I'm probably going to be busy for a bit. Try email but don't expect a prompt response. 25 Oct 2006

My signature is exactly the way I wish it to read, and your changing it because you don't like it is nothing short of vandalism. Cease doing so at once. RGTraynor 12:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't vandalism. Please choose a less distracting signature. --Tony Sidaway 12:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It most certainly is; I have zero leeway to change your signature if I don't like the looks of it. Wikipedia gives editors the capability to use colors in their sigs, and thousands have taken advantage. If you don't like them, don't look at them. RGTraynor 12:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Signatures are for identification, not decoration, and their appearance takes second place to the requirements of keeping discussion pages readable and uncluttered. Please stop making a fool of yourself. --Tony Sidaway 12:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you had similar words with Radiant!? Or do you find his admin status more daunting to take on? --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 15:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do believe Tony and I ceased to daunt one another several years ago. I don't recall having "words" with him over this because I fail to see why this is such a big deal. -- R 16:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can think of a number of frequent AfD flyers who use such sigs: Iridescenti, Dennisthe2, Whstchy, JodyB, Radiant!, Arkyan, TenPoundHammer, Clamster5, EliminatorJR ... Their use is popular, Wikipedia both gives users the capability to automatically set such signatures and has no policy enjoining the same, and there is nothing about their use that is either foolish or worthy of provoking insults. (Come to that, you don't use the standard four-tilde sig, unadorned, do you? This isn't a functionality question at all, it's just that others don't happen to share your personal sense of aesthetics. I could think of a worse reason to alter other editors' signatures, but I might have to work at it to do so. RGTraynor 15:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Be assured that you're not being singled out. If a talk page is cluttered and difficult to read or edit, I'll refactor it to remove clutter as a matter of course. No, Radiant! doesn't get a free ride--he has even been known to refactor his own signature in deference to my preferences, when editing my talk page. It's incorrect to state that there is no policy on signatures. --Tony Sidaway 20:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to hear it; would you be so kind as to provide a link to any such policy explicitly allowing you to alter or deface user sigs based on nothing more than your own comfort zone? That being said, there's no way that any alteration or defacement of my own signature (except on user talk pages, where people have more of a reasonable expectation of conformity to their wishes) will go unreverted. RGTraynor 20:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need a written policy to permit me to improve Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 20:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. So your assertion that "it's incorrect to state that there is no policy on signatures" was false? And you now assert that defacing signatures "improves" Wikipedia? RGTraynor 20:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, everything I have said is true. Removing clutter from talk pages certainly makes it easy to read and edit them, so I think I'm on safe ground in stating that I'm improving Wikipedia, in a very quiet and unobtrusive way. --Tony Sidaway 20:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SIG says-

(snippage: I know what it says, having drafted much of it mself -Tony)

Think its personal taste but all editors should be aware the a request about ones own thoughts on signatures is better than pure delete and be gone with. Mike33 21:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not clear what you mean here. Never mind, it's not a problem. --Tony Sidaway 01:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't my best statement and yes I know your work in defining day to day usage. WP:SIG is not your best drafted piece of work. It is vague. Surely when changing signatures one should at least leave a note on the users page saying why and the reasons it was made; Or certainly a note somewhere on the Afd or talk page that the signature was changed with reasons. Mike33 04:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a very minor edit with only a local effect, restricted to the page edited. No notification is appropriate. --Tony Sidaway 04:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mmmm I don't want to go on and on like a nutcase. Wikiquette isn't binding upon anyone, but yet most people follow the rules of amend, edit and discuss. It just seems too bold and brazen to hack away at a signature, especially innocuous ones. Discussion on Wikipedia is what sets us apart from other similar projects and essentially helps build policy and guidlines. Mike33 07:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True, but you'll always find people who don't believe that pesky notions of consensus and discussion apply to them. I'm scarcely surprised. RGTraynor 12:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You think we should discuss discussions? That way, madness lies. --Tony Sidaway 12:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What should be discussed is whether editors are behaving civilly and respectfully and whether unilateral changes are really a good thing for Wikipedia especially when they affect the attitudes and "personal space" (in that signatures are usually considered a form of personal expression to some degree) of other editors on Wikipedia. Is it more important to have your way, or is it more important to be supportive and non-confrontational about your edits in order to avoid making other editors feel disrespected? I'm for the latter, and I tend to believe that it's best to apologize and revert myself if I've given offense especially by editing behaviors that I unilaterally imposed on other folks, especially where no policy directly motivates my behavior. --MalcolmGin 17:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion pages are public space, not personal space. They have to be kept uncluttered. Editors have user pages for self-expression. --Tony Sidaway 18:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, you db'd the current version of Christine Wyatt under G4, but the present version is a considerably improved version, with only a little on the person and discussing mostly the legal issues with appropriate references. I think it's a reasonable good faith attempt. I know we disagree on some of these, so I am certainly not going to reverse your tag, but I am asking you to check the article again. I am not quite as impatient a person as some. I put a holdon tag for the moment. DGG 01:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody seems to have deleted. If the case can be written about in an encyclopedic manner without making it into a coatrack-style "bio", I think that would be better. We've had great success lately with such writing. --Tony Sidaway 01:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You got the name wrong, it's Charlotte Wyatt and it's still undeleted. My comments stand. The "right to life" and "quality to life" debate is a legitimate subject for an encyclopedia article, but writing piecemeal in dozens, perhaps hundreds of articles is not the way to do it, because of the difficulty of maintaining neutral point of view over all of these articles. --Tony Sidaway 01:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly agree that broader articles are needed in general. But I am not entirely sure that I agree that such articles would invalidate the need for articles about at least some of the individual subjects and cases. Regarding Wyatt in particular, the very reason why there is substantial traffic in scholarly journals over the issue is that this is the first time the High Court's family division has permitted such a case to be held in open court. It is a facet of the wider right-to-life/quality-of-life debate in the UK, to be certain, but in a very real sense it is the impetus for the current form of that debate. Tony, do you feel that (which the sources attest to, and I hope my article as written implies) is a sufficient assertion of notability to elevate this topic above the level of background news-story noise? Serpent's Choice 15:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On a related topic, I am curious as to the intention of redacting the names from parasitic twin. Unfortunately, neither of the "minors" whose names you removed are still alive, so redacting the names is not going to influence where future Google hits point to or the like, and the voluminous media coverage would seem to make family privacy issues a minimal concern, especially as there is no additional information about the families (beyond county) provided. I'm not changing the article at the moment, however. I know we both have put some reason into our arguments here, and I'd rather discuss the issues than just revert over them. Serpent's Choice 15:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've protected Charlotte Wyatt (expiry time of six hours) to allow for discussion on the talk page. Mackensen (talk) 15:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On removal of unnecessary references to the names of minors, I'd put it down to taste and decency. A way of distinguishing ourselves from the press. --Tony Sidaway 16:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Irrespective of the merits of any specific article, I would think there is a point at which the actions of or circumstances involving a minor are sufficient that we would name them, even if those actions or circumstances are unfortunate or negative. What criteria do you suggest editors employ to determine when names should or should not be included? Requiring editors to make discretionary decisions based on "taste and decency" is unlikely to result in consistent outcomes (because cultural and ethics mores vary widely among the Wikipedia contributors). We are not the press, but on the other hand, the names of individuals connected to topics, events, and circumstances that rise to the level of encyclopediac contribution are likely to be germane. We are an encyclopedia and a source of information. Serpent's Choice 18:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The question I'd ask is: "is the name of this person relevant to Wikipedia's coverage of the event?" Usually it isn't, really. I don't think cultural mores vary that much, really. We all know that tossing the name of a dead child around is tasteless and likely to be hurtful. The references we provide usually name the individual, so completeness is not compromised. --Tony Sidaway 18:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, we don't all know that. I don't agree that it's tasteless, and I have no indication of it being hurtful in this context. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I expect that a useful principle will be forthcoming on this matter in the arbitration case. --Tony Sidaway 18:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If there's any sense at all... --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, this topic is going to have strong opinions on all sides, but I'm not sure that I can agree with you, in a couple regards. First, how are we measuring relevance to the event? As an editor, this seems a slipperier slope than notability even. In the case of Rebeca Martínez, this was the first attempt to surgically correct the condition. Is that relevant? Other than the infrequency of the condition, and her status as a minor, how is she different in that regard from Louis Washkansky? Second, how does including names in an article such as parasitic twin, when done in the context of neutral factual reporting rather than sensationalism, become tasteless or harmful? Who is being injured here? In this case, it cannot be the subjects themselves, as they are unfortunately no longer alive. Are we trying to protect the families? If that is the intent, why is mention in Wikipedia offensive but linking to mentions in the media acceptable? For that matter, why is naming these individuals more harmful than explicit references to them that redact their names? Certainly, the Martínez family could recognize reference to Rebecca regardless of whether we redact the name. I understand that the motivation of all this argumentation all over the project is an effort to de-sensationalize many of these articles. A great many of them are terrible articles that badly need rewritten, sometimes from the ground-up, in order to be acceptable. I understand that, as a reference work, we should strive to "do no harm." I do think that we should approach this cautiously, however, because erring on the side of over-protection is equally problematic. Serpent's Choice 18:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is a top ten website now. It's a matter of taste. If we can discuss the case without mentioning the name, that is the more tasteful option. --Tony Sidaway 18:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because you're obviously an expert on tastefulness.  Grue  19:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I need a sanity check. I've been working with some editors on the Cow tipping article, I can not get past the fact that it appears mostly OR an unproven theory. Could you take a look at it, for my reassurance that I am approaching this sanely. Thanks in advance, Navou 17:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cow tipping is bollocks, but an article about the hoax might be amusing. The article is labelled as a comedy stub but there should be more about its appearance in the comic context. --Tony Sidaway 17:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per your request - I came to that AfD with pretty much a clean slate of knowledge about the meme as a whole. Up until seven hours ago I had no idea what this girl looked like, despite being involved in the DRV though that was because the deletion was flagrantly against all sense of policy. I went to the AfD and read the reasoning of each argument and then posted a reply based on my interpretations of the arguments and who in my mind had a stronger claim to their position. Your response was to pretty uch off the cuff reject everything I said and add meaningless sniping remarks, which amused me considering the debate seems to be about who has the moral high ground. The irony of posting "where's a bucket" and then immediately following up with a post on Badlydrawnjeff's talk page saying he was being incivil was too amusing to ignore.

You have been blocked for this in the past and it has come up in front of the arbitration committee so by now you should know what you are doing wrong. If you keep making the same comments and you keep being found incivil for them what is the constant of the report? It isn't the reporter. –– Lid^(Talk) 15:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise for the way I put it. My comment on conversing in English was related to your appalling alphabet soup of a comment, which was barely comprehensible. I could have put it better (and just did). Insofar as I didn't that's wrong.

As for Jeff's attacks, of course they're far, far beyond common incivility. But that's for his talk page. --Tony Sidaway 15:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm honestly having trouble seeing the incomprehensibility of my comment, it's just a list of essays and policies. –– Lid^(Talk) 15:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I saw:

I know that from the DRV closing but I still perceive it as a double standard. The delete proponents argue under WP:BASICHUMANDIGNITY (essay), WP:IDONTLIKEIT (essay) and WP:RPA (essay) while the keep argue from WP:V (policy), WP:NPOV (policy) and WP:NOT censored (policy). With the precents it just seems that wikipedia has gone from the free encyclopedia with a basis in policy to trying to find the moral high ground in regards to articles.

Barely a single sentence of English. A string of gibberish connected by English words. It took some time to work out which policies, essays and whatnot you were referring to. --Tony Sidaway 15:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did link them for a reason. The misspelling of precedents however could cause problems, but when taken with my longer reason and previously referencing it I thought it would make sense what I was trying to say. –– Lid^(Talk) 15:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I did eventually understand most of, and respond to, your comment, though I admit I might have been more civil about it. For that again my apologies. --Tony Sidaway 15:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll write my own essay. Walton 19:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you accept my apology? Walton 19:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No need to apologise. I am aware of no hostility between us. I disagree with you to some extent, but I expect this is true of any two people on Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 19:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. To be fair, I respect and (to an extent) understand your reasons for wanting to protect the privacy of individuals who have become famous against their will. Although I disagree strongly with your approach to BLP, I don't question your core ethical principles and desire to do good. To explain my point of view, I suppose I see Wikipedia as part (albeit a non-commercial part) of the world's free, unregulated and uncensored media. The media frequently does harm people's lives - both public figures (including those who were born as public figures, like Prince Harry or Chelsea Clinton) and private figures - and this harm would no doubt be eliminated through censorship and tight control to protect people's privacy. But the free and uncensored media is also an essential of a free society; and restrictions on freedom, even well-intentioned ones, always do more harm than good. So that's why I'm opposed to speedy-deleting articles on semi-notable people who are notable against their will - the act itself might do good, but its implications, of ignoring consensus in favour of protection of privacy, are inherently harmful. To (mis)quote Thomas Jefferson, "He who sacrifices liberty for security deserves neither." Sorry about this long-winded rationale, but I thought an explanation was needed. Walton 19:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I don't think Wikipedia is "free" in that way. It's not an anarchistic or libertarian institution. The free flow of information can have harmful consequences, and I think we have a responsibility to strive to get it right, and this involves reining in our open editing model sometimes when information is presented in an inappropriate way, putting undue weight on some facts in a way that is harmful to involved, but otherwise, private, individuals. --Tony Sidaway 19:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely agree that we should strive to get it right, in that any content which is false, unsourced and/or potentially libellous should be removed on sight without prior discussion - certainly Wikipedia has to be "censored" in that respect. But I don't think even the most ardent Wikilibertarian would disagree with that. My interpretation of "freedom" in this context is that, just as the commercial media do, we must operate within the boundaries of the law and strive for fairness and accuracy. Obviously that involves restricting our open editing model, just as you say - but to the most limited extent reasonable. So we shouldn't delete sourced and verifiable information just because it might hurt someone. The commercial media wouldn't do that - indeed they often do hurt people - and the laws of free, democratic nations don't require it. Although Wikipedia isn't an anarchistic institution, it is designed to provide free information, and the price of free information is that someone might get hurt. Walton 20:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you could put our differences this way: I believe that our humanitarian objectives imply an obligation to be nice, or to do no harm, wherever this is compatible with our other objectives. This is why I edited the Star Wars kid article, and a number of other articles, to remove the name of the people in question, and why I merged some information discreetly into more appropriate articles. Most if not all of the people in question are private individuals, the vast majority are minors. Most are alive but some are deceased children. This is sensitivity. Even the press does this, but its objectives and and conditions of work are different from ours. --Tony Sidaway 20:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I respect your strong ethical principles, even if I don't agree with them. And I must say that now I understand your motivation, I have far more understanding of why you sometimes express yourself a little strongly on this issue (as per the discussion below). I certainly don't blame you for having strong humanitarian beliefs. Walton^Assistance! 18:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please explain this comment that you posted underneath my AfD comment? Thanks, I'm confused here. Darkspots 19:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise for the tone of my response. I found your suggestion that "The people who Rebecca call "masturbating neanderthal bloggers" have given this woman a Washington Post article and made her intensely, if (probably) fleetingly, notable" absolutely unspeakable. Your revolting apologia for the article: "She's an adult, she's given interviews on the subject of her internet-meme notability--she meets the libel standard of a public figure, not a private one" filled me with revulsion, dismay, disgust and what one might term a righteous fury. I momentarily lost my composure, for which I apologise. --Tony Sidaway 19:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining what you meant--the other user seemed to take your meaning in a very different way that I find unacceptable. Your disgust I can handle. I personally think that your above statement overreacts to this situation--I think we're making different assumptions about the naivete of necessity of Wikipedia to protect the subject, and that reasonable people can differ about that point--but I see where you're coming from. Darkspots 19:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

for this. --MichaelLinnear 01:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, SqueakBox 01:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you go through Doctor (Doctor Who) - there seems to be a lot of uncited fancruft/fan speculation/original research. PMA 07:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't tempt me. It's extremely badly written, and needs a bloody big stick of dynamite followed by about three days of shovelling and a good few whacks with a pit prop for anybody who tries to recruft it. Maybe one day... --Tony Sidaway 14:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So why DO You keep deleting people's customs sigs? Just out of curiosity... Melodia 14:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When I do so it's to remove clutter from a discussion and improve communication by doing so. If self-expression is important to us, we should do it on our user pages, not on a discussion page. --Tony Sidaway 14:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Still fighting the fight, eh? Exploding Boy 14:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's just a good habit. Costs me nothing and makes the wiki a nicer place. --Tony Sidaway 14:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with ya! El_C 14:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There seem to be two very different discussions happening on this issue. At Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) there is a near consensus that these edits should stop, while at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard there is a near consensus to just the opposite. There does seem to be a debate about whether current policy demands a non generic fair use rational for certain images. To me this seems to be a legitimate argument, the fair use rational at Image:BizarreRideIIthePharcyde.jpg has been presented as an exemplary rational for fair use of an album cover, but it still seems to be to be totally generic.

I'm thus going to leave this bot blocked. There is a problem with fair use, but it is not a crisis. 24 hours of discussion and debate on this issue will do no harm to the encyclopedia, and could help clarify some of these issues. - SimonP 15:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll reply on your talk page. --Tony Sidaway 15:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that was the result of the discussion back then. If you'd look at the new discussion on the talk page, things have changed since then. And in that discussion, the majority appear to support it's inclusion (apart from yourself). Feel free to remove if the consensus changes.

I think you'll find it doesn't work that way. Your edit has been reverted and the page is protected. That's how seriously we take this stuff. This isn't a game. --Tony Sidaway 17:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, if it's not policy then why were you applying it? If the two-year concept was your justification, then you should say that. The word rule implies in my mind, for some reason, a rule. Sorry that my bizarre word-association caused you the trouble of interfering with me.--Rambutan (talk) 18:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I wrote. It was just my opinion. In principle I could have removed al spoiler tags and then asked people to decide which ones needed to be restored, but it made more sense in my mind just to set an arbitrary limit, see if anyone moaned about it, and adjust it if they did. Nobody moaned. But there is no policy that says Doctor Who episodes younger than two years need spoiler tags. --Tony Sidaway 18:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you put an edit summary as "Two Year Rule" (which you did, and I'll find it if you ask), then any normal person is going to assume that it is policy or guideline, particularly given your obsession with sedulously following the above.--Rambutan (talk) 19:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're right, I did recently say "Two year rule" [1] in a few edits removing spoiler tags from episodes first shown in mid-2005. That was a mistake, obviously, if it led you to think that the rule has any existence except as a rule I apply to my own spoiler removals. --Tony Sidaway 19:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It blatantly wasn't obvious if it mislead me. I don't go putting my own maxims in public because no-one else understands them. If you use the word rule in a rule-based society such as WP, and you're personally obsessed with rules, then one is naturally going to assume that when you use the word rule, you refer to a rule. So don't sound so defensive about it: I didn't make a mistake, I acted as a normal person would have done (an experience you're unlikely ever to go through).--Rambutan (talk) 19:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually you're probably the first person on Wikipedia ever to tell me that I'm "personally obsessed with rules". I'm widely known as a strong advocate of ignore all rules, and usually make edits to improve the encyclopedia, without regard for what the rules say. --Tony Sidaway 19:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Admit it, Tony, you're a process wonk at heart! Come out from the closet, release your inner wikilawyer! :-) --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose you could think of it as zen wikilawyering! [2] :) --Tony Sidaway 19:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about AvatarMN? Did he never suggest that you are obsessed with rules? You're not an advocate of IAR: you wanted to remove the Helen Raynor female Dalek woman thing just because nobody else had noticed it.--Rambutan (talk) 09:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, AvatarMN might also have suggested it. He was equally wrong. You can be sure that if I remove something it's because I think it shouldn't be there. --Tony Sidaway 02:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What part of the proposed section violated WP:BLP and how did it do that? Hypnosadist 19:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BLP is about more than just protecting ourselves from liability. This person's notability is due largely to the fact that she became the unwanted object of widespread purient interest. Under the spirit of BLP as well as the letter ("Such material requires a degree of sensitivity,", "Wikipedia articles that contain information about living people can affect a subject's life. Wikipedia is a top-ten website, and with such prominence comes a measure of responsibility.", "Biographies of living people must be written conservatively and with due regard to the subject's privacy. In case of doubt, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm".:" and "Real people are involved, and they can be hurt by your words. We are not tabloid journalism, we are an encyclopedia.") that material does not belong in the article. (Wikipedia is not a newspaper also applies, as does Neutral Point of View:Undue Weight, as it pertains to people notable for a single event. Thatcher131 19:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By your theory then we should have no information on anyone who claims that there privacy has been violated, well then we will have to delete many articles about holywood personalities. I do not see how saying she was a victim of becoming an "unwanted object of widespread purient interest" and discribing how and why this happened harms her in anyway. Infact if in this encyclopedia IF we note the effects of this interest on her (mentally etc), and the implications for the rest of us and our privacy, we are doing our job in providing notable, interesting and usful information. PS People have to know the harm that this can do and having this knowledge available in wikipedia reduces (only slightly i admit) the chance that this will happen again. Hypnosadist 20:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a matter of undue weight. It's better not to mention this silliness at all, if she's important enough to have an article on. --Tony Sidaway 20:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"undue weight" is right, how many washington post and Times of London articles did she have for her sporting achivements, this "silliness" (i agree with you on that, just its very notable silliness) should be given the weight it deserves. Could you try to come up with a form of words that mention this meme (and perhaps the negative effect on her and her family) that does have the "required degree of sensitivity". Hypnosadist 20:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's a lot of BLP being thrown around but it really is more about "Undue weight" and "Not an indiscriminate collector of information," and the fact that we have to be particularly sensitive about biographies, especially of people of limited importance. I don't believe people need to be told that posting someone's photo to a blog, leading to rude, crude and lewd behavior and emails, is a scary and intimidating event. But if you think people need to know this, write an article on Social consequences of internet notariety, using sources from the professional anthropology and sociology literature (if it exists). Or offer to write such an article for such a journal and then someone else can make it into a wikipedia article. It might be very interesting, and it would be appropriate to note in the article some case studies, if they are so noted in the professional literature. (Adding example cases of your own would be original research, of course.) However, an article that says, "Eve Smith is a high school athlete who briefly became famous when her picture was posted on a blog, attracting some lewd and crude responses" is not really why Wikipedia exists. (recentism is also a problem. How many of these cases, from Bus Uncle to Allison to QZ ("little fatty") to Star Wars guy will be notable and interesting next year? Does anyone care about the Numa Numa guy today except for the editors who love and cherish the article here?) Thatcher131 20:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

what the hell? It's not even allowed to be discussed on the talk page? BLP-remove-anywhere applies to unsourced negative comments, not good faith content discussion (with sources no less)Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, even on the talk page. Please stop reinserting this inappropriate content, anywhere on Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 23:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the attacks then, not the entire discussion. Blanking other's comments on talk pages counts as disruption. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It does not. I'll leave enforcement to others from now on, however. The arbcom can deal with this situation. --Tony Sidaway 23:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since you expressed support for my new guidelines (which I moved to a better place), I was wondering if you'd look at this and add a few words. -N 19:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would have just speedied that and asked the editor to write a proper user page. This is par for the course. --Tony Sidaway 20:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Grue/ethics. - Merzbow 01:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attack page. Seems to have disappeared. What a surprise. --Tony Sidaway 01:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tony; have to agree with you; both Human Nature and The Family of Blood are fantastic, and will probably go down in fan history as some of the best episodes ever. I have not been able to catch all of the series, sad to say, but have been highly impressed with David's take 2 of the Doctor, and think that Freema has turned out to be a superb choice for the Doctor's best freind. Cheers! Fergananim 14:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as Captain Jack says he took his name from Captain Jack Harkness, dos'nt this mean that - like the Doctor - we don't actually know what Jack's real name is? Fergananim 14:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's right. In my crazy, strictly private, fan theory, Jack is the first incarnation of The Doctor himself. --Tony Sidaway 14:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WOW! Did'nt think of that! Though I've always believed that the First Doctor as we knew him was already nearing the end of his first life, and probably aged like a normal human, albiet with a MUCH longer life span. Would help account for all the centuries he's totted up. Anyway, has anyone else touched on Jack's non-identity? Fergananim 20:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not into fandom that much so I don't know. I dare say we'll know a lot more about Jack by the time the end credits roll on Last of the Time Lords, though. --Tony Sidaway 23:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are probably aware of the storm brewing in parts of wikipedia over the place of episode articles, sparked by one editor's mass redirection of them. Somehow drawn into the discussion some days ago, I now find myself contributing to a discussion about WP:EPISODE guidelines, the need to make them more accessible (ie. locatable, understandable and explicit) to editors, and developing a non-confrontational strategy to deal with problem articles. Having seen your efforts to instil a sensible approach to the Doctor Who pages as far as MOS-fiction goes, fair-use images, reliable sources, removal of fancruft etc, I think your input would be highly valuable. If you have a moment, do drop in at Wikipedia talk:Television episodes#A proposal. Thanks.

BTW, I don't mean to eavesdrop, but I like your theory about Jack. :) Gwinva 19:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably won't have a lot of time for this. I am incredibly overstretched. Broadly, you don't need permission to write an article covering a season, and it makes sense to fold minor episodes into the season arc article. On some shows such as Doctor Who and Star Trek and Buffy and probably for all I know CSI and 24 and Shark and House and Lost, you probably have the interest to cover the show on an episode-by-episode basis (though on the Doctor Who experience I'd say there's a lack of discipline, but that doesn't mean there isn't an amazing amount of good work for each episode). Normal editing should be used freely, and honestly we need a lot of editors who aren't scared of wikiprojects and group decisions, to just go in there and be creative. They'll get pecked to death but the results will be really good if they stick at it.

Jack? Well it's a crackpot theory, and has tons of really big holes, but dammit it's so much fun and then it gives a lot of scope for my hottest fantasies of having sex with myself. We're heading into "All You Zombies" territory here. --Tony Sidaway 22:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments on the episodes; understand you're busy (it's too easy to get sucked into things here). Not so sure I'd take the Jack theory that far... Gwinva 21:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Bus Uncle has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.

Please do make your concerns known. -- Jonel | Speak 20:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. My. God. How on Earth did that become a featured article?? It is a tabloid feature, nothing more nothing less. Terrible. Carcharoth 17:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's more than a tabloid feature, though I agree it falls short of what I'd expect from a FA. The central incident is trivial, but the reaction to it, and what it symbolizes, or not, is interesting. Pity you have to read 1/2way through the article to find that out. IMHO, of course. Regards, Ben Aveling 09:46, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering what your position is on the use of screenshots per WP:FAIR, for example the screenshot at Family of Blood. * Law-wise I think we're doing it right, taking only a single reduced-resolution frame out of the whole episode, and using it for critical commentary on the program and its contents, in a way which is more complementary than substitutive.

• WP policy is stricter. Discussion at WT:FAIR today came up with the notion of an image being "significantly illustrative" rather than merely "decorative". So here, the image is illustrative of the portrayal of the family and the scarecrow soldiers, in a way which significantly adds to the article.

Do you think that's a correct assessment? (I'd say it was about right) And would you consider this to be a good example of appropriate fair use on WP ?

Just trying to get a sense of your overall balance of thoughts in this area.

(BTW, the examples of so-called "fair use" that really scare me most are not screenshots, but images like Image:Columbine Breaking News Photography.GIF, which we appear to be using in an exactly substitutive way).

Cheers, Jheald 22:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're doing okay. On some Doctor Who episode articles we have captions that are random quotes and don't identify the image properly. I've come down hard on the process of randomly assigning images from trailers to episodes--which in practise did turn out to be very patchy and inaccurate. The reduced resolution is done right (formerly we had humungous 100kb+ files) The current caption "Son and Mother of Mine prepare to take their soldiers to war." is appropriate to the illustration. --Tony Sidaway 23:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sidaway, I believe that, right now, there is a consensus of people who believe that, the names themselves are fair game - we just have to be careful with how the information about them is presented and to pare the info down to "Name, age, status as student, place of origin (hometown or country of origin and residence), and the nature of the injury sustained." (As stated by HokieRNB) WhisperToMe 02:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't try to put the names back. --Tony Sidaway 02:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he (or someone) did. What now? My preferred version of the page is here, even though that includes all known names. It was done in the style of List of victims of the Columbine High School massacre. Carcharoth 16:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, on second thoughts, I'd now remove the names of the injured. Not needed. Carcharoth 16:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've jotted some thoughts down at User:JoshuaZ/Thoughts on BLP and I'd be interested in what you think about them. JoshuaZ 03:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on User talk:JoshuaZ/Thoughts on BLP. --Tony Sidaway 04:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Were you aware of Wikipedia:WikiProject Criminal Biography? I stumbled across it after seeing the attempt to put the V-Tech massacre killer's article through FAC. BTW, nice talk page. I never knew you were a Dr Who fan! :-) Carcharoth 16:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I still remember sitting and watching the first episode of Doctor Who with my father. --Tony Sidaway 17:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You watched the first episode? Presumably your Dad was there to protect you from the terror. I had to hide behind the sofa from the silurians when we got our first ever tv and Saturday afternoons were never the same again. Good work on the lolicon article, we'll get there, SqueakBox 19:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Sidaway, I am concerned that too much of the community does not intend to uphold BLP, for the simple reason that "where you stand is where you sit." It's only natural that Wikipedia editors do not wish to be constrained, while most editors are not themselves the subjects of BLP violations. For this same reason, we get community buy-in when editors are themselves the subjects of attack, which is right and good. What's missing, I fear, is the willingness to extend these considerations to everyone we write about, as well as to unpopular members of the community who operate here under their legal names, and have been at times subject to relentless attacks (e.g. JVM.) How can this be solved?Proabivouac 06:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a cultural problem. We draw our recruits from the greater internet, where there is a culture of irresponsibility and anonymity. This will change over time as limits are hashed out. The Alisson Stokke case was a watershed and things will be much, much easier from now on. --Tony Sidaway 08:55, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you revert her full name? The table says "birth name" and her birth name was Jennifer Elizabeth Pike. -- Roleplayer 12:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Use of a primary source. Privacy. --Tony Sidaway 14:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"disagreement with the consensus to delete"? There was no "consensus to delete"; even the closing admin did not argue that there was. He cited only his own weighing of the arguments put forth: "The arguments for deletion thus seem to be stronger than those for keeping, thus my decision". Did you even read his rationale? Lampman 17:23, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Please revert your closure of the DRV. It is not up to one person to determine whether a DRV is "simple disagreement with consensus" or a valid concern regarding the closure. That is the purpose of deletion review itself. Please let this play out. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:24, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and another thing: the Deletion guidelines for administrators clearly state: "As a general rule, don't close discussions or delete pages whose discussions you've participated in. Let someone else do it." Man, you're on a roll today! Lampman 17:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have not been involved in that deletion review. Only Lampman has. --Tony Sidaway 17:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is wikilawyering and you know it. –– Lid^(Talk) 17:46, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your participated in the AfD which was the subject of the deletion review ... that is a conflict of interest even under the most flexible definitions. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The grounds given are Lampman's personal opinion that there was not consensus to delete. This isn't enough to sway a consensus at deletion review, so it would be a waste of time. Please follow the principles outlined in Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Deletion_review to see if you can resolve this. The first thing to do is to discuss the close with the closing administrator. I notice that neither of you has done so. --Tony Sidaway 17:34, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DRV is meant to exist to decide whether the correct decision was reached, every DRV opened pretty much stems from person opinion. It's the review that decides whether the opinion is correct or incorrect. Yes this is a contentious article but when did wikipedia reach a point in which we have one group trying to use DRV only to have their every attempt speedily closed? The ultimate irony is that the out of process closings are probably going to now need a review. –– Lid^(Talk) 17:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) First, the grounds given are not only the view that no consensus was reached, but also that the close was improper. Second, whether that is enough to sway DRV participants is for the DRV itself to determine – not one editor. Third, ^demon went on wikibreak so there's little point contacting him for now (see [3]). So, for this case, you are the closing admin. Please revert your closure and let the DRV play out. Nothing is more damaging to the project than an atmosphere that discussion is pointless and/or not allowed. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:46, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please follow the deletion policy. If you have problems with the close, your first port of call is the person who closed the deletion discussion. --Tony Sidaway 17:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You mean this? Because from what I see there is the closing admin telling the users to goto DRV and now the DRV closer is telling us to talk to the AfD closer... and we appear to have a conundrum. –– Lid^(Talk) 17:55, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Lampman should take his particular concerns first to Coredesat. If this doesn't resolve the matter and Lampman has a case based on deletion policy and not his own personal opinion, then DRV might be in order. --Tony Sidaway 18:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like I did, you mean? --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) A case based on deletion policy? "If you believe a page was wrongly deleted, or should have been deleted but wasn't, or a deletion discussion improperly closed, you should discuss this with the person who performed the deletion, or closed the debate, on their talk page. If this fails to resolve the issue, you can request review of the closure at Wikipedia:Deletion review." From WP:DELETE#Deletion review. –– Lid^(Talk) 18:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict 2)Why does it matter who takes the concerns to Cordesat? They have already been taken to him and he has pointed to DRV ... it is in order. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taking your particular concerns to Coredesat, if they are based in policy, may persuade him to correct the error, thus saving us many days of pointless arguing . On the other hand, your concerns may turn out to be invalid, and all attempts to start a review could fail. Your choice. --Tony Sidaway 18:07, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taking the case to Coredesat is pointless, someone else has already done so, and his response was: "DRV is thataway". There is no point in trying to discuss the matter with someone who has declared no intention to discuss. That there was no consensus is not my "personal opinion", but indisputable fact, which is shown by the closing admin not even bothering to argue that there was, but rather arguing out from what was - in fact - his "personal opinion". In any case, if you take your responsibility as an admin seriously, you should reopen the DRV, excluse yourself from a conflict of interest, and leave it to someone else decide on closure. Lampman 18:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is Tony an admin? I know he once was but I thought he had his powers removed some time ago for some reason. –– Lid 18:12, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I desysopped voluntarily about nine months ago. I wasn't asked to and wasn't in danger of being desysopped. --Tony Sidaway 23:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well if not this is simple enough - we just re-open the DRV. Only admins can close these, and anyone else who tries should be blocked for vandalism. Lampman 18:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I checked, he's been desysoped. That explains a lot. Lampman 18:27, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See above. --Tony Sidaway 23:59, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, I think non-admins can close DRVs ... it's just highly recommended that they refrain from doing so, since DRVs can be extremely controversial. Also, it seems he voluntarily resigned adminship rather than being desysopped (see Wikipedia:Former administrators). Tony, you haven't edited in 25 minutes now. Please give some indication of whether you intend to undo your action so that we may proceed from that point on. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see it was reverted. Never mind, I suppose. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did that. The DRV page clearly says it's a job for admins. It doesn't specifically mention speedy closings, but I can't see how that should make any difference. It would be analogous to article deletion/speedy article deletion. Lampman 18:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any non-admin, especially an experienced Wikipedian, can close an AfD or DRV. Whether it "takes" is another matter. If there are big "don't go there" signs they are probably of the sort that are generally ignored by people who have been around for a while. --Tony Sidaway 23:59, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now that we have finished with that, I'm going to put my "father of a beautiful young woman" hat on and suggest, politely, that you all cease your distasteful attempts to drag this young Californian woman's name through the mud. She clearly does not relish the unwanted attention, and many other websites took the hint and removed their material. Wikipedia shall not be an exception if I can possibly prevent it, and I'm confident that nothing on earth could shift Wikipedia's determination now to keep out of the disgusting fuss over that talented young woman. Let it drop. --Tony Sidaway 00:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't wait for the day you piss off the wrong person, Tony. --badlydrawnjeff 00:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This has already happened. She married me and we lived happily ever after. --Tony Sidaway 01:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a reply to comments of yours that were deleted before I had a chance to post in reply. The deleted comment was:

I'm surprised that you compare me to Jeff, really. Jeff puts his own ideas before Wikipedia. I work to make my ideas Wikipedia's, and I'm pretty good at it. Jeff on the other hand has produced many, many good articles. Both are necessary. --Tony Sidaway 02:12, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not surprised that you're surprised. You misunderstand Jeff, but you probably aren't open to finding out how. You certainly are quite good at what you do, but you also generate a lot of unnecessary heat, and you have rebuffed suggestions regarding how you could generate a lot less. You're a pretty poor listener, too. I see you misread people left and right. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I can make this more constructive by providing specific examples, but I won't do so if you don't indicate a willingness to listen. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:21, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I understand Jeff rather well. Really. We all could have gone down that road. --Tony Sidaway 02:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then we're agreed to disagree. Have a nice day! -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I spent an indeterminate time, perhaps ten minutes, trying to post to the noticeboard asking for the discussion to be closed. Then someone says he's gone and blocked Jeff. I think the thing here is that people do sometimes get very upset and throw the rattle out of the pram. At such times it isn't a good idea to hassle them. I mean if you look at the comment to which Jeff was replying you'd have to realise he wasn't his usual self.

Anyway I asked coredesat, who blocked him, to unblock. And he did.

Of course people shouldn't go around making foul personal attacks, but well it would have helped if you could have kept the discussion to my talk page so I would have noticed it before it got out of hand.in

Don't misunderstand me, what Jeff said was quite out of order, but I don't think this was the right way to deal with it. --Tony Sidaway 03:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tony! I was never on your talk page, actually, and was unaware that any discussion was taking place there. Regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 03:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well the comment you quoted was made on my talk page. You could have queried it there and perhaps my input might have helped. --Tony Sidaway 03:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I asked the person who made the statement, and then requested external input when that failed. Your input was not required. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 03:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Might have helped. There is a reason why Jeff is close to boiling point. A policy reason. --Tony Sidaway 03:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tony. I've probably missed the reason for this, but I'm just wondering why you have a "busy" notice in your talk page header from October '06. Does it still apply? Best, --Yummifruitbat 04:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See TARDIS. These things tend to get stuck in one shape. --Tony Sidaway 04:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, OK. By the way, that looks like a great article! --Yummifruitbat 04:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tony, "muddies the waters"? You sure you checked my edit? Deiz 05:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I examined it very closely. It's not nominating, lots of any old articles for deletion that is intended to make the point, it's nominating lots of articles that obviously shouldn't (and won't) be deleted. This is unfortunately one of the least understood guidelines we have. --Tony Sidaway 06:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not confuse the letter "f" with the "long s" on arbitration pages. Newyorkbrad 17:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry that waf moft remiff of me. --Tony Sidaway 17:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]