User talk:Tony Sidaway

		The Original Barnstar
		For all your work cutting down the size of the Gamergate controversy article and resolving talk page disputes. Bosstopher (talk) 17:22, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How very thoughtful! --TS 04:51, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is just a notification that the hatting you recently did is here. Not interested in debating it here, not seeking any sanctions against you. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:41, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No offence taken. You're doing the right thing by taking it to the enforcement page. Cheers. --TS 20:53, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reminding me how much I miss the writings Iain Banks. Since you asked for a templating.

In all seriousness keep up the good work, you're very much appreciated. — Strongjam (talk) 00:45, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'll bear that in mind next time I am tempted by the siren call of the Great Enfolded. --TS 00:51, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for tagging me! I was actually just wondering if I should add the template to my own page to indicate good-faith awareness of the contentious circumstances on and sanctions covering the gamergate mess, but I was genuinely not entirely sure if it would "count", or if the template has to be administrator-applied, or something similar. Sappow (talk) 01:38, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think self-tagging would have counted, because it's only to establish that the editor is aware of the circumstances that apply to their edits in a certain area.

I tagged one editor whose activities looked suspicious but then noticed that there were a few others who looked new to me (I only recently stopped editing in that topic) so I ended up tagging a few newcomers. --TS 02:01, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tony Sidaway, Apologies for the interruption. I thought that this I deliberately stepped back a few months ago to give new editors a chance here was worthy of recognition. I think it's the kind of attitude that Wikipedia could use more of; on all sides of all disputes. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 12:28, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's my long established practice. In my view the Gamergate fuss bears certain parallels to the "global warming hoax" nonsense that immediately followed the theft of emails from CRU in East Anglia. So you will not be surprised to hear that I first consciously exercised this disengagement strategy after a brief period of intensive involvement at the article on that topic. Others who failed to disengage didn't have a very happy time, irrespective of their stance on the issues. --TS 18:05, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't intended as an attack but point taken. freshacconci talk to me 20:13, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I had intended to smooth things over on your user talk page, but real life intervened. Thanks for taking it so well. --TS 00:02, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, thanks for writing the Arb Rep. I've copyedited it. Please take a look and revert or otherwise change anything you don't like. Tony (talk) 13:27, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. You've made good changes to improve readability, as well as style fixes. It moves closer to my goal of a readable and fair summary of a very delicate case. --TS 13:59, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Tony Sidaway. 2015 attack on Dallas police, an article you either created or significantly contributed to, has been nominated  to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page as part of Did you know. You can see the hook and the discussion here. You are welcome to participate! Thank you. APersonBot (talk!) 14:59, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Tony, just wanted to stop by and say that although I have often disagreed with you I very much appreciate the deliberate and measured way you approach your editing. Wikipedia could use more like you. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 00:09, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"An encyclopaedia is not amoral. It either supports evil through complacency or it embodies an overall force for good by refusing to flinch from the delineation of all, both evil and good. When we flinch and turn a blind eye to violent attempts to subvert our great work, then we face the true test.” -- Tony Sidaway

MarkBernstein (talk) 03:02, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is now a concrete proposal on Talk:Autonomous spaceport drone ship re article scope. It is in line with the sentiments of several editors in the (rather confusing) discussion earlier on that same Talk page, but the earlier discussion had both a different proposed change as well as comments that led well beyond discussion of just the scope of this single article.

Would appreciate it if you might consider weighing in, since the first operational use of the new ASDS is in just a few days, on 28 June. Cheers. N2e (talk) 16:02, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. As I have no particularly strong opinions on the matter I'll leave the discussion there. --TS 19:10, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are receiving this message because you have commented about this matter on the AN page, the AE page or the Case Requests page and are therefore restricted as specified in (2). For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

" "social justice warriors" (a term DHeyward appears to use without irony) ". Your comment is made without citation or diff. I don't hold nor espouse the views you've attributed to me. I do cite sources that are underrepresented. I do comment on sources that I think are being misinterpreted (such as the unsourced lead saying the mass shooting threat is from GamerGate when our own section on the threat says differently as does the detailed sources). I also don't use the term "social justice warrior" in my own voice. I'd appreciate a retraction of the aspersion. --DHeyward (talk) 00:59, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise for my imprecision. You actually used the phrases 'social justice advocates', 'social justice campaigners' and 'social justice revolution' in your own voice, in the course of pushing your synthesis. --TS 01:06, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't try to continue your argument for your point of view here. I've made it clear that I regard such conduct on talk pages as an abuse of the encyclopaedia. Doubly so on user talk. --TS 13:16, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are receiving this message either because you are a party to the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case, because you have commented in the case request, or the AN or AE discussions leading to this arbitration case, or because you have specifically opted in to receiving these messages. Unless you are a party to this arbitration case, you may opt out of receiving further messages at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Notification list. The drafters of the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case have published a revised timetable for the case, which changes what you may have been told when the case was opened. The dates have been revised as follows: the Evidence phase will close 5 July 2015, one week earlier than originally scheduled; the Workshop phase will close 26 July 2015, one week later than originally scheduled; the Proposed decision is scheduled to be posted 9 August 2015, two weeks later than originally scheduled. Thank you. On behalf of the arbitration clerks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This message is sent at 12:53, 5 July 2015 (UTC) by Arbitration Clerk User:Penwhale via MassMessage on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. You are receiving this message because your name appears on this list and have not elected to opt-out of being notified of development in the arbitration case.

On 5 July, 2015, the following motion was passed and enacted:

We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:

• Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
• Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
• Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
• Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
• Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
• Research coordinators: run reference services

Sign up now

Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, I'm not a regular reader of the Signpost, so I don't know exactly whether it purports to offer news or opinion, but this here will be, I hope, marked with a POV tag, or have Editorial opinion written in a huge font all over it. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 14:53, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's news reporting, but probably not the kind of reporting you're used to. It's also highly incomplete. I'll ensure that it's clearly marked as being editorial, if I decide to go ahead with it. --TS 15:02, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks. I'm used to a lot of things, though, and I wouldn't call this reporting. Drmies (talk) 15:07, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you lay out where you are trying to go with paroles, why and what problem you think they solve? Your summary and focus on the rest of the case was good and then that felt like it came out of nowhere and wasn't entirely clear why. Thanks... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:16, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement is unpopular, and those undertaking it face difficulties even when their judgement is sound. There is also a public perception that some valuable editors are treated harshly. The end result is that arbitration enforcement often causes fresh problems which may occasionally be worse than the problems the remedies were meant to fix. Parole as proposed would allow the arbitration committee to step in and take closer control of the enforcement of certain individual remedies, in the hope of reducing community friction. --TS 16:19, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect How to control global warming. Since you had some involvement with the How to control global warming redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. GZWDer (talk) 15:16, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On 10 August 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article 2015 attack on Dallas police, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that an armored van was used in an attack on the headquarters of the Dallas Police Department? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/2015 attack on Dallas police. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 16:51, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's an issue at WikiProject Television that I would like your input at. ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 17:49, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want to continue as lead editor of the signpost's arbitration report or move to a backup? Because I did it this week, even though there were two lead editors for it, and I enjoyed it and would like to pick it up as my lead responsibility. Please ping me in response. Thanks Tortle (talk) 19:17, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to have burned out very rapidly. I'm not spending much time on Wikipedia at all lately. --TS 23:51, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok well I put you down as a contributor. Thanks Tortle (talk) 00:12, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Bad Wolf tag.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:23, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tony Sidaway, I created an essay regarding the environmental impact of the Wikimedia movement on Meta and I am now looking for ideas regarding the project. I saw that you're interested in sustainability, so I'd love to hear your comments and maybe even have your support! Thanks, --Gnom (talk) 21:42, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated OpenBSD for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Tonystewart14 (talk) 15:02, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect The Head Master's House. Since you had some involvement with the The Head Master's House redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. PC78 (talk) 16:48, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Article probation has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:29, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]