Welcome to my talk page.If you've come to complain, whine, moan, question my judgment, my intelligence, my sanity, or tell me off in anyway, that's fine. I'm a big girl who can take it.If you've come to chat, compliment me, have a laugh, or discuss articles that's even better.
This is so wrong; I feel as though I have been violated by Wikipedia.To have Ril and his bullies succeed makes me feel sick. Time to give up on Wikipedia. It is sad that a few can ruin it for everyone.--Melissadolbeer 06:05, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wsidom from one who insists on marking real edits as minor[edit]
The most unreasonable among us, often insist that they are "perfectly reasonable". TTLightningRod 20:35, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Very interesting. You're quite the font of wisdom aren't you? BTW minor edits are for things like spelling corrections, minor format changes and the like.They are a way of telling people "you don't need to check this" Comments on talk pages should never be marked as minor, because you do want people to read what you wrote. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 21:04, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Once again you do not address the point raised. Instead you respond with the sarcasm you think is befitting one of your supposedly elevated status here at Wikipedia. Self-disillusionment will set in, one day. Or maybe not, in your case. Paul Beardsell 22:43, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
My sarcasm has nothing to do with my status and everything to do with my opinion of TTLightningRod's views. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 22:55, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, of course, the only reason you seem to have for his views being worthless is that he disagrees with you. The reasoning seems to be you are beyond criticism, therefore he must be wrong. In any event: Sarcasm does not befit an esteemed member of the ArbCom. Ah! I see my mistake! Paul Beardsell 23:04, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You know nothing about him, me, his behavior or mine for that matter. I don't take advice from the likes of you. And I couldn't care less if you think sarcasm is befitting or not.Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 23:09, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to think that you did care. That you did think that sarcasm is not befitting. I am encouraged by the fact that you respond intemperately. If you really did not care then you would respond in different language or not at all. Hint: To show that you do not care that sarcasm in unbefitting from a member of the ArbCom do not respond now. Paul Beardsell 23:21, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I rspond intemperatly? What kind of language is that? Are you trying to make out you are clever or somfink? I answer quickly cause I am sitting online at the moment. Simple. I don't care whether you would like to think that I did care that I could care less what you think is befitting behaviour. And I do not care not to respond to your comment. This is too much fun. You make me laugh with your silly attempts. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 23:34, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Are you referring to my default edit preferences setting? If so, I've tended to think of my edits, and more so my comments (to include this very one), as being minor in relation to a global wiki. Maybe this highlights a difference between You and i. This might help explain why your style with admin authority gets, shall I say, under my skin. TTLightningRod
You are mistaken as to the purpose of the minor editing button. The purpose of which is not "I am humble" or "I am small compared to Wikipedia" it's "I am not worth looking at". The button is there to be pressed when the edit shouldn't be checked. It has nothing whatsoever to do with authority. The reason that it can be set in preferences is because some users patrol new pages a lot and tend to make lots of small corrections to articles, such as wikifying them or bolding the first mention of the title. These edits do not modify the content of the article, only the layout. For editors that do that a prefence of marking all edits as minors means they only have to uncheck the button when their edit isn't minor. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 21:38, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Please forgive me for disagreeing with you on this. You won't ban me for disagreeing with you, will you? TTLightningRod
What a daft thing to say!
BTW way when in doubt it's probably best not to mark the edit as minor. Many people consider marking an edit as minor when it isn't, as deceptive. I'm not for one moment suggesting that you are being deceptive as it's clear that you didn't understand. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 21:46, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well than, think of me as always in doubt, and clearly one who doesn't understand. I'll just have to live with that. TTLightningRod
Caution tender reader: The following response may contain sarcasm within.
Well blow me down! After carefully reading that which you have offered, and taking it all into honest consideration, I have concluded that you have elevated me from a minor contributor, to a Major Contributor. Please, please, no I insist. Thanks to you Theresa Knott, my spirit here has been lifted. (I might even place a flower on my user page, to show my new found appreciation for the glory and beauty of our world) You have given me the confidence needed to push that little button in my edit preferences, to properly reflect my newly acquired authority as Major Editor, that which you have angelically bestowed upon my head. Again, humility should be mine, but you have shown me how authority in the right hands, hands like mine, should not be meekly couched, but rather, it should be wielded like a giant c_ck. I look forward to the places, adventures, and doors this new title shall open for me, and if not, then it should bring them to my feet. O' glory be, my thanks...... what a minute..... I don't have to "thank you" now... I'm well on my way to King!
That was not meant as any kind of insult, or personal attack... just trying to be a bit humorous.
No need to thank me. It's all part of the service. Anmd i don't mind humour one bit.
I will not be asking anyone else but the person who initiated a "lock" upon a contentious issue. A person who has assumed an overbearingly negative POV upon that very issue, and has chosen a particular timing to protect the article from further maturity. An article worthy of approach, no matter how long it takes nor how clumsy it may seem, to be discussed, collaborated on, and have information placed in the main-space.
The aaetherometry article is only temporarily protected. And only becasue the anon chose to go nuts at that point and start vandalising. Yes my personal opinion of aetherometry is that it's crackpot. And yes, I've said that in the talk page. But I do try to write neutrally in the article itself. I'm not perfect, but then neither is anyone. At least I don't go vandalising like our anon freind. If there is any info you want placed in the article put it on the talk page for discussion. But please do keep it on topic. It needs to be about aetherometry in particlular.
You can not protect the entirety of Wikipedea from fumbling, incorrect, misunderstood, or poorly presented information. Nor can you protect the entirety of casual readers from falsities, POV, nor especially, evocative and thought provoking encounters with words upon a computer screen!
I don't understand the point you are trying to make here.
Once again, Danny assured me that you are a reasonable person. Please don't insist that I place a mark against Danny too. TTLightningRod 23:56, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have the greatest respect for Danny. I am a reasonable person. If you want to work on the article I am happy to work with you. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 00:17, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. Ravenswood placed a proposal at the Village Pump. "Point-Counterpoint", at number 45 or so. You might have seen it. I think applying such a format to talk:aetherometry is an excellent idea. Maybe you and I could flush out some very good techniques for use in other contentious science topics (one of my favorite things to read about), or other hot articles. I have a number of ideas for template lay-out views to tyr. Let me know after you read it, and your thoughts.. we'll catch up later. Peace. TTLightningRod 01:17, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find it. The VP has been split into lots of little VPs which one is it one exactly? Or summarise what he said. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 09:00, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
With regards to the aetherometry article - I see no point in tolerating the anon's behaviour. He can say what he needs to say without resorting to that kind of language. I think we should just revert him until such time as he adjusts his language - set the "personal attacks" threshold low enough... But I will need help if I am to avoid 3RR violations (though I am willing to argue my case there too, if need be). Anyway, I just wanted to know what you think of that idea. Thanks. Guettarda 16:25, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Anything is worth a try I suppose. It might work. You need to be very careful though. Only remove personal attacks, not criticism. Also you need Gang of One on board as he is arguing that you've set the bar too low.Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 18:02, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
GangofOne here. First, thanks Ms. Knott for your kind words (and image) on my page. On other subjects, the ae..ry page, I am not convinced the deletion of comments is right. Besides, they are complaining about the (mis)use of power, and then their complaints are deleted; that won't convince them of the opposite. However I have no plans to revert previous deletions. They have the secret to the universe and they can't get people to listen to them , and St Reich was martyred after being mocked, and Mallove their big supporter and collaborator was murdered, and world is not going their way, and fascism is creeping back, so you can see why they may feel a little testy. I see no harm in letting it (their state of mind) show. GangofOne 09:07, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Any idea why Melissadolbeer thinks you and I have a "special relationship" ? ~~~~ 16:37, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't I see the two of you kissing behind the village pump? ;-) This diff seems to show the source of Melissadolbeer's concerns. func(talk) 16:46, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Func you know I only have eyes for you!
Here is the extract from the block log that he appears to be talking about. I can't actually remember what this was about. I shall go and investigate. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 17:13, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
01:29, 10 July 2005 Theresa knott unblocked User:-Ril- (Edit warring had stopped.
No need for a block at this moment in time.
We can always reinstate if the war starts up again)
I've replied to Melissadolbeer on her talk page over this. Move right along folks. There's nuffingk to see 'er Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 17:57, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for replying. Mind you, -Ril- (talk·contribs) is being such a disruptive pain, I wish that he'd stayed blocked. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:59, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Please add Pat Robertson and Hatshepsut to your watchlist. Recently they both underwnet sizable spans of time were obvious vandalism was on the page [1][2] In the case of Hatshepsut the page was almost completely blanked and remained that way for nearly six hours. Both figures are two important and controversial to be allowed to have vandalism pn the pages for a sizable amount of time. -JCarriker 21:16, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
Also when do you think you can read over WikiProject U.S. regions, and give me your opinion. As always you are invited to join, even if you don't know much about the subject it would be nice to have an elegant bouncer for when things get rough, as well as an outside opinion. -JCarriker 21:23, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
It's very difficult at the moment because I am involved in a whole host of things. Arbitration, several pseudoscience pages, some science stuff. A whole heap of stuff for the wikijunior project. i feel that I know so little abou US regions that I don't know how much help I can be to you. Give me a couple of days and I try and take a look, but when i do don't value my opinion too highly because i am a complete ignoramus about these matters. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 21:30, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
How many anograms are there of your name? I know of taste the korn, tote the ranks, and a tenth stroke. Are there any more? Howabout1Talk to me!|Vote on my RfA! 03:28, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
There are loads! I have a lucky combination of letters. Knees, hot tart. nate the stork, not the skater and many more Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 08:56, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia presenting the best of what is out there[edit]
Hi Theresa,
I noticed the picture you had made for the Foucault pendulum article.
My main project for the past months has been the coriolis effect article. I have been scouring the web for the best information available. Much of the coriolis effect is so counterintuitive that I felt I had to make animations to show everything. Because it is all so counterintuitive, I have allowed the article to become rather long, but the important bits are as close to the start of the article as possible.
I have a request. I think I need a support base. I need to convince other wikipedians that the current coriolis effect article presents the best information that could be gathered from the web. Will you read the coriolis effect article, giving me a chance to convince you?
I'm in a bit of a difficult situation. Most websites do not present the coriolis effect correctly, often contradicting themselves. Only a handful websites gets it right, as can be seen by following through the logic. I feel that it is OK for a wikipedia article to present the best of what is out there, rather than an average of what is out there. --Cleon Teunissen | Talk 08:54, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting people's comments from Arbcom pages[edit]
I'm here because of this edit. As an arbitrator it is important that I see all evidence. For this reason I am instructing you never to remove anything from any page that is arbitration related. If you change your mind about one of you own comments strike it through rather than delete it and under no circumstance remove anyone elses comments or replies to your comments. Even if it is a personal attack - leave it there. OK? Also from your edit comment I urge you to continue to defend yourself in this accusation. I am an unbiased arbitrator and I am notifying you Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 08:46, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I will not remove anything from the arbitration. Why am I party 1, when MarkSweep is the one bringing on the request? Or does it not matter who is party 1 and party 2? Thank you for your attention as an unbiased arbitrator. --AI 09:08, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't make any difference. If you bring a case to arbitration, and it's accepted, then everyone involved is subject to AC judgements. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 11:10, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explainn to me why i cant make factual additions to the Arthur Scargill page?[edit]
Arthur Scargill was the focus of a concerted MI5 smear campaign with the use of
the MI5 mole Roger Windsor who was a senior member of the NUM executive.
Then you can add it, but you must also add a reference. How do you know the above is true? Who said it? where did they say it? Was it in a newspaper, a book, a government report? Did MI5 admit it themselves? Did Roger Windsor? Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 08:28, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I would say 99% of the facts on here are presented withour sources , i dont see why this should be any different.
Could you have a look at Wikipedia:Bible verses. I am having a problem with -Ril- (talk·contribs) again. I have been trying to change the introduction of that page as I see it as quite biased to one side. (For instance it describes Bible verses a "problem" that need to be dealt with, and misrepresents the results of the recent VfD.) This has met with reversions from -Ril- who states the introduction cannot be changed as the poll has already begun. Unfortunately the poll began the instant -Ril- created it, and there was thus never an opportunity for discussion. My personal preference at this point would be to close the poll and reopen a new one once we have figured how it should be worded and structured, which is in accordance with the Wikipedia:Survey guidelines. - SimonP 00:33, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
Well -Ril- has been blocked for a 3RR violation, so for now the situation is calm. He seems to value your opinion (as do I), so your input on this matter would still be useful for tomorrow. - SimonP 01:33, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
And you Birthday Present is ................[edit]
No shrubbery? Ni, ni, ni!!! :) OK, then I offer you in return a window-wire-fence sort of thing, because it's kind of a cute picture. Thanks, Theresa. :) func(talk) 03:29, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The same problem user how threw the temper tantrum and posted American West on deltion has revealed himself to be a sockpuppet and has threatened to POV Western United States, which at my request has been protected. I considering filing a personal RFC against him. User talk:Katefan0#Thumbnail will briefly give you an idea of the situation, this guy is driving me nuts, please advise. Thanks. -JCarriker 22:04, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
This user, 68.114.103.117, a pseudonym of Nintendo Maximus, is having an edit war with me. Time and time again, I have been disagreeing with whether certain characters should be classified as villains, and he keeps changing it without coming to an agreement. I request that you block him. Marcus2 18:39, 24 Jul 2005 (UTC)
Also, I think that the villain category should be deleted. Marcus2 18:41, 24 Jul 2005 (UTC)
Oh, and I see that Nintendo Maximus is doing it under his own account. Why don't you block him too? Marcus2 17:18, 26 Jul 2005 (UTC)
Why don't I block you? After all you have been edit warring with him. You keep changing it without coming to an agreement with him. Plus you keep threatening him with blocking (which he hasn;t done to you). So request denied. I will not be used as a stick with which you can bash people over the head with, and i will not get involved with a stupid war over a poxy powerpuff girls article. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 21:57, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Then I'll ask someone else to block the user. He keeps adding the villain category without coming to an agreement with me. Would you like to be put on the "Requests for comment" page? I thought you were more polite than that. Marcus2 14:44, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt that you will find an admin willing to block just because you say so. Feel free to start an rfc but note that that I haven't been rude to you, or about you. I have been rude about that articles on which you choose to edit war over, but being rude to articles is hardly a crime. Having said that. If I offended you I apologise. You struck me as someone trying to use me to bully someone else, which seriously offended me. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 18:01, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oh great. Marcus again. I remember this guy, he's obsessed with trying to get his own Fanon into Wikipedia. Last time I remember he was trying to push some strange ideas about Baby Mario based on a short story he'd either read or written himself. Now he's trying to argue that Mojo Jojo isn't a villain... I also remember him trying to mark articles as featured without going through FAC. Great... --DropDeadGorgias(talk) 16:01, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
Hi,
Do you still want a photograph of an ndebele house? I have many as I lived as a child in SA.
Cara
We would love a photo! You need to create an account, because anon users aren't allowed by the wikisoftware to upload photographs, once you've done that drop me a note on my talk page and I tell you how to go from there. Thank you. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 18:01, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
How exactly would I go about starting a WikiProject on the Digimon-related articles? Is there anything formal I have to do? Link 06:09, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I don't know. I've never been into them myself, preferring instead to do my own thing as and when the mood takes me. I suggest you read Wikipedia:WikiProject and the links it contains and go from there. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 09:22, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Given I'm not entirely certain what to do, now, with a personal-attack-fest I've stumbled into with User:IZAK. Would you mind reviewing the discussion at both this VfD and his talk, and give me an idea as to what Wikipedians're supposed to do in such situations? (I've been looking for assistance two days now, and just stumbled across an old RfC relevant to this dispute. Your name was listed in support, if curious as to how I ended up here.) Shem(talk) 20:00, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
on the woitchcraft page you might not have read the entire conversation, someone was trying to dispute oral histor as a probably primary source and told me that if they had a family history contraty to the one the jatives had woudl that be proof that its wrong etc, and my cliam is simply that a thousand year oral tradition is much better, as credibillity goes ten a 200 year one. they claimed that ancestry had nothing to do with it, which lead to the edit you cited. please tell me what other problems you see.
Gabrielsimon 23:11, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
(itsalso not really easy to be nice to people who aent when one hasnt eaten in three days)
Gabrielsimon 23:13, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Good lord. Why haven't you eaten? I'm not so worried about you being nice. Although manners are of course important. I did read the entire conversation. The problem is that you do not appear to remotely understand our policies of cite references and no original research. This is a big problem, and we need to come up with some sort of solution. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 23:18, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
id eat if i had money. but thats not really important. i have and can go for a week or two without food when needed, but pays forthcoming at last... any way, i was trying to argue for the point that ora history would make an acceptable primary source, as far as the culture thatthe oral historys from is conecvrned, and what i wa trying to make that point for was that witchcrft , as its referred to in the article, didnt exist, and witch hunts per se never happened,m until european contact, the worst thing that ever happeend to anyone using magic in a bad way was a banishment. ( i know this becasue i have heard many oral histories, and i study ledgendfs of my people and other tribes) if it comes down to it i guess ill have to try to get the policey modified.
Gabrielsimon 23:22, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well you can try, but I have to warn you now that you will not succeed. One of the key things about wikipedia is that facts have to be verifyable. We have to be able to verfy what you say. This is why it has to be written down. So that we don't have to accept your word for it. This is why oral histories are not acceptable. Because I (or anyone) cannot check them. I can't veryfy that they are true. I can't even veryfy that you are not lying through your teeth about what your elders said. Do you see the problem? Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 23:29, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
the problem seems to stem from a lot of POV pushing that seems to go on here, and a lot of " dishonorable" people, which i would hope that i am not one of, butthat would require some prooving as well, i suppose.
Gabrielsimon 23:32, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that -Ril-'s signature is irritating (and designed to be irritating, I judge), but I've just come across a new user who is much worse: ;. (talk·contribs). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:28, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
if you can possibly spare the time, I could really use support on the Talk:Coriolis_effect page.
William M Connolley isn't buying the newtonian physics in the article. This is a delicate situation, for in other difficult situations you and William are together defending science against crackpots. Can you give me advice on how to proceed? Can you maybe bring me into contact with someone who can help me? --Cleon Teunissen | Talk 06:59, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
My advice on how to proceed is to address every last one of his objections. There is nothing delicate about this situation. You are not a crackpot and this is not a fight. William can be a little in your face at times but he is not unreasonable. Answe his objections as best you can and allow his imput to futher improve the article. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 21:27, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Boy, I sure hope that William remembers soon that he is not unreasonable. --Cleon Teunissen | Talk 23:34, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
LOL but if you can see past the manner in which he says it, and look instead at what he says. It's not unreasonable to ask for references is it? Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 09:01, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The difficulty is exactly the way he says it. He did not wast much time before calling Cleon, "evasive"..... Even after Cleon spent a very reasonable amount of time addressing WMC's comments. As well, my fixing of the tub and toiddy comment was near effortless, you might try it sometime. TTLightningRod 13:16, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Which is exactly why I said that Cleon should look past the way he said it and instead address what he said. William made some points that need adressing. Cleon may well have spent some considerable time and effort answering William's concerns but it's what Cleon said that is impoertant, not how long it took to say it. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 13:25, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, are we going to have a proxy debate here? I would suggest not. Cleon: I can be blunt, or I can say exactly the same thing in long oh-so-polite circumlocutions. But I can't see the point of the latter. I hope you'll begin addressing the questions I've asked. TTL: if you have anything interesting to say about the Coriolis effect, do feel free to join in on the substance. William M. Connolley 14:11:10, 2005-07-30 (UTC).
Hmmmm #2, the discussion between me and CT isn't going too well: we seem to be talking past each other. If you think you know whats going on, do feel free to comment, in support or not. William M. Connolley 10:38:06, 2005-07-31 (UTC).
Asking for references (Coriolis effect article)[edit]
Hi Theresa, of course it is not unreasonable to ask references. However, in the case of the coriolis effect article, the concepts used are very basic. Newtons first, second and third law of motion, kinetic energy, gravitational potential energy, harmonic oscillation. Those subjects are presented in any physics textbook. In that sense every physics textbook qualifies as reference. The mechanics in the coriolis effect article does not go beyond the level of difficulty of harmonic oscillation. (Or another example, the mechanics in the coriolis effect article does not go beyond the level of difficulty of the mechanics of a planet orbiting a Sun.)
If historical information is presented then of course that must be referenced. But for example the wikipedia article on Pythagoras theorem does not have references to attest that the proofs of the Pythagoras theorem that are presented are correct, the reader can think the logic through for himself.
There is no novel physics in the coriolis force article. (I know William disagrees, I have seen where he has misread the article, I shall address that misunderstanding.)
The formula for the Coriolis force can be used to model the mechanics on a rotating oblate spheriod, no friction, and the ball is on average co-rotating. Now the ball is circumnavigating the planet's axis, so it has a lot of rotational energy
If the ball is given a velocity from east to west, then it is moving too slow to maintain latitude, and the force of gravity will pull it towards the pole.
If the ball is given a velocity from west to east, then it is speeding with respect to the Earth. The ball is speeding, so the ball will drift away from the North pole. The slope is a given, so the amount of centripetal force is a given. The more excess speed of the ball in west to east direction, the stronger the tendency to drift towards the equator. That is why for air mass moving with respect to the Earth the Coriolis effect tendency is proportional to the velocity with respect to the Earth. --Cleon Teunissen | Talk 12:20, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Whooptidoooo, you are warming up to the Coriolis effect! The same formula applies for the mechanics and for the coordinate transformation, so there is a powerful suggestion that the coordinate transformation is the key aspect, rather than the mechanics. I hope you will stay interested. --Cleon Teunissen | Talk 14:08, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm off to bulgaria for a couple of weeks tomorrow. Hopefully you'll have whipped the article into FA state by the time I come back. Remember now - be nice! Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 17:01, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nice, moi? :-) I'll try. Have fun away. William M. Connolley 09:06:32, 2005-08-01 (UTC).
The suggestion that coordinate transformation is the key aspect is just appeareance, and only a fool will actually believe that.
There are two different things, that are both called 'Coriolis effect'. There is the mechanical Coriolis effect, and there is coordinate transform. What they have in common is that they both involve rotation, and they have the same formula.
William is a true believer. He is contradicting himself, but he is blind to that. I cannot reach William. Ah well, it was nice while it lasted, and my version of the article is still in the history.
Who knows, maybe some day in the future I will be able to find support for a proper Coriolis effect article. --Cleon Teunissen | Talk 17:49, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A crude derivation of the mechanical coriolis effect[edit]
Hi theresa, about the coriolis effect in meteorology:
In the situation where a torque is being exerted, and no change of angular velocity, the coriolis force can be calculated by taking the derivative of the angular momentum with respect to time.
In the previous derivation the second force present (the first force being the centripetal force) acted perpendicular to the radial directrion, it exerted a torque.
Next to consider is the case that the second force acts in radial direction.
Let stand for the global centripetal force. This global centripetal force is a given. It is a function of distance to the center, and it is unchanging in time. Stable circular orbit in that field circles at the equilibrium angular velocity (The e stands for 'equilibrium'.)
Let stand for the total centripetal force, to be exerted on an object moving at some angular velocity that is not the equilibrium angular velocity. Let be the difference with equilibrium angular velocity. Let be the velocity relative to . Then .
It is the mechanism that I have described that is doing the work. The formula for the mechanical effect coincides with the term in the coordinate transformation, and lots of people blindly assume that only the coordinate transformation matters.
The mechanism is always there, independent of the choice of coordinate system. In the particular case of a transformation from a inertial frame to a frame that is co-rotating with the Earth, the vector of the coriolis term in the coordinate transformations coincides with the vector of the physical mechanism.
It appears that lots of people have not recognized the situation. According to the textbooks the coriolis term of the coordinate transform is a fictitious force, but they wonder (somewhat in desperation) how on Earth a "fictitious force" can have such tremendous effect on the atmosphere. --Cleon Teunissen | Talk 06:50, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
a user called DreamGuy keeps adding content to my talk page which i keep removing, and he keeps putting it back... is there anything you can do to make him stop? its getting really annoying.
Gabrielsimon 23:46, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The short answer is i su[pose is that his words are unnessessarily rude and annoying, so i remove them , but i do leave in constructive critisism...
Gabrielsimon 23:52, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
They look highly critical to me, but not unecessarily rude or annoying. I would advise you not to remove them. If you look over the history of my own talk page, you will see that I don't remove comments from other people even when they are downright personal attacks. I do this in the interest of openess. If you've done nothing wrong, then what does it matter what people put on your talk page? If you have done wrong, then it's far better to apologise and move on than sweep critisim under the carpet by deleting it. Either way it's better not to remove it. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 00:04, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
im not particularly good at accepting harsh crisitism, becasue in that users case he comesoff rather insulting , as far as i see it... though perhaps it would be better if i took a higher road then his
Gabrielsimon 00:05, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
is there any way to make people close the RFC on me? i have done everything i can do get things going to get thingfs riught, but, againb dreamGiy keeps trumping up new stuff for people to compoain about me for, ex[pecially when he doesnt get his way... this has gone on for along time now, and its really starting to aggravate me, i mean after two weeks or more, people should be allowed some repreive from the pe\trie dish, but i dont know how to make people leave me alone, ive tried listening to thier wishes, and even begun adapting to them, hell i even unwatched a few pages where things were going badly.... but people wont leave me be.
Gabrielsimon 02:03, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take your word for it that I jumped the gun (but I'll confirm when I get home), so I apologize for that. Given Sam Spade's track record in general and specious arguments here in particular, though, I don't think I had very far to jump. --Calton | Talk 00:39, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
You are the best user ever ;) My apologies for the mess you found me in, yet again. The fact that you managed to make the best of the situation, both for the reader (most important of course) who now has an image of a bridge to look at, and for the editors (you managed not to insult anyone, or fan any flames) underscores the caliber of editor you are. Silly me, I thought that was pretty good image, despite how few people agree. I showed it to my wife, and she said britannica would have fired me. Thats probably true... Oh well, thanks again for making things better. Cheers, ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 02:36, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again Theresa, I see you were hit by My impostor. Sounds just like me, don't he? ...Anywho just saying it wasn't me. By the way Theresa... hows about archiving? }:-D Redwolf24 02:45, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I archived for you... if you were going for Wikipedia's largest page then sorry. Otherwise you're welcome. The server was failing when I tried to submit x.x Redwolf24 03:02, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, didn't I just block you for vandalizing this and other pages? I was sure I did; damn, these meds are good. Also, Theresa, he pesters me about archiving my talk pages, too, I would just ignore his jibberings and block with great prejudice! Anyway, enough about Redwolf24 and his army of sock vandals: best wishes for a safe, engaging, educating, etc. (some fun is allowed) trip to Bulgaria tommorow. Take pics! Best, El_C 04:20, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hahaha. You're mistaking me with the redwolf24 with the screwed E... What did I do anyway Im not even that controversial, the most controversial thing I do normally is welcome users x.x Redwolf24 03:24, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm back from my trip. I had a great time and have hopefully bought a holiday home in the Bulgarian countryside (subject to legal stuff). Freel free to start leaving me messages again - but I'm still very tired at the moment. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 12:21, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I recently, nearly joined the exodus of regualr contributors, but have decided instead to reduce my edits to admin and mediator activities. However I am considering becoming a regular contributor again, if my concerns can be at least partially addressed. Please review and participate in the this. It will only take a small amount of your time. Thanks. (Hope you enjoyed Bulgaria!) -JCarriker 12:45, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
You like tinkering with grahpics don't you? Well there are only three letters left. Please see this.-JCarriker 09:50, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
I've posted some general ideas for discussion. Please participate. Thanks. -JCarriker 20:39, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
I'm sorry I lost my patience two weeks ago, I hope you will accept my apologies.
Currently, the coriolis effect article is contradicting itself because of conflicting edits.
I am now working on a version of the coriolis effect article that will incorporate as much as possible of the various inputs. Work-in-progress-version of the coriolis effect article If you can spare the time, please have a look.
I added references to scientific literature, in particular the articles by professor Dale R. Durran, that put the meteorologist Anders Persson on the right track.
I added a section with mathematical derivations, the same math that I presented here, on your User Talk page.
There was an outpour of discussion on the Talk: Coriolis effect page the next day, but in retrospect most of that was babylonian confusion, differences in terminology obscuring the real issues. --Cleon Teunissen | Talk 12:36, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have launched a rfc against this user for his censorship of the condition Aposthia from wikipedia. I feel this user has finally gone too far in his pro-circumcision stance -- to the point of eliminating a medical condition? If you would like to endorse it, please sign at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jayjg.
I am having a tough time at the moment and somebody like Curps pointlessly leaving a message slapping me down for editting one of the pages he has editted most really made my blood boil. Ask him why he decided he had to do that, that would be your reason. I'm sorry to you about it but not to him. Besides, since it is my User Talk page, why should it even bother you slightly that I removed his messages, I didn't want them there. Surely that should be fair enough? Greaterlondoner
It's your edit summary that caught my attention. It's fine to remove someone's comments from you talk page if you don't want to hear from them, but don't call them names in the edit summary. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 01:33, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You mentored me as an admin long ago so I hold you responsible. ;) I'm here to ask advice. I am not warring with Tony Sidaway as other are (delete/undelete repeatedly back and forth) but I feel that he is tossing out process as not applying to admins. (Many of his statements asign process to "non-admins".) Even as an admin I try to use VfD and VfU as if I could not delete/undelete except for as allowed by process (such as CSD / vandalism, etc.) In the past days Tony has ramped up his campaign to make a point. He has engaged in what are essentially revert wars at the admin level far exceeding a 3RR boundary. The RFC was poorly done and even the amount of criticism and opposition to his heavy handed approach has not made an impact on him. He is making statements saying that non-admins have to use process only because they can't do things, not because it is the right way to do it. I don't think he is going to cease this abuse of his priviledges without some review. I am considering taking this to the aribitration committee. Do you have any advice? - Tεxτurε 21:56, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it'll take me some time to assemble. Just tracking the undelete wars and RfCs and such are difficult. - Tεxτurε 14:57, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't short so we can take it to a subpage if you'd like.
All other users: Please do not edit so Theresa can review
18:58, 14 August 2005 Tony Sidaway unblocked User:NoPuzzleStranger (VFU doesn't decide the disposition of speedies.)
I reviewed the policies and not only does it decide the disposition of speedies but it breaks down how speedies are handled differently from VfD deletions.
I questioned Tony regarding this statement and through the discussion it became clear that he does not believe VfU policies apply to admins. Admins can ignore the need to get consensus to undelete and can undelete even while a VfU vote is in progress (and heavily to keep deleted) in order for him to make a VfD vote on it.
From the RfC:
"I cannot believe that VFU is anything more than an appeals forum for people who don't themselves have the ability to undelete."
"VFU is an appeal forum for non-administrators, no more, no less."
"It doesn't matter how many people vote "keep deleted" on VFU, an article whose status under the deletion policy is disputed (as is the case here) can be taken to VfD and discussed."
If he is correct then what is VfU for? Why cut it short just to change venue?
Regarding Monique DeMoan on RfC:
"After doing some research on Monique DeMoan, I resurrected the valid stub and extended the article, unblocking its author who had been wrongly blocked. It doesn't matter how many people vote "keep deleted" on VFU, the forum for deciding whether to delete an article is VfD."
In his opinion, it doesn't matter how many people vote "keep deleted" on VfU - he chose to undelete despite the vote and move it to VfD after his edits. (He could have recreated the article with valid content but chose this path after the VfD vote said to keep deleted.
His suggestion to avoid vfu and go outside process:
"VFU seems to be getting a little out of hand, being used by some people to justify deletion rather than to discuss the possibility of undeletion. I shall in future recommend to all editors who dispute a speedy that they should put their proposal to an administrator who will be able to give a second opinion and may resurrect the article. This would be a lightweight and uncontentious way of correcting bad speedies. --Tony SidawayTalk 10:14, 16 August 2005 (UTC)"
He is recommending that all editors who dispute deletion not use VfU. I don't think admins should be telling users to avoid correct process.
"This has nothing to do with WP:POINT. It's just me undeleting an article and expanding it instead of getting bogged down in an irrelevant discussion on VFU."
I have a problem with an admin who thinks VfU is irrelevant.
Wikipedia:Votes_for_undeletion#Francesca_Easthope was nominated for undeletion on Aug 13. AFter Votes tallying 3 delete, 1 striken (mine), and 1 undelete (nominator), Tony undeleted and placed on VfD:
18:11, 16 August 2005 Tony Sidaway restored "Francesca Easthope"
People on VfD were upset that he overruled VfU.
Here he created the VfD after undeleted against the VfU vote:
"Speedied but doesn't fit any CSD. No vote. --Tony SidawayTalk 23:16, 16 August 2005 (UTC)"
The response was overwhelming delete votes and disenfranchisement:
Delete. It is not for you to conclude against a unanimous vote in VfU Tony, like it or not. That vote upholds the original speedy, it's one of the things that VfU is for. -Splash 23:18, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
Tony Sidaway has now undeleted Francesca Easthope despite unanimous keep deleted votes on VfU. It is apparently his policy to decide all VfD and VfU votes on his own, without any interest or concern for the votes or consensus of others. Zoe 05:32, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete, and it seems to me that Tony Sidaway confused matters on this greatly by intervening before the VfU had reached a consensus. How do you expect non-admins to participate meaningfully in the process if the place where consensus forms moves around arbitrarily and capriciously? Nandesuka 23:23, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
Oddly enough, he agreed with both the VfU that it was a hoax before he short-circuited it and the VfD unanimous delete vote:
"Comment. Indeed it is not, nor anyone else's private playpen. This is why, there being no valid CSD for this class of article, it was resurrected and listed on VfD. I think it's a hoax, and so do you, but we could both be wrong. --Tony SidawayTalk 06:01, 17 August 2005 (UTC)"
Warren Benbow edit history before speedy deletion:
14:14, 15 August 2005 . . Sdedeo
12:37, 15 August 2005 . . 4.236.132.99
12:31, 15 August 2005 . . 4.236.132.99
Sdedeo nominated for deletion. Anon user created a larger entry but then chopped it down to a short stub that failed to show notability.
original text when first speedy deleted:
Warren Benbow
Warren Benbow- drummer, songwriter, music producer and educator; b. New York, NY .
Born
December 22, 1954
Categories: Candidates for speedy deletion
After Tony undeleted, he created this content:
Warren Benbow (December 22, 1954 -) is a New York, NY-based jazz drummer who has worked with Nina Simone, Larry Willis, Eddie Gomez, Olu Dara, Walter Bishop, Jr., and was an original member of James Blood Ulmer's Odyssey band.
At the High School of Performing Arts, Benbow studied drums and percussion with Warren Smith and Morris Goldenburg of the New York Philharmonic. Later at Mannes College he studied with Walter Rosenberger, also of the Phil, and Dong Wong Park. While studying in the Jazzmobile with Freddie Waits and Albert “Tootie” Heath Benbow was introduced by Waits to jazz vocalist Betty Carter, and his career as a professional drummer began. In addition to his jazz work, he has also worked on Broadway, and has also worked in pop with Whitney Houston, Gwen Guthrie, LL Cool J, S.W.V. and Mary J. Blige. In 2005 Benbow toured Europe with Ulmer's band, “Odyssey”.
This music article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.
Categories: Music stubs | Jazz drummers
In the later VfD Curps explained what happened:
Well here's the confusion: the anon author first created a non-speediable version (but badly formatted and indented, so that an entire paragraph was contained on one line, with most of the content invisible unless you scrolled horizontally way beyond the right edge of the browser window ("first version"). A few minutes later, the anon himself then truncated that first paragraph to one short sentence ("second version"). That second version was correctly tagged for speedy deletion and correctly speedied. I suppose it was that "first version" that you found and rescued. That "first version" was not speediable (though TenOfAllTrades reports it was a copyvio), but personally I never would never even have looked at it... when there are multiple editors, you check the history, but when there's just one editor you just look at their final revision. -- Curps 08:26, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
His edits were made:
(cur) (last) 16:04, 17 August 2005 Tony Sidaway m
(cur) (last) 12:07, 17 August 2005 Tony Sidaway m (→References - News item)
(cur) (last) 11:48, 17 August 2005 Tony Sidaway ({{subst:vfd}})
(cur) (last) 16:12, 16 August 2005 Tony Sidaway m
(cur) (last) 16:10, 16 August 2005 Tony Sidaway (Basic jazz stub)
The following is the deletion history:
16:14, 17 August 2005 Tony Sidaway restored "Warren Benbow" (6 revisions restored)
16:13, 17 August 2005 Tony Sidaway deleted "Warren Benbow" (To placate geogre I will delete and then selectively undelete only the parts I worked on.)
16:03, 17 August 2005 Tony Sidaway restored "Warren Benbow"
16:00, 17 August 2005 Geogre deleted "Warren Benbow" (THIRD undeletion without going through VfU by user:Tony Sidaway)
15:47, 17 August 2005 Tony Sidaway restored "Warren Benbow"
15:46, 17 August 2005 Tony Sidaway restored "Warren Benbow"
15:05, 17 August 2005 Geogre deleted "Warren Benbow" (Improperly undeleted for the SECOND
time. It has never been listed on VfU. List it, and I'll even vote to undelete. Until then, it is a speedy delete.)
11:48, 17 August 2005 Tony Sidaway restored "Warren Benbow"
07:31, 17 August 2005 Geogre deleted "Warren Benbow" (Improperly recreated. List on VfU.)
15:48, 16 August 2005 Tony Sidaway restored "Warren Benbow"
16:08, 15 August 2005 Geogre deleted "Warren Benbow" (content was: '{{db|no claim to notability}}Warren Benbow Warren Benbow- drummer, songwriter, music producer and educator; b. New York, NY . Born December ...')
This shows The original deletion, Tony undeleting and adding good content, Geogre and Tony warring with deletes and undeletes. Tony undeleted four times (not counting a duplicate restore) before deleting himself to once more undelete only his new content. This shows clear edit/delete war but could be defended against a claim of 3RR.
The article was listed on VfU for undeletion:
There seems to be some amount of controversy around the deletion of this article, so, to provide a focus point fo this, I'm opening this VfU. JesseW 20:27, 17 August 2005 (UTC)"
Tony then took the odd step of nominating his own edits for deletion:
This is a disputed speedy. The article asserts notability, is verifiable, and is encyclopedic. The only question is whether the person in question is notable enough for an article. --Tony SidawayTalk 16:52, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
In this he explained:
So as to remove any further excuse for deletion, I have deleted and then restored *only* those versions which are indisputably unspeediable. The original versions are gone. --Tony SidawayTalk 21:17, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
And joked about his delete/undelete war:
Comment. Someone seems to have speedied it again. Naughty boy. Restoring in order that this deletion discussion can continue. --Tony SidawayTalk 20:43, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
"A while back, Tony Sidaway closed Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Savoir-faire with the controversial result of "keep", despite an apparent consensus to delete. I posted here requesting a review of the result, and User:Texture, after taking a second look, concluded that the article should be deleted. Now, Tony Sidaway has undeleted the article and reverted Texture's changes to the VfD. --Carnildo 05:01, 18 August 2005 (UTC)"
Votes:
3 - delete only (4 if you count the last one)
2 - transwiki and delete (3 if you count anon vote)
1 - keep
Ungle G transwiki'd and per CSD #A5 it can be speedy deleted as well as deleted by vote. It had been transwiki'd by the time I reviewed the result and deleted. I added this to the VfD when I deleted it:
"Upon review, the result of the debate was clearly Delete with many requesting transwiki. Transwiki has been performed and article is deleted. - Tεxτurε 18:37, 3 August 2005 (UTC)"
In the RfD he made theses comments concerning VfD votes:
Well as a result of the RfC I've rethought calling no consensus. In future I'm emphasizing the binary nature of the decision by calling a keep unless there is a consensus to delete.
So no I'm not being spiteful, I can afford to be magnanimous.
The fact that nobody voted to keep is supremely irrelevant--people thought it shouldn't be kept but they couldn't agree what to do, so I won't pretend that they did.
I disagree with these and feel that he is gaming the admin decision process.
Below Tony restores after Cryptic deletes. Cryptic did so because transwiki was performed.
(Edit history):
20:07, 5 August 2005 . . Tony Sidaway (Restoring until it actually shows up on wiktionary)
15:10, 5 August 2005 . . Cryptic ({{db|Vfd result to transwiki; transwiki to wikt:Transwiki:Anagoge complete, with author information at wikt:Talk:Transwiki:Anagoge}})
08:11, 5 August 2005 . . Tony Sidaway (Close VfD, move to wiktionary)
(Delete log):
00:24, 6 August 2005 Dmcdevit deleted "Anagoge" (it's okay, Tony. When we transwiki something, it goes in the transwiki namespace, wikt:Transwiki:Anagoge. It should be deleted per the VfD)
20:06, 5 August 2005 Tony Sidaway restored "Anagoge"
15:10, 5 August 2005 Meelar deleted "Anagoge" (content was: '{{db|Vfd result to transwiki; transwiki to wikt:Transwiki:Anagoge complete, with author information at [[...')
When was Tony made an admin? Was this a new admin mistake?
There are many other undeletes that I have not investigated. I can look into it.
I believe the following actions and opinions are inappropriate for admins:
Saying and acting on "VFU doesn't decide the disposition of speedies"
Saying "VFU is an appeal forum for non-administrators, no more, no less." and believing that administrators are not constrained by this process.
Another: "I cannot believe that VFU is anything more than an appeals forum for people who don't themselves have the ability to undelete." He indicates he is not constrained by non-admins decisions.
Saying "It doesn't matter how many people vote "keep deleted" on VFU, an article whose status under the deletion policy is disputed (as is the case here) can be taken to VfD and discussed." and short-circuiting valid VfU discussions by undeletes and new VfDs.
Giving no WP:FAITH to other administrator's decisions.
I don't think Tony Sidaway understands an admin's role in Wikipedia. He does not follow policy and has announced his plans to continue to do whatever he decides to regardless of votes or other admins.
He is not responding to attempts to discuss the issue.
Many, including me, have been trying to talk to him about his actions. I have stated I have no interest in punishing him but I only want him to edit as a normal user. (Such as in the case where he undeleted an article, replaced it with his own content, then VfD'd it. - He could have just created the new article he did and skipped all else. He refused this idea.)
He acknowledges that there are those "who still think there is a legitimate problem here to regard this as a unilateral cessation of attempts at dialog, and move on to demand an arbitration case."
Despite all the criticism, he believes he was vindicated in the RfC and will continue his current views and actions on admin powers.
Therefore I'm going to do this:
I am going to remove this RfC from my watchlist and cease reading it.
I urge all who still think there is a legitimate problem here to regard this as a unilateral cessation of attempts at dialog, and move on to demand an arbitration case.
I will continue to do what I have been doing in the belief that this RfC has overwhelmingly vindicated my actions as an administrator and I have done my best to placate those who have raise what they believe to be legitimate questions about my activities.
Best of luck. --Tony SidawayTalk 00:07, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
Tony indicates he will no longer listen or respond to the RfC discussion.
All other users: Please do not edit so Theresa can review
What do you think? - Tεxτurε 17:34, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I won't edit the above. Instead, I invite you to see my own talk page here or, for the diff, here (last section) for "If the process gets in the way of writing an encyclopedia, it gets trashed. --Tony SidawayTalk 21:54, 16 August 2005 (UTC)". It's fairly remarkable. I won't say anything for myself, but I don't have a reputation as an edit warrior. Geogre 18:09, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
One further note -- Tony undeleted Jive.exe with no discussion whatsoever and no explanation why it was undeleted. He never discussed it with any other person, he did not list it on VfD for a discussion if his action. Since I've decided I will not get into undelete wars any more I decided instead of undeleting it, to list it at VfD, at which point he indicated that an article which only says (basically, I don't have the exact wording in front of me "A DOS program which translates English into jive" is not a speedy delete candidate despite any contention of its notability. Once I listed it on VfD, he then spent an inordinate amount of time fluffing it up, which is fine, I have no problem with that, but it would certainly be nice if he would discuss somewhere when he undeletes things and explains why. Zoe 18:49, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
OK I enjoy a good relationship with Tony, I'm going to go and talk to him and see if I can straighten this thing out. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 22:19, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well here I am. I'm utterly perplexed and discomnockerated by the suggestion that I'm not interested in discussing my actions--from August 1 until yesterday I spent a good proportion of my time on Wikipedia doing nothing else. Yesterday, as my response on the RfC has overwhelming support, I decided to stop bothering to placate what seemed to have become an endless sequence of petty side-issues. I think it's a storm in a teacup and my energy is best expended on actually editing and sysopping instead of talking about it.
To take the jive.exe example, this was clearly a bad speedy because there is absolutely no CSD for deleting an article about a computer program you haven't heard of or that performs a translation into a language you don't know. I undeleted it and have expanded it, and now it's pretty much assured of surviving the VfD that was called. The name is not of my choosing; I'd probably have called it something like [jive filter]] or dialect filter if I'd written it from scratch.
To take another example, Warren Benbow, I found this speedied, apparently on CSD7 (no assertion of notability about a person) despite a clear statement in the article that Benbow was a record producer. I'm an administrator so I could see the contents. I googled on Benbow and of course he's a jazz legend. So I undeleted and using the contents as search strings I expanded the article. Since I'd undeleted any other editor could join me and help to extend it. The expanded article was then deleted again, so after a bit of that nonsense I sent it to VfD on the grounds that it was a disputed speedy. Of course it's also currently sailing through VfD.
I wouldn't have been able to extend these articles if I hadn't seen and been able to examine, research and expand the speedied versions. They would not exist on Wikipedia. It might be argued that I could instead have simply rewritten the articles and not undeleted, but I can only see deleted articles because I'm an admin. I don't see why the research materials available to me, enabling me to turn these reasonable, incorrectly speedied stubs, into articles that can waltz through VfD, should be hidden from other editors. Is it so toxic?
It's been suggested that I should go to WP:VFU. That would be silly because I can just press the undelete button and everybody can see what I've done and what I've done it to. If it's really that bad it will go to VfD (where it should have gone in the first place if it's a disputed speedy). On VFU people are asked to plead their case, and vote on, articles that they cannot see and cannot edit. VfD is much fairer; if an article isn't a valid speedy candidate then it will be extended and saved--it's a hard test on speedying in that sense. We shouldn't be speedying stubs that can be turned into decent articles in a couple of minutes.
I don't want to upset anyone, but really when people cite VFU as some kind of forum for establishing a binding consensus to keep speedies deleted--when most of those voting haven't even seen the article contents or witnessed a good faith attempt to extend it--I think it's time to say this is not the way we do things on Wikipedia. Deletion discussions take place on VfD. VFU (votes for undeletion) is for disputing deletion. If a sysop disputes a speedy then it should really be taken to VfD and let the editors decide on something they can see. --Tony SidawayTalk 23:05, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, Monique DeMoan is another classic. Somebody deleted it for no good reason that I can see--perhaps that person thinks porn stars aren't notable or something. Well I undeleted it and it got the bouncy-bouncy treatment from the speedy brigade but, you know, it was VfD'd (before I got to it I think) and I went to WP:ANI to make sure it was happening in the open, and despite some pretty mad stuff (including one sysop trying to halt the VfD on the grounds that he was killing a "forest fire") it does seem to be heading for a proper VfD result, and it's been expanded to the point where frankly it doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of being deleted.
Another article, name I can't remember, was speedied despite a claim that this person was in movies and major soaps. It seems plausible to me although I can't verify. I took it to VfD just in case anybody knew someone like this. I don't know why this is a big deal--the article will be deleted anyway if it's a load of crap. Which it seems to be.
There is one common strand here: speedies that are disputed and brought to VfD. I think it's sensible to do this. If one administrator thinks an item is obvious speedy material and another thinks it's obviously not, we shouldn't be doing that speedy, we should just pop it on VfD and see what happens. --Tony SidawayTalk 23:34, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say the common strand (from my perspective) is that you've "speedy undeleted" articles where discussion was already ongoing on VfU. While I realize that you personally don't think VfU has any semantic meaning to you, since you have admin privileges — you've said as much — it is disruptive to those of us who are trying to form a consensus to have the locus of discussion change in the middle of our attempts to form that consensus, based entirely on your caprice. Again, if you had "speedy undeleted" and put the articles on VfD before the consensus discussions at VfU began, I don't think I'd particularly mind. But given that the conversation had already started in a number of these cases, the overall impression you give is that because you have the magic undelete button, you are more equal than everyone else. You indicated in your courteous response to my comment on your talk page that you didn't think you were "poisoning the well" because you felt you were correcting another admin's precipitous action. I understand that argument. But two wrongs, as they say, don't make a right. By taking your own precipitous action after the community had begun dealing with the issue on VfU, you deprived us of the opportunity to reach consensus. That does violence to our ability to function as a community. Nandesuka 23:42, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Tony you are rubbing people up the wrong way because you are assuming that you know better than them. When you undo another admins actions, or you cut short a debate by acting unilalterally you are in effect saying "you are not important" to them. I'm not saying it's wrong to undelete a speedy. I'm not saying it's wrong to act unilaterally. I've done both these things myself in the past and will certainly do them again in the future. I'm a tough person myself, and I know you are too, but some people are a bit more sensitive and will see your actions as a slap in the face. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 00:00, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There's one thing that's bugging me here and I have to get to the bottom of it. There is apparently a problem that a discussion on undeletion is already underway in VFU. Then what's the problem? Instead of sitting around all discussing something most of us cannot look at and none of us can edit, we have an item out in the open, visible and being edited (if that is at all possible) to improve it. By speedying, another sysop has already said "I know better than you", so it's not as if there's a big slap in the face here. Someone has objected to the speedy (otherwise it wouldn't be on VFU. So what's the big deal about all being grown-ups and having a look to see if the article speedied was really so utterly disgustingly toxic that it must not soil Wikipedia's article table for one single minute while we all discuss whether to resurrect this unseen thing? I cannot accept that resurrecting an article so it can be read, edited, VfD'd or whatever is any kind of insult. It's stupid.
We already have one deletion forum, if an article's deletion is seriously contested it should go there. I've seen quite a few articles I've resurrected for the purpose of improvement subsequently listed on VfD, and you know, the pesky things nearly always end up getting kept. So what is the problem with these articles, why must they be discussed in a situation where we can't look at them or edit them?
Now until someone started complaining this I'd no idea that anybody thought that speedied articles must forever remain deleted, unseen and unedited, unless some people who hadn't seen them voted to resurrect them. That's silly. That's very silly. Sorry I'm going to say that again, only stronger. That's the sillest thing I've ever heard, it's beyond moronic. And it isn't policy either. So I'm faced with accepting an unreasonable and arbitrary demand that is no part of policy, or else following policy and having some people complain that I *actually let them see the article they're discussing*. I'll take the latter every time. --Tony SidawayTalk 00:47, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Tony, I've asked you several times, in several places, to explain to me how my reading that the Votes for Undeletion page is the proper place reach consensus on whether an article should be undeleted is incorrect. Each time you have simply repeated this opinion that trying to reach consensus in the place specified by the Undeletion Policy is somehow ridiculous; my inference is that you arelooking at the section listed Exception and combining that with an honest belief that you're doing the right thing. But I don't know for sure, because you haven't been exactly clear. I feel that I've been straightforward and polite to you, while still expressing my concern, and my reward is to told that my reading of the policies is "beyond moronic." I've said this before, and I'll say it again: just because you can interrupt the community's consensus-building process does not mean that you should do so. I cannot speak for anyone else, but I have found these interruptions disruptive, against policy and common sense, and your attitude high-handed. I would hope that instead of choosing between two disruptive and officious options, such as those you present above, you could instead try to find an option that was neither disruptive nor peremptory. Such as, off the top of my head, reproducing the article text on the VfU page, or a subpage, or a user page. But what would I know. Probably the idea of trying to reach consensus rather than relying on peremptory action is "beyond moronic" too. Nandesuka 01:09, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It looks to me like there is serious difference of opinion over whether an ongoing VFU is binding on administrators. My reading is that it isn't, and since I regard VFU as a far inferior forum for reasons I've given above I'll always prefer VfD. That said, my actions could be interpreted as hi-jacking VFU discussions. In future I'll avoid resurrecting any article being discussed on VFU. --Tony SidawayTalk 14:34, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I regret that I don't see anything happening here. The disrespect for other users and other admins remains in these responses. These responses clearly disregard process as being for the little people and not for Tony even if the largest number disagrees with him. His attitude continues a "devil may care" I'll-do-what-I-want regardless of any feedback, even yours, Theresa. - Tεxτurε 02:48, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm glad that Theresa called this; I was thinking of going to RFM myself. I would say that Tony isn't really interested in discussing his actions. He is interested in disproving criticism of his actions. There is a difference. Lately, whenever somebody has expressed disagreement with some of Tony's actions, his response is to cite an interpretation of policy which backs his action. The point is that in doing so he doesn't address the issue, and of course there may be other opinions on interpretation of policy. Added complications are that Tony sometimes tends to turn opposing arguments into straw men, or becomes incivil (calling people liars is an obvious example, but "I am utterly baffled how people could disagree with me" isn't very nice either).
In general I would say that Tony ignores consensus, instead favoring his own ideas. The fact that he has often been right about this WP:BOLDness in the past doesn't mean that he can't be wrong on occasion. The recent RFC is a good example; most users contributing to it disagree with Tony's actions, but he cites it as if it strongly supports what he's done so far. Radiant_>|< 11:03, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
For an example of Tony misrepresenting situations, Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Honker. He says that "There is some small support for merge" when 3 out of 7 voters (42%) support that. Policy does not require him to conclude this VFD as a merge, but his remark sounds as if he finds his own pro-keep opinion more important than that of other people. Radiant_>|< 11:40, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
25 people endorsed my response to the RfC. If it was an attempt to prove wrongdoing, it was a miserable failure.
On the question of Honker, I don't know why Radiant! claims I misrepresented anybody on that VfD. I stated that there was "some small support for merge" because it was precisely the case that there was some small support for merge. 42% is not even a majority, let alone a consensus. It is a small degree of support. I didn't have to say that, but I said it because I thought the discussion should encourage people to perform a merge and I wanted to encourage editorial boldness.
The article was kept because policy mandates a default to keep where there is no consensus. My interpretation was overwhelmingly supported by the RfC. I made it plain in my closing that a merge is something that doesn't need a VfD, and Radiant! is I am sure aware of this. --Tony SidawayTalk 14:36, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
<ss>That's another misrepresentation. 25 people endorsed your opposition to R.Fiend's claim that you counted socks and anons only when it suits you. That does not mean that those people agreed that there are no problems with your behavior. Seventeen people endorsed the view that closing a split between delete and redirect as a keep is not ideal. Ten people endorsed the view that your behavior got worse after the RFC.
An RFC is not an attempt to prove wrongdoing, it is an attempt to discuss issues. People raised issues, and you have failed to address several of them. Just like you didn't respond to the issue I raised just above here, you only responded to the incidents I mentioned. Radiant_>|< 14:52, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
You're wrong on the facts. The RfC was brought by Brennanan and Ambi and was endorsed by two others. My response to that RfC was endorsed by myself and twenty-four others. Radiant!, while you're making these false claims I don't have any way of responding except to point out the factual errors. --Tony SidawayTalk 15:11, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, sorry for misreading that part of the RFC (the lengthy layout is somewhat confusing). However, would you please respond to my other points? Issues were later added to the RFC, and in particular Smoddy's and Texture's views got a lot of endorsements, while raising an issue about you. Even if the majority agrees with you, you should still consider the minority if you're upsetting them. Radiant_>|< 15:21, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
Radiant is one of those 25 you claim "overwhelmingly supported" you. Perhaps you should listen to him instead of attacking him for telling you why he supported you and in what ways he does not. - Tεxτurε 15:22, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I do think Radiant! should reconsider his vote of support for me. Frankly I could do without the support of people who demonstrate such poor understanding of the facts. I would be far happier if he were openly to switch his vote on the RfC to supporting the RfC, or simply remove his obviously mistaken vote of support for my response. He obviously has no confidence in my closing of VfDs, to the extent that he reads the phrase "some small suppport" as incompatible with a vote of around 40%.
Radiant! makes some more unsupported statements. I see no more reason to take them seriously than the statements he has earlier made which he admits were grossly inaccurate. Let him look to his own problems. --Tony SidawayTalk 23:11, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi all, may I interject? I have a suggestion. it may be that Tony is following the spirit of the law, while perhaps violating the letter of the law. Such cases point up a need to modify the law (in our case policy). It seems to me that the spirit of our speedy delete policy is that speedy deletes should be uncontroversial. A contested speedy is inherently controversial, and should go to VfD instead. So it seems reasonable to me that any admin should be able to contest any speedy delete by simply undeleting it and submitting it to VfD. And any non-admin should be able to contest a speedy by requesting that an admin undelete the speedy and submit it to VfD, with the admins honoring all such requests. Then VfUs would be reserved for non-speedy deletes only, and any admin could remove such entries from VfU, by undeleting the article and submitting it to VfD, and any non-admin could request that action for any VfU which had been speedied. If all this were made explicit in policy, then perhaps some of the above problems would go away. Paul August☎ 12:44, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
No, actually Tony is following the letter of the law while violating the spirit. Note that Tony has been undeleting speedies and not submitting them to VFD, as well as undeleting content deleted after VFD, as well as undeleting and creating a VFD discussion on a speedy when there was already a lengthy VFU discussion (which was leaning strongly towards keep deleted at the time) Radiant_>|< 13:41, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
I've done that myself before. If I don't think an article should be deleted at all (let alone speedy deleted) then I wouldn't put it on vfd. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 18:03, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
On undeleting speedies, anybody can submit any article to VfD. I don't undelete obviously good speedies. I wouldn't undelete a speedy with the intention of working on it if I thought it merited VfD, and every single article that I've done this with that has subsequently been VfD's has been kept. I think Radiant! is referring above to a speedy of a lengthy article that contained numerous assertions of notability. It shouldn't have been speedied, so I resurrected it and (because it looked like a hoax) sent it to VfD. Because there seems to be some question on whether ongoing VFU's are binding on administrators (which would be odd, because ongoing VfD's arent'--we can speedy at any time) I'm not going to undelete bad speedies if they're sent to VFU in future. --Tony SidawayTalk 15:07, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Tony! (All those people who think it's not worth discussing things with him - he's just proved you wrong!) Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 18:03, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Leaving aside the appropriateness of anyones actions or attitude. My point above was that some of this dispute seems to me to revolve around a lack of agreement as to what our policies are. If so, then that is a problem with our policies. And that is something that can be fixed. Paul August☎ 18:43, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
Just to be pedantic, sqrt(4 cents)=2 sqrt(cents)!=2 cents, the units are wrong. OTOH sqrt(4) cents would be OK, so perhaps its just ambiguous. William M. Connolley 19:14:23, 2005-08-20 (UTC).
Thanks for correcting my syntax. But I've changed it to a more appropriate title, since no one seems to be taking my remarks very seriously ;-) Paul August☎ 15:58, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
Well lightening the mood a little never hurts. But I'm taking your suggestions seriously, I'm not sure about letting _anyone_ contest a speedy and the admin having to honour thast request, that would be open to abuse by spammers for example. Never the less your idea has merit. I suggest we take it to Wikipedia talk:Deletion policyTheresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 13:42, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes the mood has been bit moody hasn't it? And you're right my ideas probably need a bit more baking ;-) Paul August☎ 14:59, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
I find the claims of Texture and Radiant! frankly incredible--and Radiant! has openly admitted that he completely misread the RfC to the extent of voting to support my response when in fact he opposed it.
Texture has deleted an article that I conscientiously closed with a keep vote, despite the fact that I completely and wholly defended the close on the discussion page of the RfC. He has inserted his own interpretation and deleted it when I recreated it--I've no idea why he imagines that this is okay, but if he wants to play little boy games I won't encourage him.
I don't think this kind of behavior is remotely tolerable. I don't think I need answer to cases that are clearly and admittedly factually incorrect.
I'm going to be a really good boy.
I'll recommend that no editor should ever use VFU because it's more sensible to ask an administrator to resurrect and send the article to VfD where it can be examined and edited by those who are expected to vote on whether the article should be deleted.
For myself, I'll not resurrect articles, I'll just rewrite them without using undelete. I'll then undelete the original if this is necessary under the GFDL (ie: if I used some of the original contents).
The end result will be the same, but the malcontents will have no case --Tony SidawayTalk 23:37, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a conclusion. Tony, you don't get the deific fiat: that's kind of the source of the trouble. You insulted every person who has expressed a concern, above. You have sworn death before conciliation when I asked that you follow the procedures (and demonstrated what happens when you don't). You continue to game and lawyer around any action, using the holy mantra of "consensus" when it pleases you (e.g. "lack of 80% for any one vote in a VfD is lack of consensus"), lack of a lettered law in others (e.g. "there is no policy statement saying that merge votes are valid, so I can just remove the deletion tag and keep an article that didn't get 80% delete votes"), invent hierarchies of policy that no one else has heard of before (e.g. "VfD is superior to VFU"), and, in every single instance -- and this is the part that is most telling and at the heart of all others -- listen to no one, respect the opinions of no one else, and put your scorn of everyone else into action. No one says you have to like other people, or that you have to express respect, but you do have to behave with respect and not make yourself the holy peshmerga. Geogre 14:32, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Tony, be civil in the future and do not put words in my mouth. You are entirely overstating and pulling out of context what I just said. Whenever people have criticism of you, you turn their arguments into a straw man and call them liars. You do not rule this wiki. You do not have the unilateral right to ignore consensus. The world does not revolve around you. Since many people criticize you, you should consider that they actually have a point, rather than call them names. Grow up some time, will you? Radiant_>|< 09:09, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
The tone of this conversation isn't quite what I'd like it to be. Although it's ok IMO to argue passionately, it's not good to get so passionate that you end up saying things we all know you probably shouldn't say. My talk page gets read by all sorts of people,(As an arbitrator I come into contact with a lot of problematic users, some of whome read my talk page and all my edits) Let's try to set a good example rather than a bad one.
Tony. We've had VFU for years and it seems to have worked pretty well in the past. Generally speaking if several people are arguing against you it's worth taking their arguments on bored.
Radiant! Just because someone disagrees with you it doesn't mean they think they rule the wiki. Also I don't understand what you mean by saying that Tony is ignoring consensus. For a speedy delete there isn't a consensus, it's decided by one person (or possible two). If a speedy deleted article wasn't a csd what is wrong with restoring it? Perhaps if we can get to the bottom of this we can all come to an agreement.
Okay, that is fair. I made several points about Tony's RFC [3]. Tony points out I am mistaken about one of them, and entirely ignores the others [4]. I amend my words, apologize for the mistake, and ask for his comments on the other points [5]. Tony proceeds with personal attacks [6] and then falsely states that I "openly admitted that (I) completely misread the RfC to the extent of voting to support my response when in fact (I) opposed it"[7]. In other words he completely ignores other people's opinions, twists my words, pours on a couple more insults and then unilaterally proclaims VFU broken and withdraws from the discussion. It looks like he's forgotten to take his daily dose of WP:CIV, and is in dire need of it. Radiant_>|< 14:00, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
Theresa, no problem with VFU, and don't think there's any major remaining problem over that; I'm just rewriting over deleted articles and only recovering history where necessary for GFDL, and I don't think anyone has a problem with that as long as the quality of my rewrites remains high. I may come across as arrogant but I wouldn't be taking on rewrites of challenging stubs and navigating them successfully through VfD if I didn't have a huge ego. Couldn't care less about people disagreeing with me as long as we can find a way to work together. Means both sides have to adapt, which from talking to others I think is broadly what has happened. Not everybody bends so readily, though. No disrespect meant, but I think I ruffled some feathers by not figuring out how to work with VFU earlier, and it will take a while for some people to realise I'm not this Drate Big Hairy Ignorer of Consensus. --Tony SidawayTalk 21:53, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Tony, I just pointed out plainly that you were twisting my words, and you didn't even bother to respond to that. This isn't about ruffled feathers, this is about you lying about what people said. Radiant_>|< 07:43, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
Tony has said here (twice, I think) to Theresa that he will not undelete VfU discussions in progress. He violated that word to you and pretended he did not do the undelete. Here is his comment from VfU:
Comment. This article wasn't deleted so it's pointless discussing it on VFU. Please take it to VfD again, with my blessing, if you want to discuss its deletion. --Tony SidawayTalk 19:43, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
He undeleted it here:
14:46, 22 August 2005 Tony Sidaway restored "ExamDiff"
14:45, 22 August 2005 Tony Sidaway restored "Talk:ExamDiff"
FYI - deletes are UTC - 5 hours. These occurred after it was placed on VfU.
The article in question was deleted out of process by User:Radiant! after I had given the complaintant the go-ahead to list the article on VfD for a second time. I have restored it and immediately took it to VfD so that this can be done. [This is an] attempt to hijack a proper deletion discussion by an out-of-process deletion. --Tony SidawayTalk 21:04, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Your "comment" followed my vote. The article was deleted at that time. - Tεxτurε 21:08, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As you can see I have modified the comments above. This is my talk page and I insist that people keep things civil.
Tony you have not addressed Texture's complaint. It looks to me like you broke your promise not to undelete a page on VFU and also lied about it by claiming that it hadn't been deleted in the first place. Is this the case? Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 21:22, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In case there is any doubt who "hijacked" let's follow the timestamps:
Listed on VfU - Alex Nisnevich (talk) 18:18, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
Undeleted by Tony - 14:46 (19:46 UTC), 22 August 2005 Tony Sidaway restored "ExamDiff"
Posted on VfD - Tony SidawayTalk 19:51, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
Tony hijacked the VfU nomination by Alex Nisnevich and the discussion and voting underway by multiple users. - Tεxτurε 21:16, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Texture, you've omitted several things: firstly the prior discussion with another on the talk page, and secondly the VfD tag that was inserted by Aaron prior to the deletion [8]. A VfD that was invited by me and which was hijacked by Radiant's summary deletion.
Theresa, to make it absolutely plain, my change of policy with respect to recovering speedies does not cover actions I may take to enforce proper process on VfD when an article has been unilaterall deleted as part of a dispute over closing. It is absolutely unacceptable for a sysop who disputes a keep result simply to change the result to his preferred one and delete the article--much less if the original closer and a complainant have reached agreement on a relisting and this is in progress.
And I deny that it has been deleted because Radiant's action was out of process; he didn't even pretend to be justified by a CSD, he just went in and changed the result to one he preferred and then deleted the article, despite the borderline, low vote in the discussion and my own clear undertaking to respect a renewed listing. The VfD is now running, editors can view and edit the article, and Radiant's attempt to prevent this has been stopped. In fairness to all concerned, I ask Radiant to restrain his impulse to delete. --Tony SidawayTalk 21:39, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
But Tony why did you have to deal with this? There are hundreds of admins on Wikipedia, if you are so sure you are right and Radiant! is wrong why not simply report the matter to some other admin though the normal channels and let them deal with it?
Question for Radiant! The same goes for you. Why did you delete the article? Why not let it go through vfd again and let the community decide? Failing that, since changing the result of a closed vfd debate is so controversial why not ,at the very least put a note about what you did at the village pump or the administrators noticeboard so that others can discuss your actions. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 21:59, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Since Tony was obviously wrong by closing that VFD, I don't see what's so bad about fixing it. He would have attacked anybody who disagrees with him anyway. I am unimpressed by his inability to keep his word, nor by his new bunch of attacks in the paragraphs above. I do appreciate this attempt at mediation, but he doesn't seem to be listening to anybody at all, and has outright rejected mediation offered by Susvolans. Radiant_>|< 08:03, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
Theresa asks: But Tony why did you have to deal with this? There are hundreds of admins on Wikipedia, if you are so sure you are right and Radiant! is wrong why not simply report the matter to some other admin though the normal channels and let them deal with it?
That would be a good idea. Obviously Radiant thinks I'm wrong and I think he's wrong, so it would be better to go to a third party. However I also think it was okay to do what I did. One person had already broached the possibility of listing it for deletion, and then another person actually did it. So when he went off and speedied it unilaterally he's not only stomping on a perfectly correctly closed VfD, he was stomping on another VfD that has been called after.
Now I've no idea why Radiant would say I was "obviously wrong by closing that VFD." I agree with you that the correct thing to do here was to let another discussion take place, a discussion that had been discussed and that was actually in process when Radiant hijacked it.
Now this was all very, very silly and I'm sure it would have been much more sensible if I'd kept my cool and taken it to someone else. You're quite right, I cannot imagine that anyone would have supported Radiant's unilateral action and I would have had nothing to lose by bringing the case to someone else's notice. --Tony SidawayTalk 06:51, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
MTK: The other WikiCultists over at WP:CCW wanted me to drop by and give you this Saint's Barnstar. You know we love you and appreciate what you do! -- Essjay · Talk 07:26, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
Under exactly what authority does UninvitedCompany think he can unilaterally permanently ban users, and destroy their user pages, and protect their talk pages so that they can't respond? - [9]
It should be noted that the alleged images were listed at User:Evil Monkey/Nudity as well as being considered entirely appropriate for articles, having, as far as I can tell, already survived IFD, and have been on Wikipedia for over a month.
Note that an arbcom case has only just opened and has by no means come down with even remotely any penalty such as a ban. UninvitedCompany seems to think he has greater authority than ArbCom, and can completely act outside it.
Does UninvitedCompany has infinite power and permission to unilaterally with impunity?
Particularly when the user/victim in question has challanged a prior abuse of adminship by UninvitedCompany in an RfC, and has diametrically opposed political opinions?
This seems to be a case of right wing evangelical Christian admins thinking they have the right to dictate to everyone else.
It also seems in contempt of the arbitration committee's right to make the decision.
Greetings - We're currently working on a wikistalking guideline proposal to reflect that the Arbitration Committee has deemed this to be a bannable offense when done for the purpose of harassment. I'm trying to get community input to help develop this article. If you have a moment please drop by Wikipedia:stalking and make any applicable changes to the article or post any suggestions you may have on the talk page. Thanks! Rangerdude 19:28, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The deadline for using our US$10000 grant from the Beck Foundation, for publishing a Wikijunior book is December. Thus, we need to narrow the competition for Kiki artist down to as few contestants as possible. I'm asking you and anyone that's already discussed current designs to list their three least favourite creations, as votes for elimination. -- user:zanimum
I have tried EVERYTHING i can think of to get DreamGuy to be polite, i have unwatched articles, i have changed identities, i have tried to even go as far as apologizing, he persists in his rude, incivillities , and not just to me. he promised at the end of the second RFC on him that he would be civil from then on. this has not happened. I am at my wits end and can think of nothing else to do to make him stop, then to RFA him. as i have said, i have tried EVERYTHING else. literally everything. hes not just incivil to me, hes incivil to a lot of people, Elvenscout, Vasthti, even admins like Ed Poor and Slimvirgin. not only that, but hes unrepentant about it, he wont even apologize. pleae dont think this is bad faith on my part, but i really am out of options, i figure its either i leave wikipedia or he stats being polite, and i have no wish to leave. could i persuade y ou to change your mind, and not see this ad bad faith? i have included in my statement links which may show how he does this to everyone.Gavin the Chosen 18:11, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It really is better if someone else were to bring the RFAr. The evidence you have presented so far has not convinced me that he has behaved badly enough to warrant arbitration. I will however look into his edits myself, but i am not promising anything. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 18:30, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
new evidance, which i am not invilved in, has been presented on the RFAr page, as you requested.Gavin the Chosen 02:02, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
if i cant remove the old notices, then could you? they are several days old a peice.Gavin the Chosen 10:28, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well i don't monitor WP:AN/3RR so i don't know the normal timescale or proceedure for cleaning out old stuff. The only reason i even looked at the page is because I am watching DreamGuy's edits. However i expect someone else will remove old stuff soon enough. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 10:34, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
does the new evidance posted by me help any?Gavin the Chosen 10:28, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm looking at all the evidence that's beeing posted. I'm watching DreamGuys edits. I haven't changed my mind at this moment about accepting the case, but nothing is set in stone. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 10:37, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
(Posted at Rfa as well):
When I examined the Rfc there were 2 illegitimate signatures endorsing it. Why illegitimate? Because they were signed the 15th and the Rfc was filed on the 19th. I ignored them and put the delete template on the rfc. Later when I was being attacked for allegedly trying to delete a valid rfc, partly on the basis of these 2 illegitimate signatures, I removed them because they were illegitimate; had to be as they were from before the Rfc. It later turned out they were pasted from a talk page without the knowledge or permission of the signers, and therefore were, as was obvious from the dates, illegitimate on the Rfc. It was the person who pasted them in who was at fault, not me. I at no time removed any legitimate signatures from the Rfc, SqueakBox 22:12, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
Here you say I informed Squeakbox that he couldn't force DreamGuy to talk to him and that reverting in this situation could acheive nothing but harrasment (I'll add the diff in a min). This is not true, so please can you withdraw the comment. I am perplexed that you should make such a claim but perhaps you were mistaken, SqueakBox 22:53, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
I assumed that you would have read DreamGuys previous edit summary and looked into what he said before reverting him. I've struck my comments and apologise for making them. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 22:59, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I just saw it. I had missed it, hence my comment below it. Thankyou. I certainly stopped when and because I saw your comment on the incidents page, SqueakBox 23:05, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
These are the 2 signatures I removed from the Rfc. See Talk:Encyclopædia Dramatica#Users certifying the basis for this dispute. I believe they should not have been added to a August 19 Rfc, and that I was right to first ignore then delete them. We cannot allopw Rfc's to be created on talk pages and then transferred to an Rfc as if they are legitimate. DreamGuy is experienced enough a user to know this. SlimVirgin said it was one of the dodgiest looking Rfc's she had ever seen, and I concur. Sich bad practices need stamping on quickly in wikipedia if the Rfc process is to remain credible, as I am sure you will agree, SqueakBox 16:58, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for blocking the troll.I can prove I did'nt make the edits under that signature.see
this--Play Brian Moore 22:49, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need to prove it. It was blatently obvious.(I already looked at yours and his contributions list. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 00:01, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
While it may have been bad formn for me to have posted that ( ill admiot to it) the comments stem from thefact that he tends to do such things as claim consensus when its his opinion, even when no one agrees with him, and complain about EVERYONE who disgrees with him, using NPOV and other policeies as smokescreens.Gavin the Chosen 23:53, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yah I realised that after I saved. Anyway he may read it, so i left it on your talk page. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 02:04, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Theresa! I noticed that you are currently one of the active users of the new reference desk. Do you think you could provide some feedback at the talk page here Wikipedia talk:Reference desk? I haven't received much feedback about the changes (perhaps 4 or 5 users so far lukewarm to negative comments, and maybe 3-4 really short positive ones), but I'm anticipating a possible reversal of the changes, but I'm also not too keen on disrupting the reference desk again. What do you think is the best course of action? I'd really appreciate a word from you! Thanks for your help! --HappyCamper 02:08, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for blocking that troublesome troll Ray Lopez. However, it appears that he has resurfaced as User:Calton Sr. See my Talk page for his latest annoyances. --Calton | Talk 17:50, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
Teresa, Your comment on this edit war on makes me think something went wrong when the page was created. See here: [10]. Thanks, --Nate Ladd 19:07, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for implementing the injunction. My appreciation, also, for your efforts on behalf of the community. No doubt the job of arbitrator is often unpleasant. Thanks for doing it for us. Banno 22:13, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
Well, on the Admin noticeboard nearly a day ago I made an entry about User:132.241.245.49 which can be found here and I would like you to look into this as you see fit because I feel it needs to be addressed. I apologise If I did not lodge it in the correct place, Thank you in advance, Derktar 00:42, August 30, 2005 (UTC).
Yeah I decided to talk to him and see if I could get him to understand Wiki Policy so I hope it works out, thanks for your help, Derktar 16:09, August 30, 2005 (UTC).
I would like to discuss the matter of my most recent ban. I have been clean latley as you know and have not vandalized a page since the Matt & Chris Reloaded, which was nearly a month ago now, and how come I recieved a one day block from you two days ago for doing absoulutly nothing. I would like to know, thanks. 68.193.103.52
I've checked the block log and I didn't block you. The most likely explanation is that you were caught in someone else's block who share's your IP address. What happens is that when an admin blocks a user name the software also blocks that user's IP for 24 hours. Since admins don't know a users IP we have no way of telling if innocent users like you will get blocked as well. So all I can do is apologise, it wasn't deliberate.
If it ever happens again you can email me or another admin, or you can email the wikipedia mailing list. Or since blocked users can now edit their own talk pages, you can ask for help there. Make sure you put something like "please help I've been autoblocked" in the summary. That way one of the users who is monitoring the recent changes pages will see you plea and come to your rescue. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 13:35, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing out the connection between the spiffy new MiniDome advert article and Hurricane Katrina. I hadn't quite put that together, but now, yuck, opportunistic. FreplySpang(talk) 21:38, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
Well they are trying to make a buck or two. Fair enough! But they can't do it here. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 21:41, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for helping restore the main article on the Valle D'Aosta page. I don't have a clue how I managed to lose it in the first place, probably didn't see that I had blocked the text above the area I was working on, then pressed the delete key. Duh! I see you are a teacher - just waiting for the beginning of school term, and with a lot of time to help people like me. One of my other projects is www.ScoolWork.com - an advertising free educational website that we integrate into the desktop interface we are also developing. Not that you have time...but drop by and take a look - www.dashtoolz.com. Very best to you! --JVian 23:42, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, an old version of your User: page (from the main namespace), along with its history, has been archived at User:Theresa knott/Old. Enjoy/delete/whatever! Noel(talk) 03:51, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Theresa! Thank you for activating my superpowers. I will of course use them with extreme care. Best regards, Sam Hocevar 15:45, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Actually i didn't activate them. I just noticed that Ed did and forgot to tell you. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 16:18, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it was Curps doing anything nefarious, but rather User:Barneybumble... Evercat 23:09, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Theresa. Normally I would, but we got a rash of similar edits the other day from a registered user. All Disney-related, some partially copyvio'd. I blocked him for 3RR, but if you think it's best to unblock him, I will if you think so. - Lucky 6.9 05:21, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are biting a newbie. I'm going to unblock him but I'll be watching his eidts. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 05:23, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I try not to bite, but I guess it happens sometimes without meaning to. Thanks. - Lucky 6.9 05:27, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Just a quick note to remind you of the London Meetup this coming Sunday (the 11th of September) that you signed up for (as 'probable', so hopefully it's just a small push to get you to 'definite' ;-)). It's at the Archery Tavern, just next to Lancaster Gate tube station, from 13:00 (BST) onwards.
Very nice work all over - I adore your illustrations. But I have a minor nit to pick: The Stern-Gerlach diagram seems, to me, to make the traces on the screen too narrow sideways. By "sideways" I refer to the direction orthogonal to the beam and to the dispersion due to the field, which is more or less vertical. I believe that the horizontal or sidewise dispersion is due to two things: (1) thermal velocity (2) I believe it is impossible to make an inhomogeneous magnetic field that is inhomogeneous in one dimension. True, it is strongest at the top, weakest at the bottom, but in the directions towards and away from the viewer it is inclined from the vertical, as your figure plainly shows. Since it is impossible to make the beam infinitely narrow in the sidewise sense, due to thermal velocity, finite size of hole in furnace and collimators, and eventually also due to Mr. Heisenberg (but the uncertainty principle is surely dominated by the other two effects), the traces on the receptor have width greater than shown. My recollection from the book Atomic Physics by Max Born which I studied from in 1953 ( still available as: Atomic Physics (Dover Books on Physics and Chemistry) by Max Born, R. J. Blin-Stoyle, J. M. Radcliffe)(Paperback) is that the actual traces are two arcs, concave towards each other. The older theory would have given a blur, densest in the middle. Born had a photo of the original plate. Pdn 05:40, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly - thank you for the compliment! As for you nitpick, I am aware that I have oversimplified the diagram by having a relatively concentrated beam. This was deliberate in order to keep the illustration simple. I think the best way to deal with your point about spreading is to explain it in the article somewhere. Perhaps in the image caption. Also if we had the photo, we could explain why it differs from my illustration. I don't know anything about copyright, so I may be wrong here but I reckon we could scan the photo of the original plate and upload it. It's got to be "fair use" i'd say. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 22:19, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I found a copy of the plate (image) on [11]
It is copyrighted but you could ask for permission. If you'd like I could try to write up something short to explain it. Obviously the thermal width leads mainly to the thickness of the arcs, while the curvature is due to what I said about the magnetic field - basically due to del dot B = 0. I can look for Born's old book if you have copyright problems - I am pretty sure it has almost the same image, and it is so old the copyright may have expired. I could in that case scan it. Pdn 01:10, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I got permission from Allan Franklin (e-mail):
Full text with header for verification: "Received: from bandit.colorado.edu ([128.138.129.126])
by sccrmxc20.comcast.net (sccrmxc20) with ESMTP
id <20050914143046s200014mg2e>; Wed, 14 Sep 2005 14:30:46 +0000
X-Originating-IP: [128.138.129.126]
Received: from Armstrong.colorado.edu (duan145-200-dhcp.colorado.edu [128.138.145.200])
(authenticated bits=0)
by bandit.Colorado.EDU (8.13.3/8.13.3/UnixOps+Hesiod+SSL) with ESMTP id j8EEUjBa029487
(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO)
for <pdnoerd@comcast.net>; Wed, 14 Sep 2005 08:30:45 -0600 (MDT)
Message-Id: <6.2.0.14.0.20050914082722.047a5580@buffmail.colorado.edu>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.0.14
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2005 08:28:41 -0600
To: "Peter D. Noerdlinger" <pdnoerd@comcast.net>
From: Allan Franklin <Allan.Franklin@colorado.edu>
Subject: Re: use of figure
In-Reply-To: <001101c5b8cb$663023f0$6401a8c0@HP23272232602>
References: <001101c5b8cb$663023f0$6401a8c0@HP23272232602>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="=====================_1983935953==.ALT"
HI,
I used the photo without permission because of its age. I suspect no one would question your use of it. In addition, I have the copyright on the article. OK by me to use it.
Allan Franklin"
SO now I need to understand better why the arcs curve and make a short explanation. I am pretty sure the photo on the left is with no magnet in place. The approach of the arcs to each other a the ends is probably due to weaker field and partly due to the inhomogeneity aligning transversely instead of being from pole center to pole center. Pdn 19:53, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Someone so fond of her tits should vote for the WikiChick at [12]. And I am among the few who have dug out WikimeetlondonPic1-03.jpg as well. So I demand a vote in return ;-). Juz kidding. Vote if u like it :) SudarshanP 10:10, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Theresa. I was just going to add to my evidence section, when I was surprised to find out that Ed's case had been closed? Did you have the time to read and consider my evidence? (And did you knott see my most damming piece of evidence) It took a while to assemble I hope someone read it ;-) I'm wondering if this isn't going to seem a bit hasty in some quarters. I've left a more formal query here I don't know if that is the right place for it, but it was the best place I could find.
Theresa, before Yuber's case is closed, can I ask you to look at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Yuber/Proposed decision, and specifically my post here? I feel that Guy should be allowed to present evidence if he's to suffer the same penalty as Yuber, and should have been told that Fred had compiled evidence against him. Cheers, SlimVirgin(talk) 02:42, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't know how to edit the text on an image, so I had to bother you this way. I must say, the article is very very nice!!! Thanks for the knowledge, Theresa!! Thanks Wikipedia!!!
20:16, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
