 17:15, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Will work for........wikifriedchicken

(Takes a deep breath) Mr. Sidaway, I've got an presssing question, and as an amindistrator whom has gotten me up to speed when I first joined the community of Wikipedia, I believe only you can answer it. After looking at my edits and reviewing my discussions, I've begun to contemplate on weather I am fit to become a Administrator for Wikipedia. I've decded i'll think about it after I have become more experienced in the community (maybe a few more years), and I think that I can contribute to the needs and wants of the users..... What do you think..? And do you think I'd be qualified..? This has been occupying my mindset for awhile now...

--MegamanZero 21:08 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Please call me Tony. You obviously have a lot of interest in the project and have been making good contributions and learning how to work with other editors who sometimes have very different opinions from your own, and your instincts on how to proceed when that happens seem to be sound. You usually express your differences politely. If you keep progressing as you have done, you will become a highly respected Wikipedia editor.

If you are interested in administrative work, you should become more involved in articles outside your immediate area of interest. As you become more confident in your abilities, you may try to help to resolve disputes in which you are not personally involved, perhaps by guiding the participants through the steps of dispute resolution and discouraging them from edit warring. You may start to read the discussions on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, and in time you may become involved in those discussions. You may start to get involved in Recent changes (RC) patrol, watching recent edits, spotting errors and vandalism, and fixing them. After a few more months, if your progress is good and your interest is still high, come back and I may want to nominate you as an administrator. --Tony Sidaway[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|<small><sup>Talk</sup></small>]] 03:37, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I think coming to comprises on our articles is one of the best things we wikipedians can do for our readers (and ourselves). I think that people should take a firm, yet polite stand on thier beliefs, but should admit comprimise when proven wrong.

I also like the idea of people coming to my talk page and discussing things to me; I like to help in anyway I can, as well as the feeling of getting to comunicate with my fellow wikipedians. I suppose that's why I thought about the sacred title of Administrator, as i see how you help many different people, as well as have engaging conversations bristling with intelligence. Not all of them may be well-intended; but Its still nice to try to comprimise with people in the situations and attempt a better standing. I can only improve upon myself and hope to gain such a standing where I, too, can speak and comunicate with others and thier situations. --MegamanZero 13:00 15, November 2005 (UTC)

Inquiry

I still believe in a "SHAVE THE WALES" campaign ;)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AJimbo_Wales%2FWikiProject_Wikipedians_against_Jimbo%27s_beard%2Fto_do&diff=28485712&oldid=28341966

The (Beard) page(s) were recently undeleted, per my IRC request. Hence they were not there for quite a while... I may probably be over reacting but stuff like this kinda bothers me... --Cool Cat ^Talk 12:23, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotecting Oleg of Chernihiv

Hi, I read your advise above and want to thank you. I'm frequently too busy writing new articles to defend my previous contributions. But I truly believe that unprotecting Oleg of Chernihiv and Mikhail of Chernihiv will do nothing good but instigate endless revert wars.

User:AndriyK rigged up the move vote by asking to vote a bunch of his adherents from maidan.org.ua, who never edited Wikipedia before or after that. As a result of this rigged vote, the article sits at Oleg of Chernihiv, which is incorrect in both Russian and Ukrainian, as the proper Russian (and Old East Slavic) spelling is "Oleg of Chernigov", and the proper Ukrainian spelling is "Oleh of Chernihiv". Moreover, his actions long discouraged me from starting Mstislav of Chernigov, which used to be on my to-do list and which I finally started today.

Actually, for ten months between my starting these articles back in January and AndriyK's first assault in October there was no editing at all, except one picture added at my own request. So there is little harm in the articles remaining protected for a while.

Also, as the time goes by, the trolls get bolder and more inventive. After having been blocked a number of times for breaking 3RR, they devised several ways to eschew the rule [13], e.g, recruited supporters from ua.wiki whose only contribution here is reverting one after another.

They also devised an ingenious procedure for moving articles in three steps: 1) move the article; 2) go to a redirect with an older name and damage it by adding a typo (such as brackets); 3) correct a typo back. You may check AndriyK's contributions: all of his moves since October 24, 2004 (Severyn Nalyvaiko, Ivan Bogun, Southern Bug, three subway lines, Oleg of Chernigov, Mikhail of Chernigov, Vsevolod Svyatoslavich, Mongol invasion of Rus, Igor Svyatoslavich, Russian architecture, Petro Mohyla) are done is such a bad faith so as to require move vote for the article to be moved back. And they believe that any move vote can be easily rigged up, as was the case with Oleg of Chernihiv and Mikhail of Chernihiv.

Most recently, his revert tactics grew more sophisticated. For instance, when Irpen suggested moving Polkovnyk to Ukrainian colonel, AndriyK at once created Ukrainian Colonel and Ukrainian colonel, both in two steps, to make a move there impossible. When accused on his talk page of vote fraud, he proudly replied: "I learned it from you: to use different rules in different cases. As you mentioned above, I do learn fast". They also indulge in copyright violations ([14], [15]).

I don't know what new fraudulent strategies AndriyK and his cronies could devise as the time goes by, but can you at least advise me whether the case is far gone enough to be submitted to arbitration? --Ghirlandajo 12:43, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for POV?

Hi Tony. I just found out that User:SimonP deleted my short entry on Abdellatif Laabi[16], which mention who he was, and a quote of his:

"Everything which the Arab reality offers that is generous, open and creative is crushed by regimes whose only anxiety is to perpetuate their own power and self-serving interest. And what is often worse is to see that the West remains insensitive to the daily tragedy while at the same time accommodating, not to say supporting, the ruling classes who strangle the free will and aspirations of their people." --Abdellatif Laabi (Moroccan writer), Jeune Afrique magazine, September 5, 1990, cited by Adel Darwish and Gregory Alexander in "Unholy Babylon, The Secret History of Saddam's War" (Victor Gollenz Ltd London 1991): p. 71

...for being POV. From what I understand on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion page that POV is "Problems that don't require deletion". What can I do now? Was SimonP incorrect? If he was incorrect what can I do? Travb 16:51, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, it should have been reformatted to make it more obviously about the person rather than merely being a vehicle for his words. It was a marginal speedy deletion candidate because it doesn't really provide enough context to understand the entry. If you rewrite this to be about the person, his life and works, and why he said these words, it should be fine. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:05, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

thanks again Tony. I will rewrite. Travb 17:46, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Results of mediation?

What happened with the mediation between you and TDC? I just found it today....[17]

Also unrelated, just stumbled on your Khmer Rouge mediation. You are really good at mediating I see...

Since I can't figure out where wikipedians keep all of those recognition pins and awards, let me be completly unorginal and be the second person to give you the same recognition:

When you get time, let me know about the mediation between yourself and TDC--nothing ever seemed to come of it... Travb 08:35, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing ever came of it. Mediation was a little broken at the time, I think, and no mediator came forward to address our case, which was at any rate not particularly serious at the time. I was just trying to work out what TDC was up to and how he viewed things. I've gained more experience since then and seen more of TDC's pattern of working. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:37, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kewl, thanks, once again TDC. Travb 07:35, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My rarely given award

I hereby bestow upon you this "Barnstar" for your patience with an ogre like me.--MONGO 11:13, 18 November 2005 (UTC) [reply]

My RFA

Thanks for your support. I've now been made an administrator. I'll do my best not to let you down :) --Sherool (talk) 02:43, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks! Your valient efforts at turning Wikipedia into Dikipedia are greatly appreciated! Keep up the slams and general jack assery! - Your Biggest Fan Dubya

Ah Tony, your plan has been rumbled. --Doc ^ask? 16:12, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration accepted

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Winter Soldier has been accepted. Please place evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Winter Soldier/Evidence. You may make proposals and comments at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Winter Soldier/Workshop. Fred Bauder 20:44, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Will work for.........wikibombs

Q and A time again, Mr. Sidaway:

A) Is 1000+ edits a good "benchmark" for becoming an administrator..?

B) How do i install a info box (w/watchlist,etc.) like the one you have on top of your userpage..?

C) Could you take a look at my "Projects" on my userpage and give me your humble opinion..?

D) Do you think I'm being too submissive when I comprimise with people..? Some users say I'm too "soft" or "easy". -MegamanZero 22:20 20, November 2005 (UTC)

Some people think of 1000 edits as a good benchmark, yes. Far more important is the quality of those edits, and a good deal of variety is often thought a good thing, too.

A quick way to get a navigation is to put something like the following on top of your user and talk pages:

The navigation is my own design.

The infobox is also my own design. I'll help you to make a copy in your userspace, if you like.

The list of projects is impressive. I think your progress shows that, whatever some people may say, you're doing something right. Compromise works very well on a wiki. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:55, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll accept your offer- i'd very much so like to have a info box like yours at the top of my page.-MegamanZero

Where's the info box..? I don't see it.-MegmanZero 16:27 21, November 2005 (UTC)

Copying the code that I cited above, the top navigation would be as follows:

When you referred to the infobox I assumed you meant the right hand sidebar that I have on my article. This is a personal design that is at Template:User Tony Sidaway/User. I'll help you to copy it if you want to make something similar for yourself. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:20, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

File:Megaman zero(activeform).jpg

The Copy Zero Award, for having a slammin' userpage

Ah..Thanks. I've been looking at that infobox of yours for awhile, wanting it all for myself...I even once tried the special Zero magic (SZM) to will it off your userpage on to mine, a thousand gigs north. Anywho, thank you for it, and I daresay you and I have the most informative (and colorful) user pages on the site. For that, I present this Copy Zero award for having such a great userpage like myself.-MegamanZero

Thank you! --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:37, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maoririder

Hello, Tony. I have something interesting that you might take a look at, regarding a case you're currently Arb-ing. This just happened today, and when I backtracked to the user I found his ArbCom case. I don't know if this has any relevance or not, but I thought it might as well be mentioned. [18] --Martin Osterman 21:36, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he can do some strange edits occasionally. My favorite recent one is his request for an image of God in the God article. He's harmless, just a little odd. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:35, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alrighty! Just wanted to make sure that you were aware since there was an RfA ongoing with him. Take care! --Martin Osterman 02:22, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GRFA

I've set the ball rolling for a WP:RFC survey to start, discussion is on the GRFA talk page. Please comment. Borisblue 04:14, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligent design

Thanks for your effort on the intro. Your edits were a major modification of a hotly disputed and massively discussed portion of the article (as indeed all of the article is.) I have reverted your change to the consensus version and posted on the talk page concerning this. While I appreciate your motivation, such an edit is guaranteed to cause a great deal of controversy, if not a revert or edit war. I hope you will take the time to read the talk page, and take this revert not as a summary dismissal of anything you may be able to contribute (because it definitely is not), but rather as it is meant. Should you feel after reading the talk page that your edits should be made, in whole or in part, please post your proposed changes and reasoning on the talk page and obtain concensus prior to making changes. Thanks so much - KillerChihuahua 16:02, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!!

Your support, as it is always, was deeply appreciated by me, especially over the past week. I will ensure that I do the best job I can. Thanks, Tony, I really mean it.--MONGO 02:49, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Will work for.......wiki.....aw....forget it

We've got to stop meeting like this, Mr. Sidaway. I see once again, fair anons have invaded wikipedia with a healthy dose of vandilism. And when that happens, administrators have to block IP addresses. This is understandable (and the amount of rightful concesus is noted), but when it blocks users who have only the viewpoint of improving wikipedia in mind, then it becomes irksome. Such a situation befell me when I attempted to edit at school again. I request that the IP address(204.218.244.11.) be unblocked. Also, the point of vandalism happening at my school is unacceptable- I feel, as an wikipedian who frequently contributes from the school, I should pick up the slack when such things befall wikipedia. Please respond on my userpage.-MegamanZero 18:48 24, November 2005 (UTC)

Speaking of anons, I noticed some have started putting various comments and questions on talkpages; I just don't understand why they don't do such things in forums and whatnot; is there a polite way we get get people to not do actions such as this on the articles (I was making overhalls to various DOA articles last night only to have anons revert it 5 times in a row, all in the course of 5 minutes.)...? For now, I guess, all I can keep doing is turning the other cheek and continue hoping for the best.-MegamanZero 13:21 25, November 2005 (UTC)

I don't tend to respond to queries on other people's user talk pages because it fragments the conversation. I did check the block log but I couldn't find anything for the IP number you mentioned. I could have screwed up, so if you get a block message from school again do come back or ask another administrator to double check.

I don't know what you mean by people "putting various comments and questions on talk pages". Do you mean like asking questions about a character? I don't think you can really expect people to stop that kind of thing because for the most part it's casual users and new users who haven't yet worked out how all the bits of Wikipedia work. I think the best thing it to be polite, answer the question if you can do so easily and refer them to a forum that you know if you cannot do so. And if you don't know a forum, well, just don't say anything, perhaps someone else will know the answer.

On people reverting your edits, when that happens always go to the talk page and ask why the edit is being reverted. Never get into a war, because in the long run you cannot win and you just end up being frustrated and maybe blocked.

On the question of anons, do remember that the only thing you can say about an anon edit is that it was made by an editor who for one reason or another didn't log in. It could be an experienced editor (some are university professors) who either never logs in or just didn't log in on this occasion. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:38, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, my deepest aplologies, Mr. Sidaway. I didn't know your outlook about posting back and forth between talk pages; in the future, I'll remember, and respect that fact on your behalf. About the anons, yes, I will continue to be courteous to them, as well as referring them to a respective forum. The only point I'm trying to get across is that this is an intelligently written source of information for people, and talkpages aren't meant for random comments and nonsense. I am paticular about this fact right now because, as of late, its been a literal invasion, and we need people to help with articles not hinder us- its already time-consuming as it is. Also, take a look at my talkpage and tell me if you notice something at the bottom =).-MegamanZero 16:03 25, November 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and you said: "I don't know what you mean by people "putting various comments and questions on talk pages"." This has been happening on various pages, and this one is an example from the Star Wars article; and I reproduce it all below:

OMG

-Star Wars are like the best movies eva! I love themk soooo much!

-Cool. I agree. But, no offense, but, I suggest you go back to the chat rooms with that language. ;) The Wookieepedian 20:04, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

-That anons been nothing but trouble. Keeps posting patent nonsense on "Talk:Bantha"--Kross 21:44, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And, for a more serious case of (admittidly humorous) malicious vandalism, take a look at this: [[19]]

--MegamanZero 16:12 25, November 2005 (UTC)

"As Jimbo has suggested..."

[your comment on Dunc's RFC] Just curious as the where that was. Thanks. Guettarda 02:06, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo commented on this case on his talk page, in response to a query by Silensor. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:21, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Guettarda 02:22, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration for User:TDC

Hi, you don’t know me but we have had contact with a mutual person, User:TDC.

I got your username from the Requests for comment/TDC-2[20] or the Requests for comment/TDC[21]

Currently there is arbitration pending on User:TDC. [22]

I welcome and encourage your comments on the arbitration page.Travb 01:57, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Biloxi, Mississippi

Hi Tony. I moved Biloxi to Biloxi, Mississippi, but subsequently noticed that you'd recently moved it the other way. Is there some reasoning behind naming the article Biloxi that I'm not aware of? Regards, CLW 19:02, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey....

Mr. Sidaway, may I ask why you didn't respond to the edvidence I presented above..? After I reproduced an example of what you didn't quite understand, you didn't reply....I was wondering why you left me hanging...-MegamanZero 21:32 27,November 2005 (UTC)

Well it looked like it was just people saying how much they enjoyed the Star Wars movies. It's a wiki and there's no way to stop people making comments like that. I recommend forebearance and, if the talk page gets too cluttered with such comments, just quietly remove them with an edit summary such as "Removing fan comment not directly related to the article." --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:08, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but did you see this...? That' more that just saying "they enjoyed a movie"; that's pure nonsense, ie. vandalism.-MegamanZero 21:50 27,November 2005 (UTC)

No, it's just some kid goofing off on the talk page. No harm done. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:22, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I see. If you say its fine, then I guess its fine, Mr. Sidaway =). I have to admit, it was humorous nonetheless.--MegamanZero 6:16 27,November 2005 (UTC)

If you want to see a seriously screwed up talk page, look at the history of Talk:Urban75. There is some kind of troll war going on involving people trying to intimidate others who edit the article, by speculating about their identities and threatening to ban them from Urban 75 if they edit the article. Or something. :/

That's about where I draw the line. If it's just a guy who is bored and types a bit of nonsense onto the talk page, then at least it's better than if he used the article itself. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:31, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

On another note, though, may I ask your opinion on the subject with the talk:Bantha vandalism..? You say he's "simply goofing off", but after being asked 5 and 6 times to stop such useless and disruptive behavior,and it continues to happen, then it no longer is considered "goofing around"; if someone asks you to stop, you stop. Another example of such blatant misuse of articles is anon 138.217.237.100; all of his contributions have been strictly vandalism; what does that tell you..?-MegamanZero 9:15 28, November 2005 (UTC)

Just a note, but seeing as you didn't answer my post last time, user 138.217.237.100 just vandalised again.-MegamanZero 9:20 28, November 2005 (UTC)

Kurdistan

I really think that article needs {{POV}} or {{totalydisputed}} and {{cleanup}}. But if I do that Karl Meier will revert me without reading diffs. In the best interest of the project that article needs attention, but in my best interest I want to stay away. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 19:45, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey...(again)

Mr. Sidaway, I'm beggining to express concern for your soundlessness lately...usually when I make a post, you respond to it- but lately you've been kind of quiet lately...Is anything wrong..? Can I help if there is..? Because this usually isn't like you; when I post something, I am expecting that you answer or at least make some comment or something in response (like per usual). In my last two posts above, you never answered, and the ones before that, I had to furthur devolve into the subject to give you the hint that I would have liked a response....I don't know what to say..maybe its me and my love of intelligent conversation has finally began to annoy you; or my posts were'nt really important enough, but...if so...I deeply apologize. Its just you're the best person I can turn to for advice. And when you tend not to answer all the time, it sorta makes me anxious...I'm trying to learn as much as posible from an experienced admin so I can one day perhaps be one. Anyway, thanks for your time...-MegamanZero 10:22 28,November 2005 (UTC)

I'm a bit busy with other stuff--off wiki. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:09, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I understand. There's other things besides wikipedia (unfourtunetly) , like an annoying thing I have to go to called "work", "school" and women vying for my affections. S' all good.-MegamanZero 11:22 28,November 2005 (UTC)

just noticed comments about cool cats rfa being opposed so quickly

I am not certaint on all of the wikipedia rules but I think that you are ment to wait for a RFA to be accepted before you vote on it. --Adam1213|Talk 07:57, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty much ad hoc, but Davenbelle's response was evidence that he wasn't disengaging from Cool Cat. Could you please fix that horrible signature? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 09:29, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What is the problem with it? --Adam1213 Talk 10:38, 29 November 2005 (UTC) Do you prefer --Adam1213 Talk 10:38, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Both were extremely distracting, and rendered the nearby text unreadable. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:58, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rajput Article

I am afraid that un-protecting the "Rajput" article might not be a good idea since the main point of contention is still far from achieving a consensus among the editors. Actually I will not say that we are any near to the resolution as we were before protecting that article. I would suggest that we keep it protected until a conclusion has been reached by the editors since each time the article is unprotected, new areas of divergence emerge instead it being the other way around. خرم Khurram 17:04, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I think you'd be surprised. We learn a lot more from watching the editing process than the discussion. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:08, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Then let's give it a shot :)

خرم Khurram 17:52, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rajput

If you're going to unprotect the article, do you think that you could use your vast admin powers to keep Shivraj Singh from using socks and anonIPs to give himself unlimited reverts and veto power over the article? His unilateral, unwavering refusal to allow any view but HIS is what's blocking any progress. I think the Muslim editors would allow his view to exist if theirs were allowed too. Not that I think the Muslim editors there are all sweetness and light ... Zora 21:33, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Resolving disputes, but I promise to have a chat with Shivraj Singh and see what's going on. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:56, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

: I tried a rewrite of the article at Talk:Rajput/Temp that presents two POVs re Rajput identity -- caste and lineage. That's the usual Wikipedia solution, step back and outline both positions. However, Mr. Singh, so far as I can tell, doesn't like that solution, because he is convinced that his POV, caste, is the only true one. IF you can get him to allow the other viewpoint to exist, as a POV without being presented as "truth", we'll be able to move forward. I hope. Zora 01:21, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Debate on Rajputs

Hi,

I write to you since you (apparently) are on the arbitration board, and will presumably work towards ending the rajput dispute. My interest is in Indian history, not Rajputs per se, and I have made no contribution at all to that article or its madhouse talk-page. However, I have run into Shivraj Singh on other Indian-history related articles. The fact that I have differences with him which I hope to work out amicably is evident from the detailed message I recently left him, which you can access here.

Rajput-muslims??

That said, I concur with him on what appears to be the main dispute on the "rajput" page. I must affirm that the position taken by certain muslim editors, that a person can be both muslim and rajput at once, is utterly untenable both in Islam and in Hinduism. Hinduism recognises the concept of "castes"; it traditionally assigns different social status to different castes, as also different duties, professions and privilages. Thus, the rajputs are the martial and land-owning caste, lower in social hierarchy than the priestly brahmins and higher than the tradesmen who make up the vaishya caste. Islam recognises no such system; the Koran certainly makes no mention whatsoever of caste or any similar system; the very idea is alien to Islamic culture.

An analogy: Although my knowledge of Judeo-Christian culture is limited, let me try to provide an analogy (a bad one, but this is all that I can now think of) that you may grasp: A person from the tribe of David, say, converts to Christianity. After he is baptised, can he still claim to belong to the tribe of David? More to the point, can his descendents, after 3-4 generations of inter-marriage with christians from all over the world, then suddenly again claim to be of the clan of David? The muslims who claim rajput status do something akin to this. In fact, according to Hindu tradition, if a rajput person marries a person of a different caste (whether higher or lower), the couple both "lose caste" and their children / descendents become "outcastes". When this is the result of caste-miscegenation between people of the same religion, where does the question arise of according caste membership to the children of muslims?

My case is based on the traditions of BOTH religions: Hinduism and Islam. No Islamic cleric or scholar will countenance the retention of caste-identity by a convert or his distant descendents, any more than a Hindu traditionalist will accept a muslim as his brother-in-caste.

Actually, that's not quite true. Muslim polemicists present Islam as being caste-less, but this article [23] is quite persuasive in saying that this is fudging the truth. In any case, you're assuming that Rajput identity is defined by caste, which is precisely the point being argued. Zora 01:28, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Middle path

Even so, an effort to accomodate the vociferous fringe that claims to represent "rajput-muslims" is in order, in the interests of peace, if not encyclopaedic accuracy. I suggest the creation of another page entitled "Rajput-Muslims", connected to the main "Rajput" page by a link created in the "See Also" section of the latter page. The "rajput-muslims" can fill up this page, and its associated links, with whatever information they want to present about that community. They could perhaps explain why, given its rich mixture of Turkic/Iranian/Afghan/other blood, the community (allegedly) chooses to define itself by a tenuous strain of rajput blood.

Final thoughts

Shivraj singh may not be the most urbane or diplomatic contributor to Wikipedia, but he has had grievous provocation. Furthermore, it takes two to tango, and Shivraj's opponents seem equally guilty of impenetrable obduracy. Shivraj should not be penalised for having given up on efforts to penetrate the "blindness of those who WILL not see"; nor should his recent lack of response to incessant baiting be construed as intransigence. His alleged use of anonymous IP's etc could also be condoned on the grounds:

of grave provocation and arguably malicious thwarting;
that adoption of my separate-pages formula will separate the two parties from each other; hopefully this will be the end of Shivraj's occasional waywardness

I also commend your attention to the talk-pages of his opponent, which may reveal, as Zora's talk-page does, that they are immersed in partisan POV arguments regarding their own culture/sect/religion. It is remarkable that these people (I include Shivraj) seem to have few interests apart from their religion/culture. Are encyclopaediae to be written mainly by bigots? Is there any way to reverse that trend?

ImpuMozhi 01:17, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Um, what, do you think I'm a MUSLIM? I'm a Buddhist -- which, by some Hindutva definitions, makes me a member of the Hindu community. I definitely have interests outside Buddhism <g>. Zora 01:28, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a member of the arbitration committee. Please follow the dispute resolution process and avoid making personal attacks. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:57, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

re nick

"TheChief (PowWow)" look at that nick.... no complaint from you my nick is a lot like that so if I drop the box would it be fine

Adam1213 Talk + 01:41, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That nick is pretty crap, too. Yours was even worse. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 04:49, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mark's RfA

You sly blackmailing old so-and-so! Still, I don't think I've broken anything yet, so it looks like you were right. Thanks for your support, your nomination, and your netfriendship. I'll buttonhole you on IRC when I need help ;-). fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 14:24, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Srbi.jpg

Please, can you protect this picture again. Antidote doing vandalisam again. Best regards, --M. Pokrajac 16:34, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The damn IRC

I request your assistance Mr.Sidaway. I've gotten IRC, and Cool Cat mentioned you were on there... he also gave me server info, but i'm still confused as to how input the information. May I ask that you give me step by step instructions how to find you and Cool Cat on your respective servers..? Starting from when you open the program, please. :) -MegamanZero 11:21 4.December 2005 (UTC)

Oh I was there but not looking here so I missed you!

I don't know what IRC client you're using. If you can tell me that I can give you detailed instructions. If you have instant messaging of some kind (AIM, Yahoo, MSN, whatever) I can talk you through it in realtime. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 09:28, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I got my IRC client from here, and other messaging programs I have are Skype and sametime. -MegamanZero 11:21 4.December 2005 (UTC)

Is that enough info..?-MegamanZero 14:21 4.December 2005 (UTC)

Okay, you have mirc, which is the best IRC client for Windows. Here is a page explaining how to set up mirc first time you use it.

http://www.new2chat.com/setup.html

Choose a suitable nick. Megaman_Zero is probably okay.

For server (after you highlight "Servers" in the Category box) you need to select FreeNode from the list. In the unlikely event that FreeNode isn't in the list, you need to add it. If you follow the rest of the instructions on that page, when you finally press "Connect" you should see a load of messages from the server as it connects you. When they stop, go to the Server tab on the window and type:

/join #wikipedia

This will open a new tab named "#wikipedia". On one side there should be a list of names (about 100-200 of them at any one time on #wikipedia). On the other side a scrolling area where text appears--the IRC chat. At the bottom is a text entry area where you can type stuff. If you scroll down the list of names you may see some that you recognise, if they're online at the time. I'm Tony_Sidaway, Cool Cat is sometimes Cool_Cat and sometimes Kawaii_Neko.

--Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:40, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"When in doubt, don't delete"

Tony, it's well-known that you and Aaron don't see eye to eye. I'm dismayed to see that the edit war over the old chestnut "When in doubt, don't delete" has now spilled over to the webcomix RfAr.

In an AfD debate the merits of an article are discussed. If there is consensus to delete it will be deleted, these are the mechanics. If there is doubt, the debate will be closed as the dreaded "no consensus", and the article will stay.

The sentence is not even a corollary of the deletion policy, it's a distortion. It would be more appropiate for the deletion policy to ask the closing admin to exercise restraint and good taste.

I can't see why removing the "don't delete" phrase (and a cursory inspection of the edit history of the deletion policy page shows that it had been absent in a fair number of revisions) will turn "Wikipedia into a free-fire zone" for articles. It rather seems that you are pushing a viewpoint unilaterally. Pilatus 03:58, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not. If in doubt, don't delete is a very, very old principle, and has been in our deletion policy for a very long time. To claim that it's a distortion (pace Encaphalon's attempts at revisionism) is simply incorrect. We've already seen many attempts to justify the deletion of articles on quite insupportable grounds; all that stands between Wikipedia and that free-fire zone is that we don't delete an article unless we're very sure that it needs to be deleted. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 04:06, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Encephalon's historical interpretation makes sense. To return to article deletion, the requirement for consensus ensures that content will not be deleted for indiscriminate, "quite insupportable grounds". "IIDDD" is not policy, it's a result of policy. Pilatus 04:22, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Encephalon's historical intepretation doesn't negate the principle. There's a perfectly good non-technical reason for "If in doubt, don't delete" and that's because deleting material when you're not sure whether or not to do so is a steamingly silly thing to do. And you're wrong to claim that If in doubt, don't delete is not policy. It's part of the deletion policy --Tony Sidaway|Talk 04:39, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The experience with Authentic Matthew and (on a smaller scale) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ceraphite should have taught anyone to proceed with caution. If the policy gets into the way of writing an encyclopedia, trash the policy. Pilatus 18:04, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Having said that, I still don't see how removal of the debateable phrase will influence long-established policy. Pilatus 04:34, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It would hand an open goal to those who are engaged in active attempts to subvert longstanding policy. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 04:40, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am concerned about this edit of yours. Before IIDDD had been an exhortation against repeated, disruptive listing of articles on AfD. "If an article is repeatedly re-created …, this may be evidence of a need for an article. Conversely, if an article is repeatedly nominated for deletion, this is not in and of itself evidence that it should be deleted …. (Cleanup may be appropriate.) In some cases, repeated attempts to have an article deleted may even be considered disruptive. If in doubt, don't delete!". After your edit it became an exhortation to admins: Particularly now, administrators are always reminded: "If in doubt, don't delete!" That is an attempt of subverting longstanding policy. Pilatus 18:04, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean it as an exhortation. It shouldn't be left resembling an exhortation. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 04:32, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pleased and amused

I was greatly pleased, and a little amused, to read this on the mailing list:

"The belief that certain verifiable, neutral, or potentially verifiable and neutral, articles must be deleted from wikipedia is one of the most seductive, most destructive siren calls on Wikipedia. All that stands in its way is the principle that we actually need a concrete reason to delete something: if in doubt, don't delete.

There is a move, mainly by a single editor but with some apparent support, to remove this pivotal phrase from our deletion policy, or to sideline it as a historical curiosity.

Please let us keep this. We don't delete stuff unless we have a bloody good reason to do so. Otherwise what's the point?"

Is this a recognition of past errors in any sense? Could I possibly expect you to take an initiative towards undoing some of the deletion you contributed to in the past? Much content has already been restored, but there remains the thorny issue of things that were deleted through VfD and now need to be undeleted. Everyking 09:05, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In my first three months or so of editing on Wikipedia, when our paths crossed, I was a strong deletionist by most standards. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:31, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, my question was whether you'd like to do something to help fix all that deletion you took part in. Everyking 13:05, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. If you have a concrete suggestion, please let me know and I'll see how I can help. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:29, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I appreciate the kind reply. OK, for starters, there was an article, Ashlee Simpson U.S. tour, 2005, which was deleted in Feb. after failing a VfD vote; I hope to get it undeleted. (Once it's undeleted it will need to be moved to a new title and substantially updated.) My hope is that if someone who fought me in those inclusion/deletion wars of the past was to argue that it should be undeleted, that would make undeletion much more likely to succeed than if I was to nominate it myself. Everyking 05:07, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion

Replied on my talk page. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 12:19, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since you appear to have ignored my response, I'm left to wonder why you bothered to put anything on my talk page to begin with. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 04:28, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted you to know that I regarded your comment as both unjustified and extremely uncivil. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 04:30, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even look at my response? - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 04:58, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As it happens, I haven't yet gotten around to it. If you'd like a more prompt response, plonk it down here and I'll see what I think. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:09, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress/IP Severe

* 204.218.244.11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) -- User has been banned 7 other times. Is now back online vandelizing other articles, stating blatant lies; Hubble Telescope, Pamela Anderson and other, see talk page, which he/she seems to revert and impersonate an admin. JedOs 08:47, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I see. This has been the user that has been blatently vandalising at my school. If its any corelation, He's the reason why I've been blocked on several occasions when I try to make (constructive) edits. I wish there were a way to stop him so that editors like myself could continue to edit in good faith without being blocked.... May I make a suggestion..? How about I add all his "contribution" pages to my watchlist..? That way I can revert his vandalising and other editors can continue to edit in good faith without being blocked. -MegamanZero 22:49 5,Deacember 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like a very good way of doing something constructive about the vandalism. Also you could talk to Cool Cat, he may be able to help you to track vandalism from that IP, because he has a vandalbot written to run on mirc. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:21, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a plan; I'll talk to Cool Cat concerning your bot advice.-MegamanZero 0:34 5,December 2005 (UTC)

rfa

Might be interesting to look at...:)' I wonder how it'll turn out...? -MegamanZero 3:37 6,December 2005 (UTC)

It isn't a bad idea to get feedback. This will give you a direction to aim for should you still want to become an administrator in the future. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 03:37, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]