User talk:Tony1/Archive 7

Hello

Hi Tony. Do you still have problems with the Jack Harkness FAC? If so, how can I work on them to earn your support? Thank you!~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 22:58, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/York Park/archive2

Hi Tony and thanks for your comments. Looking forward to more when I've finished fixing issues you have brought to attention. Aaroncrick (talk) 05:43, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good suggestion. Fixed the issues I can. Have question over at FAC. Aaroncrick (talk) 07:25, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIII (September 2009)

The September 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 16:13, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

4 Minutes (Madonna song)

Should singer-songwriter be endashed in the lead? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:59, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at WP:ENDASH, I'd say yes. Both "singer" and "songwriter" have lexical independence, so in this case the en dash acts as a substitute for "and" in the compound expression. Steve ^T • C 22:31, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Steve! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:40, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's not an opposition or a movement or direction to or from. I'd be inclined to use a hyphen. I've looked at many pop music articles, and they're all, 100%, hyphenated. What I do dislike is the linking of "singer-songwriter", "musician", "producer", etc. I remove those links. Tony (talk) 03:14, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is strange, because the article has an en dash: singer–songwriter. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:24, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it should: do you? I've not seen one in 100 usages with an en dash, which means the links (I'm steadily unlinking most) are redirected. Tony (talk) 04:46, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Administrator

I know that you've been interested in these issues in the past. Wikipedia:WikiProject Administrator — Ched : ? 03:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I'm very supportive. BTW, I don't want to be the one to run AdminReview and think it should be an ArbCom Subcommittee. I will join (but don't want to be first). I've changed the section-title from "Spam" to the name of your initiative; hope you don't mind. Tony (talk) 04:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Tony please ... fix - improve - and make it better. I'm not married to my efforts here... I've taken much of this from what you have done! I'm only trying to get all the folks on the same page. Please feel free to fix it! — Ched : ? 04:11, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flora and fauna

I don't think there are any detailed guidelines on this anywhere. Some of the projects have clear and long established rules: Bird species names are always capitalised, while fish names use sentence case; other areas have accepted practices: common specific names of flora seem to be always capitalised; others have rules which vary according to the article: only some common names of arthropods are capitalised; and WP:MAMMAL can only decide not to decide (despite the regular flogging of the issue). WikiProject Tree Of Life, which should be the over-arching authority, abdicates responsibility to the sub-projects. After a quick look back through the history of WP:LAYOUT, I suspect the wikilink I removed was pointing at the wrong place anyway and should have gone here (though this is closer to the truth). I leave to others the question of whether the five or so people occasionally debating the capitalisation at the various project pages trump the five or so people occasionally debating it at the MoS page or vice versa. Yomangani ^talk 10:16, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So let me get this right: the MoS used to have more detailed guidance, but gave up and removed it because of dissonance with these various corners of the project? Tony (talk) 11:11, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The MoS proper still has the detailed guidance (which your concise version summarises). The "MoS (capital letters)" sub-page gives totally different advice which, although not entirely accurate, is closer to how the projects operate in regard to capitalisation than the guidance set out in the main MoS. What never existed, as far as I can tell, is a section in WP:LAYOUT on this subject, so I assume the link I removed was a typo.

I'd summarise the situation as "There is no agreement on whether common species names should be capitalised or not; generally, the rules laid out by the associated wikiprojects are followed". At the moment the MoS is mostly ignored in favour of the the wikiprojects' rules and, while there are occasional minor spats over the capitalisation of some mammal (normally prompted by somebody quoting the out-of-step version of the MoS - see Talk:Gray_Wolf#Move? for example), these don't tend to develop into the bad-tempered insoluble disputes that keep ArbCom busy. Yomangani ^talk 14:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, Marskell is another editor who knows the history of conflict in this area ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image poll

Someone moved my statement from the comments section to the poll results section, which appears to have generated confusion. I haven't an intention to come down one way or another about pixel sizes. The main reason for responding to your request for input posted to FPC talk was to raise a new angle of discussion; it should be obvious to anyone who knows the background that this is an altruistic and disinterested commentary. Best regards, Durova³²¹ 17:11, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing

I had meant to make the opposite point, that I don't consider such postings canvassing, and if anyone wants to frown on it, tough, I'm claiming journalistic whatever it is. So the thread can stay as far as I am concerned. The point of the Signpost is to keep the community informed about news within and without the Wikipedia that is relevant to the Wikipedia and the community, and I think covering RFC's and the like is an important facet of that. In the future though, you may want to think about working out how long an RFC or a poll lasts before setting it. That's one of my bug-bears and I've mentioned it in the Signpost before. It's likely I'll mention it if I cover this RFC. But don't feel embarrassed by anything I might say or do. It's not worth the energy. Just got your latest message too. Not overly bothered by add-on postings either. It gives me tips on what to cover, and it makes me feel like people are reading the thing. The ego-boost outweighs anything else. If messages start to become non-neutral, I guess they'll get edited for tone, but who knows? I think we want to create a debate, in part. Hiding T 12:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think they have the signpost set up so that what's underneath is what's overleaf, through the magic of transclusion. See Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-10-05/Discussion report. So you could post overleaf, but it wouldn't do you any good. :)Hiding T 14:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/York Park/archive2

Gave the prose antoher run through YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 06:23, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously not a fan of the pulp mill being built further down the highway? Aaroncrick (talk) 08:36, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, if it can meet world's-best environmental standards and be viable without a raft of state-government concessions not available to other companies, I probably wouldn't object. I'm not up-to-date on the matter, and I hope it was clear that is not an FA issue. All the same, is there a way of avoiding four occurrences of the name in five lines? Tony (talk) 08:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, It was clear. :) Well, I should be able to tweak the sentences. Aaroncrick (talk) 08:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

		The Special Barnstar
		Many editors who feel burned by arbitration or otherwise feel uncomfortable with ArbCom often make their opinion known in less than contructive ways. You have taken your experience with, and observations of, arbitration and consistantly made efforts to engage in constructive dialogue. Your comments and suggestions, and their forward-looking nature, have not gone unnoticed or unappreciated. I hope that you will continue to offer your positive, constructive thoughts and proposals. Thank you! Vassyana (talk) 09:10, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hear, hear! Ohconfucius (talk) 09:50, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed skill-base for ArbCom candidates

A draft of the skills and knowledge the community expects of arbitrators is under development for the upcoming ArbCom elections in December. The objective is to provide a set of criteria by which voters can probe and judge the worthiness of each candidate.

Essential

(a) At least ~~three~~ two years’ experience as a Wikipedia editor, including a reasonable amount of content editing.
(b) Detailed knowledge of the content and application of the pillars of the project, the Arbcom policy and related pages, and the policies and guidelines that govern users' behaviour.
(c) The ability to analyse written evidence in terms applying those pillars, policies and guidelines; in particular, the ability to distinguish relevant from irrelevant evidence, and to interpret evidence in an even-handed, neutral way.
(d) The ability to write concise, clear, plain English.
(e) The ability to identify situations in which there may be a personal conflict of interest, and a preparedness to recuse from involvement in a Committee process in such situations.
(f) The ability to work to deadlines effectively in a complex, multistage process.
(g) The ability to be an effective team-member while remaining engaged with and sensitive to community opinion.

Desirable

(a) The ability to draft judgments; in particular, the ability to identify potential ambiguities and unintended consequences in draft judgements.
(b) Demonstrated experience of dispute resolution on Wikipedia, whether as (i) an administrator, (ii) a mediator as part of the official mediation process, or (iii) in another forum that shows the effective judgment and resolution of behavioural disputes.
(c) The ability to effectively delegate to, liaise with and/or supervise functionaries.
(d) The ability to judge trustworthiness in other users.

Please provide feedback below:

My immediate impression is that it looks good though three years' experience is probably excessive. Another point perhaps that might be made is that this is an optimal skill set, rather than a minimal skill set. Not all arbitrators focus on the same things, so we don't all need the same skills. Setting the bar too high is going to stop a lot of good people from standing, because they think they won't cut the mustard. Roger Davies ^talk 07:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree with Roger's analysis. Also, I find (b) under "Desirable" to be an essential quality. I do not think the value of experience with dispute resolution and/or administrative intervention can be overestimated. I think the culture shock is just too much for someone lacking that experience. Additionally, I think a lack of understanding regarding how such areas of the wiki function, and the trials editors and administrators face in those areas, is an acute liability for an arbitrator. Vassyana (talk) 07:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Vassyana; I have no in-principle objection to moving 2b up to the Essentials category, but would like to hear confirmation of this view, if you don't mind. Also, please note that I included the third part of 2b, which is more broadly framed ("... in another forum ...") to avoid excluding non-admins from standing. [Um ... at this stage, I should reassure editors that while I'm keen to support the development of the Committee's role, I have no intention of standing for ArbCom.] Tony (talk) 08:29, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not mind at all. I agree with your reasons for the inclusion of the third portion. There are plenty of steps to formal dispute resolution, and plenty of opportunities to participate outside of that structure. The important portion, to me, is experience with complex disputes and difficult areas. I appreciate the non-controversial hard work that a lot of people put into the project, but I feel someone without experience in complex and difficult disputes is ill-prepared for ArbCom. I have more to say regarding your parethetical comment, but that's for another thread. Vassyana (talk) 09:04, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) *Largely agree with Roger's analysis. I would lower the years of experience needed. Especially if we want to encourage more diversity. (I don't want to discourage otherwise qualified female candidates because of an somewhat arbitrary experience clause.) And I agree with Vassyanan that experience with mediation and dispute resolution is helpful. But I don't think it needs to be through formal process such as MedCom. We greatly need for individual admins to get more involved with helping mediate talk page disputes and RFCs. This type of experience would be helpful as an arb because they would be better able to manage arbcom talk page disputes, and better understand which case remedies will work. Plus, I think that people that can mediate well will have the temperament to deal with angry parties. Additionally, it is desirable to have experience with Checkuser/SPI or working Arbitration Enforcement. I think we should encourage people to run if they have other types of on site management experience. For example, Roger and Kirill's experience working as leaders on MILHIST made it evident that they had many of the qualities needed to be a good arbitrator. We don't want all arbs to be cut from the same mold. All in all, I think the Community has done a good job in selecting arbitrators because the people voting in the election pick people that they recognize as having some of these traits. FloNight ♥♥♥ 09:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure this is helpful, and paper for papers' sake isn't useful. The point is, the community has by and large chosen its arbitrators well. Taking just your essentials, candidates perceived not to meet 1(b)(c)(d)(e)(g) won't get in anyway so those tend to be implicit in the voting process, 1(a) is questionable as different people may legitimately wish to go more by quality of work rather than strict duration of time and imposing a requirement labeled "essential" that contradicts this restricts their choice to do so, 1(f) nobody knows and the problem isn't ability to work to deadlines so much as the unexpected crushing workload in a volunteer context - all arbs elected felt they could do it, all people voting for them felt they stood a good chance, even so 1/3 dropped out in each year, unclear how 1(f) can help.
If the community was making bad choices, or overlooking something important, that would be one thing. Looking at both who gets in, and the few cases where there's been issues or burn-out after appointment, the selection process works fine just trusting people to vote and the exceptions are very few and couldn't have been predicted at election anyway. Lacking a compelling case for writing up what people "should" look and vote for, lacking evidence that their decisions are poor, this risks coming across as needless WP:BURO. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 10:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely think that having a written job description and a list of skill sets is useful for the leadership positions on Wikipedia. One of the keys to a good volunteer organization is matching volunteer skills with a volunteer job. We have recently started using questionnaires when vetting Oversight and Checkuser candidates in order to help them and us understand if they are a good fit for the job. We need to put these in writing so that they are better communicated to candidates. FloNight ♥♥♥ 10:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given some of the controversy regarding ArbComm the past year, I think this is the sort of thing that should be released after the election. It strikes me as fairly innocuous, but given the Advisory Committee fiasco, it might easily be seen as an attempt by the Arbs to entrench themselves in power.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:44, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The candidates need to know what is expected of them and the voters can only be assisted by a set of criteria by which they might judge candidates' responses to their questions. I have no idea how this could be construed as entrenching anyone in power. I see no reason to wait for the December 2010 election. Tony (talk) 12:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wait and see.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, some people will see any thing as a political power play. But next year, people will say the same thing if we wait, so I think it will be ok to move ahead with guidelines to help users make better choices. FloNight ♥♥♥ 12:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Has the community been told this is coming? I think it will go over better if there's advance word. We are what, two months from the elections?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tony thought of the idea and posted here for feedback now. It is a good start but nothing is written in stone yet, and I don't anticipate that it ever will be. These guidelines can assist in selecting people for the job, but each person will be weighed on their individual credentials, I think. FloNight ♥♥♥ 16:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. It is important for people to understand that ArbCom as currently structured does not function as ordinary court jury in which any editor can join and be successful. Instead ArbCom works more like an Appellate court where people need to come to the job with a good understanding of policies, disputes resolution, and high level work skills. FloNight ♥♥♥ 12:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is really interesting, Tony, and I largely agree with most of this. I think it may be difficult to assess some of these points (e.g., working to deadlines, as in most parts of the project there are no genuine deadlines), but as a self-assessment I think it could work quite well. Knowledge of policies is always something of a sensitive point. There has been quite a lot of activity on various policies in the last two months, and keeping up with those changes is one more pile to add to an already heavy workload. It might be more realistic to focus on the broad understanding of key policies and how they interact, and a solid knowledge of the range of issues addressed by policy, and which ones cover what issues. I confess a periodic strong urge to take the whole lot of them, eliminate their redundancies, and reorganise them into something more workable. Risker (talk) 16:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me for the most part. I think 1f is easier said than done once someone actually gets on the committee, though it should still be listed of course. I think adding a line about knowing when to attack an issue head-on vs. waiting for further input, and/or a line having an understanding of what information should be public and what should be private would be a good one to add as well (no need for another Orangemarlin case, right?) Wizardman 16:05, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit stunned. How has something like this not been drafted before? I agree with all the issues above. I might even go farther to expand the "reasonable amount of content editing" to explain that it means familiarity with article construction and review processes such as GA, PR, and FAC. I'm always a bit taken aback during RfAs when candidates indicate they're enormously proud to have worked on an article with 3 sources and embarrassing grammar and spelling, constituting that as their experience in content. Desire that candidates have experience constructing an at least B-class article, and have successfully reviewed at least...err...5? articles for GA. --Moni3 (talk) 16:10, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Something that I don't think I truly understood until I joined the committee was the diversity of ways in which one can make truly valuable contributions to the content end of the project without writing a lot of articles. Those who are (for example) working heavily in the area of images must use many of the same skills as a good article writer. The Committee also benefits from having individuals with strong technical skills to assess certain matters, such as appropriate use of CheckUser, or the implications of certain technical features in particular cases. Diversity of experience, as well as opinion, plays a role in the effectiveness of the Arbitration Committee. Risker (talk) 16:26, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If that's in response to my recommendation that reasonable amount of content be clarified, your statement is why I tempered my request with 5 GA reviews and a B class article, instead of 5 successful Featured Articles, at least one of them already appearing on the main page, and experience in one serious content dispute. I do not consider a B class article to be egregious, nor representing a full understanding of the elements of article construction. GA reviews can be completed fairly quickly, with not much detail depending on the article. However, a GA review forces an editor to come in contact with the requirements of at least a good article and makes us think about reliable sources, quality of writing, and image policy. I'm going to end up some day at ArbCom over content. I want to make sure that Arbs understand the amount of work and dedication that goes into article construction. I do not think some of them do. I know many admins don't. At the very least, Arbs should have experience in creating an article of some quality, which is, I insist, the primary reason this site exists. --Moni3 (talk) 16:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Moni that some content creation should be required (at least to B-class), but I disagree on the requirement for participating in a specific review process. I'd suggest instead that the candidate be expected to participate in some type of content review process. This could be GA/FAC/FLC, it could be featured picture reviews, or it could be assessing articles for a wikiproject. This would at least expose the candidate to the basic concepts of assessing articles, and hopefully help them to better understand the meaning of many of the criteria. Karanacs (talk) 16:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see a moral component added, something like "Is not in serious breach of Wikipedia policies, nor has any knowledge that another user is so in breach, other than matters already disclosed to the proper authorities or the community at large.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Karanacs makes a good point (16:49, 7 October 2009) that there several types of reviewable content that should be considered. I'd also want candidates to have experience of both sides of a review - and preferably experience of reassessments, which are often more contentious than reviews. --17:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC) (previous comment added by user:Philcha)

With apologies to Carcharoth in case I am stealing his fire here, I think probably it's important to state something that is not particularly obvious. Qualified candidates need to be able to tolerate harassment and trolling of widely varying levels (both publicly and in non-public ArbCom related venues, but sometimes personal venues as well), and succeed in a milieu where continuous negative feedback is the norm. As well, I think that it's probably worthwhile to state that one is likely to be expected to meet the personal standards expected of those on a governing body while sitting on a dispute resolution body. Risker (talk) 18:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there

How have things been? I've just been too busy between work, school, and RPG Maker — sadly, I don't see an end in sight. Some of my articles have been de-featured, since I haven't been around to work on them. Oh well — any attempt now would be half-assed, which is why I stopped reviewing FACs. — Deckill er 20:56, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Help with understanding date linking?

Hi. Hey, I am *really* confused about the RfA on date delinking.[1] I delink dates all the time, because that's what it says to do in WP:LINKING. The RfA examples I checked given as evidence against banned, blocked, and restricted users looked correct to me. Is the issue that a bot was being used to do this? Any clue here would be welcome! Piano non troppo (talk) 08:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the explanation! Piano non troppo (talk) 08:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Tony1. You have new messages at Piano non troppo's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Date link request

Behold my sea of blue! :-) I noticed User talk:Piano non troppo#date unlinking. Do you think that the Wikipedia:Date formatting and linking poll, Wikipedia talk:Full-date unlinking bot#RFC, User:Full-date unlinking bot, and Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Full-date unlinking bot would fulfill "1.3 Mass date linking" and "2.1 Date delinking bots" from the date delinking decision? If so, could you briefly specify why? If not, why not? Thanks! Vassyana (talk) 10:57, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More like a sea of purple. Regarding 1.3, I have no problem with delaying the bot for the six month period as prescribed, nor do I have a problem with notifying the Arbitration Committee. Regarding 2.1, I have been working closely with the bot approvals group to make sure that my bot meets their demands. @harej 19:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Having re-read your question, I see that I haven't actually answered it. The poll, the RFC on operating a bot, and the RFC on the exceptions list (that took place on the bot's user page) fulfill the requirement for a community-approved process, as all of those polls were widely advertised. The BRFA should show that I have been indeed working closely with the Bot Approvals Group to make sure that it is within their demands. @harej 19:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Remedy 1.3 didn't simply prescribe a six-month delay: it said there should be no mass unlinking for six months from the date of the case, or until the Arbitration Committee is notified of a Community-approved process for the mass delinking. The Committee should be notified formally that tests are in progress, since they have involved and will involve automated unlinking. Just a short note is required at the ArbCom talk page or the noticeboard talk page, I suppose. Tony (talk) 00:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Grace 1991

I just noticed your comments here which I had previous missed. I'd like to thank you for both the kind words and the suggestions, which I'll review and act on shortly. I can understand your concern that FACs produced by the tropical cyclone project are scraping the barrel at this point, and as such, I do intend to begin focusing my attention on more substantial pages. Similarly, I agree with your other points regarding the areas of unclear prose in this particular article. Again, thanks for the helpful review. Regards, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Arbcom Motion re date delinking

As a potentially interested party, your attention is brought to a motion currently being considered by the Arbitration Committee:
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions#Motion to amend Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking.

At the time this notice was posted the text of the motion read:

“

Wikipedia:Date formatting and linking poll, Wikipedia talk:Full-date unlinking bot#RFC, and Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Full-date unlinking bot indicate that Full-date unlinking bot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) fulfills the requirement for "a Community approved process for the mass delinking" in "1.3 Mass date linking" and the requirement for "[d]ate delinking bots [performing] in a manner approved by the Bot Approvals Group" in "2.1 Date delinking bots". The Committee thanks the participants for their efforts and encourages them to continue with their contructive work and consensus building.

”

This wording may have since changed; please see the above link for the current wording.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Manning (talk) 09:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on increasing the default size of thumbnails

We are nine days into what will probably be a two-week RfC (whatever the consensus is for the duration—I've asked). There is overwhelming consensus to raise the default size from 180px to at least 220px. The RfC was advertised at VP, CD, Featured Image Candidates, and the WikiProject Visual. There has been little change in community preference for an increase in the default size as the RfC has progressed.

Methodology. This is only one way of expressing the results of the RfC: it emphasises the total range of acceptability to each participant, weighting the points in 10px increments equally through each person's range. A more complicated display might weight a single preference, say for 250px alone, more than each point throughout their range, or might register the average of each person's expressed range of acceptability as a single data-point, or might give weight to the few instances where there's an expressed preference (say for 220px) within an expressed range of acceptability (say, 180–200px). I have a feeling these methods would not make much difference to the overall interpretation of the data. I've made a few assumptions where participants have been a little vague, in which the intention was to be NPOV.

Interim results. The graph shows that only 18% of participants find the current 180px acceptable. 31% would regard 200px acceptable. 80% would find 220px acceptable. More than 50% would find 250px acceptable.

I have asked User:Tim Starling's advice, hoping he's an appropriate officer to engage in this matter, and that he may be in a position to make the alteration, probably to 220px, if there are no technical or administrative hurdles to doing so. I think 220px is a no-brainer, but given the solid support for up to 250px, I'd personally be more comfortable with 230px (I believe sv.WP has 250px as a default). However, I'm prepared to be disappointed with a change to the more conservative 220px. Feedback is welcome, but please consider expressing a range of what would be acceptable to you. Tony (talk) 03:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, within the limits of my experience, any top-level dev can help with this: as you haven't heard back from Tim, I would try try Brion while he's still around - if he couldn't do it himself, he could definitely tell you / a dev how you would go about doing it. Have you opened a bugzilla request for it? I would,, if you haven't already. [2]. I would agree an increase to 220px seems the most sensible option, given that those who did want higher can still give themselves higher. - Jarry1250 ^{[ In the UK? Sign the petition! ]} 15:19, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds dispatch

You might want to take a look at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-10-12/Dispatches. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:30, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some related links.

Rare Earthtones Free Endangered Species Ringtones by the Center for Biological Diversity (index page)
Rare Earthtones Free Endangered Species Ringtones by the Center for Biological Diversity (media coverage)

-- Wavelength (talk) 18:47, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some more related links.

-- Wavelength (talk) 00:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possible example for the exercises

From Fauna of the Australian Capital Territory: "The eastern grey kangaroo Macrocarpus giganteus reaches the highest population densities anywhere in ACT grasslands. This kangaroo is the most popular roadkill" - or is this how Australian civil servants unwind? Johnbod (talk) 15:11, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which exercises? Build your linking skills? I changed "popular" to "common", fixed a few other things, and posted tags at the top. Thanks. Tony (talk) 15:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well I meant the writing ones. Anyway, congratulations on pushing the thumb size change through (though it doesn't seem to have taken effect just yet). Johnbod (talk) 16:35, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

dateformat template

The template is built into the wiki software, not an “experimental” template. Further, in the poll you cited people were referring to the use of wikilinking for date autoformating, which clutters up the article with many needless links to irrelevant articles on dates, and which I also disapprove of. Unfortunately, the template is not as widely known as it should be, so people assume that autoformating refers only to that by use of wikilinking.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Hgrosser (talk • contribs)

No, the RfC, at the insistence of editors who wanted to retain the old date linking system, explicitly concerned "the notion of autoformatting". If it hadnt' been for that wide scope, it is highly likely the majority would have been huge rather than modest.

That dateformat template clutters up the edit mode, rendering WP less editable by anyone, and almost guaranteeing a maintenance headache. It should not be used. Tony (talk) 07:54, 16 October 2009 (UTC) PS I edited your entry (which was unsigned) for "beans" reasons. There is nothing magical about it, and it is very much experimental, since it carries a huge deficit in its inability to manage date ranges, Julian vs Gregorian dates, and more. Tony (talk) 08:05, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of recessions in the United States/archive2

Tony, can you revisit this when you have time? Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 00:59, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Shells (folk band) (2nd nomination)

These editors (particularly Epeefleche) have been "upset" for weeks—E.'s "upset"-ness isn't my fault, he's just upset that anyone dares to mess with his article. He was causing fights and getting "upset" before I was ever involved with this article, see his shouting match with J Milburn here (under an old alternate account, User:VMAsNYC). When an editor criticizes his work he accuses them of stalking/hounding him (I'm not the first, see the stuff between him and User:Psantora in edit summaries at [3]). Maybe I've hurt his and other editors' feelings, but I can't help hurting people's feelings if they choose to be personally offended every time their article is criticized. (Well, I suppose I could give up criticizing bad articles.)

I'm not saying he's broken any rules or that anything needs to be done about him; I'm just saying I don't feel regret for "upsetting" disruptive users who choose to be upset by everything. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:50, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK ... feel like asking for a review by an uninvolved admin or two? The page needs cooling down. Tony (talk) 01:59, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it will get review anyway when a closer shows up. But if you think more review is needed you're welcome to ask. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:11, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Carbohydrate vs Carbohydrates

Tony,

At the risk of my grammatical sin appearing in the "before" section in one of your exercises, could I ask you to have a look my comments at Wikipedia:Peer review/Ketogenic diet/archive1 in the "Comment on Carbohydrate vs Carbohydrates" portion. I don't understand the rules. Thanks. Colin°^Talk 22:58, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kilogram picture on Commons

"Yeah, what the hell is going on with this picture tampering?"

Well, I find the original image is too dark to see anything except a rounded object in a light spot. Greg has reverted it, with some curses included. Then I proposed him to search an optimal light balance because this is not an artwork of an anonymous talent but an illustration about an important object. Now he's got crazy, maybe he lost his pill for today. That's all. My best. - Orion 8 (talk) 12:22, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I'm glad you speak English, because my Hungarian is worse than hopeless. I'll leave a message on your Hungarian WP talk page. Best that things be calmed down and a useful dialogue take place. As you can imagine, Greg is very proud of that image; I think it's a significant achievement, too. I guess he was upset not to have been warned about your edits to it, and worried about locating the original. Don't be put off by his words; he's a great editor to work with, and a rare expert in his field. Tony (talk) 13:56, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All right, now I know that this image is his own child. This is a really excellent picture, I mean it, but I found that dark, nothing else. If Greg would have put a notice in the description about his intentions when making the image, or about that this is an award winner picture then I would have known that it is a last and untouchable version. Not the destruction is what I want to do. (I wonder why laureated images are not protected.) Now I have got my hints, and I will place the light balanced version under another name.

I've made only a few editings in the English Wiki, unfortunately (?) I have a long queue with editings to make in the Hungarian one. We Hungarian editors keep our eyes on the Hungary-related pages, as I've seen, and make the corrections or additions if they are needed. I'm happy to say that I haven't find an incorrect article yet about us, which I can't say about the schoolbooks over the world. The article about our language is astonishing with its detailed and exact content, for example. But I'm sure that new sections or articles about us will be born continuously because we are proud of some parts of history – not the latest decades are those – and culture. And our strange language :-) . See you again. - Orion 8 (talk) 22:47, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Persistent Vandalism

Tony, you will be pleased to know that I am back. I was just wondering if you could please give your comments on persistent vandalism in wikipedia. How much time do you think it wastes of the editors? Thanks. Persistent-V (talk) 10:05, 01 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spankertomline (talk • contribs) [reply]

Operation Teardrop

Hi Tony, thanks a lot for your great comments in the ACR for Operation Teardrop - I really appreciate them. Nick-D (talk) 10:05, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FAC issues tackled

I've addressed all of the issues that you raised on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Inner German border/archive1 - please leave some feedback when you've got a moment! -- ChrisO (talk) 22:45, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please use the preview button

When editing articles, please use the preview button and/or check the article visually before "leaving" to ensure that your edits have not introduced obvious errors. The "minor corrections" in this single edit to Melbourne introduced no less than 13 obvious errors that I have corrected for you.[4] Could you please review your edit to ensure there are no more errors? Thankyou. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for repairing the file names; I don't expect to find wrongly used hyphens in such names, and I usually do check after a global change. However, in your "correction", you have now introduced six errors in the list of temperatures that are minus. Tony (talk) 08:14, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bollocks

First you come to my talk-page with a badly veiled yet evidence-free suggestion of sock-puppeting, and then a mysterious user--long absent and without the slightest connexion to me nor even recent history of editing at all--suddenly appears with random, direct and equally unfounded accusations of exactly the same thing?

Yes, I'd suggest there's strong indications of rather crude sock-puppeting--but not in a way that would benefit you at all.

I will speak plainly myself: stop playing silly buggers and go do something productive. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 11:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was no attempt to "veil" anything. There is nothing mysterious about HWV258, if that is whom you're referring to. Are you counter-accusing us of being socks? (I'm unsure of your meaning.) We both attended the July Wikimania dinner in Sydney, so there are plenty of witnesses to the fact that we are not operated by the same user. I can assure you that we are very different individuals who have healthily different ideas about many aspects of WP; in some matters we have had to agree to differ.

There is compelling evidence that CalendarWatcher is someone's alt account; whether it is a sock puppet, of course, depends on the identity of the operater, since that is critical to the definition of sock puppetry. Many of CalendarWatcher's edits could well have breached tenets of WP:SOCKPUPPET, but may not have; we can't know until the operator identifies themselves—or if CalendarWatcher was started as part of the "clean start" provision in the policy, what the previous account was. Without this information, the suspicion is strengthened. Please note that it is considered the normal thing to link to the other account(s) operated by the same user.

If you'd like more evidence, it can be supplied. But first, will you kindly answer HWV258's query about the expertise and speed with which CalendarWatcher's life was launched into action, back on 22 September 2006.

I must say that it would be appreciated if you were less aggressive in your tone. I apologise if this is stressful, but it's best for everyone if the air is cleared; otherwise, the suspicion will be fostered. Can you provide the requested information, please? Tony (talk) 12:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CW, I really must object to the tone you are using. You have made me want to look up what brought about this hostile exchange. And having done so, I'd say it's obvious you've been editing like a veteran from your first edits, and HVW is asking you a quite legitimate question. I cannot understand how painful it can be to fess up to an old account, unless you had something to hide – were a sock of other user, banned or otherwise... You've been asked a polite question and have so far not given a straight answer, I wonder who is actually playing silly buggers... I'd suggest you simply fess up and be done with it. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 14:16, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, Ohconfucius, this line of conversation is moving in the wrong direction. If you have serious concerns about an editor, or (more importantly) if you have actual proof of a problem, you should present it through formal channels. Otherwise, you have asked, CW has said no, and you should leave it at that. The current method you're employing - continually pressuring an editor who has been active for over three years to supposedly "come clean" - is not the appropriate way to go about it. --Ckatz^chat _spy 17:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"CW has said no"—exactly where has CW said "no"? HWV258 20:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We can nit-pick over wording, but I would think "I'm not happy with the not-well-concealed implication on my talk page that I'm some sort of sock puppet", "why should I be paying the slightest attention to your fishing expedition", and "you come to my talk-page with a badly veiled yet evidence-free suggestion of sock-puppeting... stop playing silly buggers and go do something productive" are fairly strong rejections of your questions. I'm not taking a position on whether or not CW is an alt account. I am, however, pointing out that the manner in which you are pursuing this is problematic. Tony claims to have "compelling evidence", but if this is true, then that should be passed along to the folks who specialize in these sort of checks. Hounding CW in an effort to get a confession is just not kosher. --Ckatz^chat _spy 22:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to nit-pick, but the examples you give only demonstrate CW's willingness to deflect, as opposed to addressing the simple question I originally asked. I have asked CW two questions now (neither answered), and reject the suggest that those questions, or my tone, constitute "hounding". I would have thought CW would be pleased to have the opportunity to explicitly address the questions now raised. It is revealing to the community that CW continues to post on this subject, but only with the intention of deflecting. HWV258 00:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The entire affair smacks of ~~you three~~ people poking around in contribution histories and speculating as to if there are sockpuppets hidden in them. The language used ("Could you please declare to the community any previous accounts that you have used at Wikipedia", "There are only two possible explanations" and "it is in everyone's interest that the matter be cleared up so that you and others can move on from it" for example) presumes that such events did occur, and the overall tone used ~~by you, Tony and Ohconfucius~~ here strongly implies that you believe CW is being purposefully deceptive. Why should CW be "pleased to have the opportunity" to answer your questions? Why is it "of great importance that it be resolved"? Why - when Arthur has said he simply used an incorrect name - are you persisting in pursuing CW? As I've said repeatedly, the manner in which this is being pursued is inappropriate and contrary to assuming good faith. Note that I'm not suggesting you ignore any suspicions you may have. If "strong evidence" really exists, then give said evidence to the crew who specialize in investigating sockpuppets, and let them sort it out. That keeps the matter neutral and unbiased. Don't continually press your point against CW, as you're now doing with making "investigations" into events from over three years ago. --Ckatz^chat _spy 00:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Holy strewth! Katz, please check the exchanges. I was merely reacting to an overaggressive post; bystanders often comment in such a manner on others' talk pages. I have done no poking around: I first saw that most aggressive post because I watchlisted Tony's talk page, and the above was my first exchange in the matter, and this will likely be my last. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:53, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but your one post did actually include the lines "I cannot understand how painful it can be to fess up to an old account, unless you had something to hide" and "I'd suggest you simply fess up and be done with it". Look, I'm not trying to come down heavy on you guys or anything... this isn't an admin action, it's just a "hey, friendly advice, watch where you're going with this" dialogue. As for naming you, chalk that up to addressing the overall dialogue to multiple editors while replying to an individual post. --Ckatz^chat _spy 03:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ckatz: thank you for registering your interest in this matter. Tony (talk) 06:52, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI for Rjanag

I have reported Rjanag at the ANI here based on what I believe was grossly uncivil behavior during the Epeefleche/Shells affair. You should know that I cited some of your comments. Regards - Draeco (talk) 06:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So let's focus on getting to the bottom of Rjanag's upset, and how the likelihood of the recurrence of such a disturbance can be minimised. Of course, it's much easier to see it from the outside, as my own skirmishes demonstrate. Tony (talk) 09:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TFA/R

Tony, do you know what "endline" refers to here? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AdminReview

The problem with the kind of multi-step process you're thinking of is that unless you know your way around already you'll never find it and never be able to use it. I'd personally like a kind of simple "request for help" link that even new editors can use. This should be an integrated part of the block and deletion processes, so that any admin action automatically produces a simple way for the people affected to complain about it. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I see advantages in that. However, being cautious about the logistics of such a process, one of the main issues is to head off at the pass the trivial, unwarranted or vexatious complaints. Let's face it, most folk who are on the wrong end of admin action—such as the deletion of their pet page, or the highly emotive experience of being blocked—will be tempted to lodge a formal complaint if it can be made at the press of a button, regardless of the rights and wrongs of the admin action. AdminReview was designed as a multi-stage process primarily to filter out the less deserving applications at an early stage, and to resolve the simpler complaints at the next stage without requiring all hands on deck. Requiring all "staff" to be involved with all comers seems just too cumbersome and expensive in terms of time and skill.

Having said that, I would very much like to find a "slimmer" design and a shorter way of expressing it; perhaps Stages 2 and 3 could be merged. I'm also open to ways of deploying mediation before things become official and elaborate. It's a matter of protecting good admins in their everyday prosecution of their duties as well as reviewing the occasional questionable action in a neutral way (which is difficult at ANI, of course). My hope is that an ArbCom subcommittee might be created to take the mantle; but ArbCom has a lot on its plate at the moment. Tony (talk) 11:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can see the advantages of that, but perhaps if you were to word a link from the block and delete interfaces as "Request help from another editor", rather than "Complain about this action" it would be less tempting to use it as a way of venting. Anyway, I'll watch with interest how this develops. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it's the mediation option, at a click. I like that. I should rationalise the text soon, in time for the ArbCom election, so candidates might be asked whether they think it should be taken on by a subcommittee. Tony (talk) 16:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Tony1. You have new messages at A8UDI's talk page.
Message added 16:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Question A8UDI talk 16:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inner German border crash diet

Thanks very much for the work you're doing on slimming down the article - it's great. Please could you see my response to your last post on the FAC page? -- ChrisO (talk) 23:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, in reply to your question about asking Raul654 to secure the 9th, see User talk:Raul654#Can you keep November 9th clear for a bit? - no reply from him yet, unfortunately. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt if Raul would reply until after the promotion, and then probably only after your application. It's good, though, that he's been made aware at an early stage that the application will be made for that slot. Tony (talk)

Following feedback about the length of Inner German border, I've revised the article to spin content out into six daughter articles with summary versions in the main article. Please take a look at the results (which are summarised at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Inner German border/archive1#Article size update) and let me know whether you are content to maintain your support for the article being featured. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:28, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, I hope it can be said that what started out looking like it might turn into a nightmare review has turned into quite a collaborative FAC effort. It's unusual for me to jump in with a commentary mid-FAC about something that reviewers hadn't noticed, but "that's my job". :) Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:32, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to have been a model FAC so far, doesn't it? I'm very pleased about the way it's gone. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:54, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This would be a model FAC. ;) ceranthor 23:04, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As long as it never appears on the mainpage, where it will get destroyed by vandalism! By the way, Tony copyedited TS before it came to FAC; proof's in the pudding. Um, Ceranthor, while you're here ... what are your thoughts on Nov. 9? :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have the Illinois earthquake article nominated. Despite its 11 supports, I think Inner German border should get the main page. I can wait! ;) ceranthor 23:14, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why Ceranthor, what a jolly sort you are ! Are there any other dates in the earthquake article? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:32, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. There's always next year. ceranthor 23:37, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rjanag Arbitration

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Rjanag and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks, --Epeefleche (talk) 22:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Senedd

Tony,

You mentioned of the above Talk Page on 30 July 2009, that you would be interested to provide feedback on the article. Today I have requested a Peer Review. Seth Whales (talk) 12:44, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy notification

I mentioned you here. I'm aware that you have not been following this issue, and probably are unaware of the problems, but I don't intend to expound, as one arb has effectively silenced input. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:22, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy, it's true: apart from seeing the user's name pop up occasionally at FAC pages (I tend not to read other reviewers' comments), I feel distant from it. I'm sorry for all parties that it has turned out to be an ongoing problem. Tony (talk) 15:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FA review, thanks

Greetings Tony1, just thought you might like to know, the Boeing 777 article has been edited to reflect the suggestions you made on the article's FA review page. Any further comments on those changes, or suggestions in general, are most welcome. Thanks again for your assistance. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 22:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to look soon. Tony (talk) 09:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tony1, I realize your work pressure has gone up, and wish you success in real-life endeavours. If you have a moment to comment on the Boeing 777 FA review page regarding the changes made, that would be appreciated. To summarize, we've 1) rewritten the sentence, 2) replaced 'dub', 3) fixed links, and 4) changed image sizes as per your suggestions. Thanks SynergyStar (talk) 20:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amador Valley High School

Hello Tony,

Amador Valley High School did not pass FAC nomination. However, I do plan on renominating the article, so I addressed all of the comments you left on its FA nomination. I invite you to read over the article again and tell me what most needs to be addressed. I appreciate your comments and I thank you for your time. - Deltawk (talk) 04:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thx for your note. I'm afraid my hands are full right at the moment. Perhaps this in the meantime? Tony (talk) 09:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation

WT:Sock_puppetry#Interview_for_Signpost. - Dank (push to talk) 17:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Attachment theory

Hi Tony. I don't expect much (i see you're at a '6' on pressure), and this is a recent previous FAR that is about to go right back in for the second round. One problem is the around 10,000 'and' uses (already suggested User:Tony1/How_to_improve_your_writing#Achieving_flow to the promoter) - but I think a few concise words of advice would help greatly too. Mind giving a quick glance to see how to take it further? JoeSmack ^Talk 00:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Missed messages

Hi Tony,

Just realised I missed a couple of messages from you, now in archive 6. Not sure how, since I had this page on my watchlist – same way I missed this, I guess :( Obviously I'd have worded this edit differently if I hadn't missed your response.

"We now seek timing of the release of the next draft of ArbCom's policy" – well, I'm not formally trained in grammar, but to me that just sounds odd. I had to re-read it to make sense of it. "The" would help a little, but I don't like it regardless. Maybe it's the way "seek" is used; maybe it's just too many ofs.

Re sleeping: it doesn't seem to have become widely known yet, and might not be confirmed, but it's thought that exposure to bright sunlight for 30 minutes or more in the morning can help shift a person's body clock backwards.

Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 15:30, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

In case you want to help (feel free to edit); I've only updated the top part of the page-- the bottom is all old, a copy from last year. User:SandyGeorgia/ArbVotes2009 SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:04, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dispatch for 2 November edition of The Signpost

Sandy, Skype interview done. Will write. Asked Sage about whether we can have an image—I hope so. I could never get it right about the draft page. It's beyond me to set it up and the rest. I'll write it off-wiki for the moment. Tony (talk) 09:39, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, per WP:FCDW, could you put the Dispatch at WP:FCDW/November 2, 2009? I'm not aware of any reason that you can't include images, but I will ask Ragesoss. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:12, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've done this. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:01, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, I have little doubt that Raul will schedule the article for the 9th, but until he does so, saying that it will run on the Main page on that date is premature; is there a way you can re-word? Candidate for the Main Page or similar ? Since the article comes out a week before that date, Raul might not schedule by then, so the wording could appear presumptuous. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:41, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, will change now in the two inline places. Chris has just gone through it as well. We an always edit it back again after publication if Raul gives the OK. Tony (talk) 10:34, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Election RFC courtesy notice

A request for comment that may interest you is currently in progress at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee 2. If you have already participated, then please disregard this notice and my apologies. Manning (talk) 08:38, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You received this message because you participated in the earlier ArbCom secret ballot RFC.

PerfectIt (computer program for easier copyediting)

I have discovered a computer program for easier copyediting. See Intelligent Editing - Cleaner, Smarter, Better Documents.

This talk page is on my watchlist, so I am watching here for replies. -- Wavelength (talk) 20:12, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll take a look. I presume they work on a Mac. Tony (talk) 01:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"PerfectIt requires Windows 2000, Windows XP or Windows Vista. It works with MS Word 2000, MS Word 2002, MS Word 2003 and MS Word 2007." [5] -- Wavelength (talk) 16:32, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so no-go Macs. I notice a few glitches in their prose on their website. Tony (talk) 16:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's face it, I don't think the people writing the web pages are the ones creating the spellchecking software, although it doesn't really help their marketing :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 01:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some other copyediting programs are listed at http://www.google.com/Top/Arts/Writers_Resources/Software/Spelling_and_Grammar/, and the fifth one (http://linguisoft.com/) can be used on a Mac computer. -- Wavelength (talk) 01:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try it. But please forgive my cynicism: computers' understanding of grammar and their ability to improve suboptimal prose has decades to go before we could ever trust it. Just look at Word's grammar checker. One of the issues on the site I visited was "people that ...", rather than "people who". Doesn't augur well. One easier place for programmers to start is the extension of spell-checkers so they understand enough grammar to flag possible misspellings of homonyms (to vs too, its vs it's), without flagging a raft of false positives. That would be useful. Tony (talk) 02:29, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your cynicism is acceptable. Incidentally, http://linguisoft.com/ says that corporate America is extremely concerned about the abysmal level of writing ability among its employees. Corporations include the mass media, which often use incorrect English themselves and mislead readers, listeners, and viewers, many of whom lack the necessary education in correct English to alert them to the errors. (I grant that some examples involve American and British English differences and disputes in English grammar, but still there are very many mistakes that can not be counted in those categories.)

A radio or television station seems to be afraid to pause, lest the listeners change the station, so many people use too few commas when they write. That fear of pausing applies to announcers, talk show hosts, and advertisers. There seems to be much confusion between "due to" and "because of" (http://web.ku.edu/~edit/because.html), as you can see from my recent contributions. (If there is a motive to save time and space, the saving is minimal, and the method is a "cheating" one.) There seems to be too much reliance on "tried and true" and overused clichés, and too little venturing into the use of expressions which can expand the vocabularies of producers and consumers alike. Maybe the Manual of Style should encourage editors to be wary of journalese, as well as legalese, motherese, and any other such varieties of English. Maybe it should encourage editors to become more familiar with correct spelling, grammar, and so forth, and to spend more time immersed in literature which sets a good example in the use of English.

Also, I have found that some of those mistakes have been copied by English-language services of foreign-language media.

-- Wavelength (talk) 20:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[I am correcting the spelling of "immersed". -- Wavelength (talk) 23:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)][reply]

Here are some links to pages with information about commas (mentioned above) changing the meaning of text.

-- Wavelength (talk) 23:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More about punctuation is in the book Eats, Shoots & Leaves: The Zero Tolerance Approach to Punctuation.
-- Wavelength (talk) 01:24, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hah! I chose "Commas" from Wavelength's tips above. It's written by somebody who's selfconsciously fastidious, yet it starts: Comma usage is one of the most complex, and most misunderstood, questions of proper punctuation. With my fastidiousness DIPswitch OFF, none of this matters (cf global warming, etc); with it ON, I wonder how usage can be a "question". ¶ The very first "incorrect" example: After many years as a criminal prosecutor she ascended to the bench. We're told it must have a comma. The notion of requirement is, in a word, bollocks. Consider: After traipsing about in the fog they found the grave sure enough. / After an interval Mr Dedalus raised his grog[...] / After a brisk exchange of courtesies during which a smart upper cut of the military man brought blood freely from his opponent's mouth the lamb suddenly waded in all over his man and landed a terrific left to Battling Bennett's stomach, flooring him flat. / After this homily which he delivered with much warmth of asseveration Mr Mulligan in a trice put off from his hat a kerchief with which he had shielded it. And so forth, all from a single well-respected novel that I surely don't need to name. ¶ Our comma requirer also informs us After all, the last thing a senior attorney wants to do is correct a junior attorney's comma usage. This surprises me: I'd have guessed that a senior attorney would prefer this admittedly dreary chore to, say, pleading to creditors to avoid imminent bankruptcy, or explaining the presence in the connubial bedroom of exotically unfamiliar underwear. ¶ Meanwhile, if you want to find out about commas, why bother with the obsessed when you can consult people who know what they're talking about? (Here's one.) -- Hoary (talk) 03:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My Google search for "punctuation checker" reported 2,700,000 results, including Punctuation Checker | Gregory's Writing Site

and English Punctuation Comma Checker - Correct Usage of Commas!. -- Wavelength (talk) 21:09, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion about "due to" and "because of" (mentioned above at 20:59, 3 November 2009) at User talk:Wavelength#"because of".
-- Wavelength (talk) 06:39, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned above (at 20:59, 3 November 2009) the overuse of clichés (I meant the use of clichés, the overuse of figures of speech) by people in the mass media. The overuse of figures of speech can be like the overuse of italics or boldface or underscoring in printed text, or the overuse of spice on a delicious meal. (Mathematicians and chemists continue to use the same symbols literally in hundreds of formulas, without any need for fancy variations.) However, it is possible for one person to become tired of a figure of speech before another person encounters it for the first time.
Lake Superior State University, in the American state of Michigan, is famous for its Banished Words List. (See http://www.lssu.edu/banished/.) There is archived at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2009 February 8#what words are you allergic to? a somewhat related discussion.
-- Wavelength (talk) 21:50, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My Google search for "cliché checker" did not find an online cliché checker. -- Wavelength (talk) 03:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some clichés are snowclones. -- Wavelength (talk) 18:13, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions at ArbCom elections

Thoughts on this modification and the implications it has on possibly reducing the burden on candidates much appreciated; if you feel this is sufficient to alleviate all concerns about the prospective amount of time it will take to reply to my questions, please copy the modified wording over to your very snazzy "themed" question page.

Cheers, Daniel (talk) 11:17, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gulfton FAC comments

While putting up Gulfton, Houston for a peer review, I found that you made comments at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Gulfton,_Houston/archive2 - I am unable to respond on that page since it is archived. I'd like to address a few:

"Parts of it are overcited. Here's a doozler: ... Really contentious statement, that one. Can it be conflated into ONE ref. note?" - No. The Houston Independent School District has individual boundary maps for different schools, one. Two, I needed reliable sources that stated that the schools were in the Gulfton area. That means I used three boundary maps and three other sources that describe the schools as being in Gulfton. What I did do was split up the refs by the piece of the sentence, i.e. "A[], B[], and C[]" so it looks neater.
- I think successive refs sentence after sentence look defensive! Readers will assume that a ref number after the final sentence at issue applies further back, unless there's reason not to assume this. There's a bit of give and take on this—there's allowance for a degree of editor taste, but it looked over the top.Tony (talk) 07:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Is the huge caption at the top all relevant to the pic? Can't some of it be in the main text?" - the big caption was a response to BuddingJournalists's remarks at the beginning. He said "I question the choice of the lead picture (or at least the caption needs some rethinking). The caption is quite specific, but there's no tie to the greater article. Is it a famous landmark in Gulfton? Is it indicative of Gulfton's economic troubles?" - That was when the lead was "The Lantern Village Apartments, formerly Colonial House Apartments, became well-known through television advertisements and then experienced bankruptcy and foreclosure." So, how would I make the sentence shorter while not running afoul of his suggestion?
- Unsure. Drop the second sentenceand include the info in the body of the article somewhere? It's 10 lines long, and one map below has a 12-line caption—they're like skyscrapers. Tony (talk) 07:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'll play around with those two captions... BTW the details about the Colonial House apartments are already within the article. WhisperToMe (talk) 08:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Date shortening: Done as per your suggestion
"Why is "US dollars" linked? Is it exotic, like the Tibetan razu?" - Well, people in Tibet would think the US dollar was exotic. Anyway, I just shortened it to "dollar."
- Actually, Tibetans know exactly what US dollars are.Tony (talk) 07:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I figured they would know; it might still seem exotic to them. WhisperToMe (talk) 08:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Acres convert to hectares, please, not square metres." - Done
"~~For pity's sake,~~ why is "English language" linked?" - In some contexts it ought to be linked. -- "said in a newspaper article that a lack of confidence in English language abilities and time consumed by work prevented many area residents from creating soccer leagues." - The English language ability bit is not a coincidental factor, but one of the main points of the sentence.
- I removed my grouchy phrase. English language ability might be the point of the sentence, but what part of English language is useful to the readers at this point, given that they speak English well enough to consult en.WP? I don't think it's worth a link at all, but if you were going to link here, please consider a more focused article (English-language education/training?). Tony (talk) 07:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - English as a foreign or second language works, so I linked to that. It is exactly the context that fit the sentence. WhisperToMe (talk) 08:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"No hyphen after -ly adverbs. See MOS." done.
The article had been through 3 good article attempts, 1 peer review, and 2 FAC attempts (in that order), so it looks like it will take more peer reviews and possibly more FAC attempts before it can reach featured article status. Also it may need other editors to edit it because it may help having others edit the work; I mostly edited the one article.
- Good luck. You might also consider reducing the number of images and increasing the size of a few of them. The rules on the sizing of thumbnails have changed. The lead image needs brightening: is it possible to modify it at source? I have to say that it's kind of unremarkable. I'd even prefer the map of Houston. Please see the MoS on en dashes for year ranges. (I'd spell out "1950s to 1979", and subsequently use "1980–92", "1992–2009". Why is 1992 in two ranges?) Tony (talk) 07:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'll see which images I could pare; I think the schools section is fairly heavy in images, but other areas have relatively few images. I could brighten the lead image with a basic image editing program. As for 1992, the first section has material that ends in 1992 while the second has material that begins in 1992. I mainly did that for balance reasons, as I didn't want to have all of the 1992 material in the middle section and have the last section have relatively little content. "1950s to 1979" - I'll see the MOS in regards to year ranges. WhisperToMe (talk) 08:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WhisperToMe (talk) 07:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Rubin Dispute

I'm concerned that Rubin's status as a fellow administrator is making things difficult, and I want to ensure fair review.

I read the comment of yours on Arthur Rubin's talk page regarding the laundry list of people complaining about his reversion practices, and I'm requesting that you continue to monitor my formal complaint on the Notice Board. I would appreciate it if you would be willing to go through and focus on the original part of my complaint, even though this is asking a lot. If I thought this was a matter of someone simply making valid reverts in a manner that some might find offensive with a vanadalism tag, I wouldn't have bothered making this complaint to begin with. I think it goes beyond that, and this is also not an edit war on differences of opinion on content. I can't tell you how offensive it is for an editor, particularly an administrator, to do batch reverts of good faith contributions by contributors and label them as vandalism, and then chase them to the other recent pages they've contributed to and do the same thing. And then after the offended editor provides proof that it's not vandalism, it's followed by new excuses for removing the material. And in my case, as if that's not enough, I argue that his conduct extends to hounding and disruptive editing. Georgewilliamherbert responded to this dispute in a manner that I found to be inappropriate. Thank-you. MeSoStupid (talk) 08:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My post was a plea to Arthur to cool it: I think he is a highly skilled editor and has provided valuable leadership in chronological articles. There's been an element of incivility for a long time, but it seems more recently to be accumulating into a considerable problem. It is particularly important that we avoid turning off new editors, given the flattening of the participation curve. It is disappointing that Arthur isn't taking a mentoring line with new editors. What is going on? I'd rather not get involved, but I'll take a look at your complaint. Tony (talk) 09:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TFA blurb proposal for Inner German border

Could you possibly have a look at the Main Page blurb that I've proposed at WP:TFAR#November 9? I'd appreciate any copyediting advice you might have. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

220 rollout

I see Roan has taken up the baton. I'd have thought the spike would be more gradual (a cactus?) but hopefully not a barrier... mikaul^talk 18:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At least we know that something's happening. I'm disappointed nothing happened until I huffed and puffed; guess those developers are flat out. Tony (talk) 09:15, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hyphen question

In the phrase "a microtiter plate-based assay" is the hyphen placed correctly? I tried looking through your helpful examples on the hyphen help page, but I'm still not sure I have it right. Thanks, Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 20:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it a microtiter plate that the assay is based on? If so, "a microtiter-plate-based assay", with two hyphens. Alternatively, "an assay based on a/the microtiter plate". Tony (talk) 01:13, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Arbcom questions

Replied on my talk page, 'cause I'm lazy.--Tznkai (talk) 18:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for birddogging 220px

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		Thanks for birddogging the increase of default thumbnail widths from 180px to 220px. As you may recall, I had some qualms about the increase, but the consensus was quite clear and the task ought to get done. Without your efforts I'm not sure that it would have gotten done before the next leap year. (Come to think of it, maybe we should increase it 10px every leap year?) Eubulides (talk) 04:42, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I came by here to say the same thing. Admirable dedication to the cause. mikaul^talk 05:33, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Johnbod (talk) 05:45, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, guys! Tony (talk) 06:07, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1997 Qayen earthquake

Could you look at 1997 Qayen earthquake again? If you still think it's not ready, tell me. ceranthor 18:38, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Test your World War I knowledge with the Henry Allingham International Contest!

As a member of the Military history WikiProject or World War I task force, you may be interested in competing in the Henry Allingham International Contest! The contest aims to improve article quality and member participation within the World War I task force. It will also be a step in preparing for Operation Great War Centennial, the project's commemorative effort for the World War I centenary.

If you would like to participate, please sign up by 11 November 2009, 00:00, when the first round is scheduled to begin! You can sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIV (October 2009)

The October 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

James Joyce

Tony, what is the status on the date delinking script? James Joyce was really deteriorating, so I reverted it a few days ago to the last FAR-reviewed version, and so far, the revert has held. But this means dates are now linked throughout. Are you able to de-link? If so, it uses international dates (day month year). Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delinking is no longer prohibited. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Dabomb! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Linking

Hi Tony, thanks for your comment. Yes, dictionary words are linked all over Wikipedia. Many thanks. Black Stripe (talk) 13:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BlackStripe, there's faulty grammar, poor expression, bad formatting all over WP too. It means we should fix it rather than adding to it. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary and WP:LINKING. Tony (talk) 13:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom Questions redux

Tony, thanks again for the work you've done in sorting the questions for candidates. I took your categorized list and coded it into {{ACEQuestions}}, which candidates transclude into their question pages. Could you check and make sure that I got all of the questions, including any last-minute ones? Thanks again! UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 21:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine - you might even want to collapse the guidance for candidates, since they probably only read it once. Last year, we still had General questions coming in for the first 7 days of nominations, so people could ask both while candidates were already answering - but since we split them this year, that's not an issue. Go for it. Thanks! UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 13:08, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 9 November 2009

Fundraiser: Controversial "Wikipedia Forever" fundraiser to start 10 November

New pages experiment: Wikipedians test the water at new page patrol

German controversy: German Wikipedia under fire from inclusionists

Multimedia usability: Multimedia usability meeting concludes in Paris

Election report: Arbitration Committee candidate nominations open 10 November

Book review: Review of Connected Minds, Emerging Cultures: Cybercultures in Online Learning

News and notes: Ant images, public outreach, and more

In the news: Beefeater vandalism, interview, and more

Sister projects: Meta-wiki interview

Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations

Features and admins: Approved this week

Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Author's Farce/archive1

Hi. I'm under the impression that you're the go-to guy for FAC prose comments. Fowler&Fowler has offered several insightful comments on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Author's Farce/archive1, but I'm unclear with regards several of Fowler's comments and am wondering if 1(c) in FA? is really that precise. If you get a chance, could you take a look? Thanks. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR _{talk // contribs} 00:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, it would be helpful if you could look in on this FAC (and several others stalled towards the bottom of the page). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:59, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop

As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 08:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

<Bleepin'> MOS again

<grrrr ... > Tony, can you please tell me where WP:ITALICS went? It used to have a list of things to italicize; now it's just general commentary. Band names aren't in italics, right? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll answer for Tony: no. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:34, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But where did the list that used to be at WP:ITALICS go? I refer to it all the time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:41, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (titles). Dabomb87 (talk) 03:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, my: that's confusing. I reference WP:ITALICS all the time. What else have I missed? Why did we shuffle that off to titles, when it applies to text? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:45, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently it's 'titles' as refers to titles of things, not titles of articles. Confusing. And what a whopping big list of examples for italics—paring that down to something readable now. Nobody needs 50 examples of how to use an apostrophe character to format italics onwiki. Yeesh. Maralia (talk) 04:14, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If WikiProject MOS were more active, I'd go straight there and get them to coordinate a rationalisation. Tony (talk) 05:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

32 examples of how to put two apostrophes before and after text to italicize it. Now largely summed up by the single sentence "To display text in italics, enclose it in double apostrophes." No wonder people don't read this shit. Maralia (talk) 05:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to look at your good work later today, Maralia. This is more like what we need; editors at large are daunted by bloat in style guides; we need to get to the point nice and easy. Tony (talk) 07:58, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FAR

Hi Tony, can you check in and have a look at the two at the bottom of each section? Thanks YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (help the Invincibles Featured topic drive) 01:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hoaxes

Hi Tony, I recently became aware of an unusual set of hoax edits to Wikipedia and have compiled a little write-up of the affair here. I was wondering whether there might be enough interest in the story to make a Signpost article of it. I've not written for the Signpost before, so I'd need some hints as to the house style to get the story into shape.

I enjoyed your article the other day on Inner German border. --JN 466 14:40, 14 November 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Hello, Tony1. You have new messages at Jayen466's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

pared down principles

Hi Tony, you have often complained about the proposed principles in cases. If you have time, feel free to viciously attack them once more. ;-) John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:27, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An old invitation, and more recent comments

An old invitation.

And saw comments re Roman Polanski article (eg)

Do you mind if I ask you a few questions about how the information in the documentary Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired can be used in article? Note: I have been informed at WP:RSN that the documentary is RS secondary.

Please feel free to disregard with impunity if busy or not interested. Cheers Proofreader77 (talk) 05:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, very busy and was only a passing comment. Thanks. Tony (talk) 05:55, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. Cheers. Proofreader77 (talk) 05:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS. I remember a moment of conflict where I stuck my nose in ... My apologies. (Writing from the GG doghouse with fresh perspective and a 100-word limit :) No reply necessary. Proofreader77 (talk) 06:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem: they were testy days. Does your name suggest you are the person to go to for copy-editing? If so, do you have particular interests that might resonate with the temptation to refer FAC, FLC nominators to independent copy-editors? Tony (talk) 07:34, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Excuse delay in reply ... whining to Jimbo. :) User name is more symbolic than mark of trade. (You can probably stop reading there:) You are clearly in the realm of real work of Wikipedia—whereas I had to check to even know what FAC/FLC are. lol ... I've put in the obligatory 5,000 edits of poop cleaning, and spent time "current events wrangling" on talk pages (socially highly contentious Roman Polanski most recently, leading to doghouse after "extraordinary measures" countering heavy negative bias in "consensus";). Now that I've given up rollback, will shift attention ... but doghouse has tight leash. Proofreader77 (talk) 10:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Roman Polanski article quality

I know you're very busy, but perhaps a quick question. A film director bio amidst a culture war is probably not one that could be lifted to FA class. But would it make sense to attempt to "learn the ropes" of the quality system (I'm making up phrase here) working on it. Perhaps attempting to get it from B to A class?

Perhaps my thought is that if the contending editors had another goal than defeating each other (I've lost 10 lbs), something beautiful might happen. (Just thinking.) Thanks. Proofreader77 (talk) 10:21, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It does make sense to try raising it to A class. There is nothing in principle stopping an FA nomination beyond the stability issue, which is covered by one of the criteria. It would be a test of WP's ability to be NPOV. It would be held to high standards—lot of editors would pick the minutist holes in it at FAC for other reasons. But first things first. Tony (talk) 11:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. (And retrospectively for your old invitation.) Whether anyone else editing Polanski thinks trying to get to class A is something we should do, I will use this example to focus my own attention ... while I learn what the FA (quality) process is all about. Cheers. Proofreader77 (talk) 23:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom question 2

Hi Tony. Many thanks for all the work that you've done on the Arbcom questions. I do have a question about the question you have posed (number two on the list) - what kind of evidence are you looking for? For example, are you looking for writing in the article space (I could link my FAs for that), policy-related matters or something specific to dispute resolution? I'm not trying to get you to answer the question for me, but I want to make sure I present the material appropriate to your question. Best wishes, Fritzpoll (talk) 10:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Fritz. This is only a wish-list of possible suggestions: diffs/links to policy-related matters, preferably the discussion or editing of policy or guideline text, or to your intervention to resolve disputes, or examples that show you can write concisely with good control of tone, and/or have the ability to see faults in text (argument, logic, wording). FAs (preferably where your role is clear) would be second best, but usable as examples if there's nothing else. FAs are no mean achievement; it's just that they might have been the subject of a different question. Good luck in your candidacy. Tony (talk) 14:31, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question

[6] - there is a difference between "great demand" and "in great demand". Do you know of any reword that could keep to the more specific meaning of the latter or do you feel that it is unnecessary? Ottava Rima (talk) 15:07, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, my spell checker still insists that "afterwards" (with an "s") is wrong. ;/ [7] doesn't really settle it. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 15:08, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Got to flop into bed. Will return tomorrow, but later only. Tony (talk) 15:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is fine. :) I'll go through the page and leave those as is until we can talk. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have rewritten The Author's Farce#Background. Please check to see if that clarifies any concerns. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 16 November 2009

Fundraiser: "Wikipedia Forever" fundraiser begins

Bulgarian award: Bulgarian Wikipedia gets a prestigious award

Election report: Arbitration Committee Election: Several candidates standing

News and notes: Kiswahili contest, new advisory board members, Foundation-l and more

In the news: German lawsuit, Jimbo interview and more

Sister projects: Wiktionary interview

Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations

Features and admins: Approved this week

Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 16:34, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria for judging ArbCom candidates

These are the criteria against which I will judge the suitability of each candidate in the upcoming ArbCom election.

Essential (1) Experience. At least two years’ experience as a Wikipedia editor.
(2) Analytical skills. The ability to analyse written evidence in relation to the pillars, policies, and guidelines that are relevant to users' behaviour, including the ability to distinguish relevant from irrelevant evidence.
(3) Writing skills. The ability to write concise, clear, plain English, including a reasonable amount of content editing.
(4) Knowledge of ArbCom. A detailed knowledge of Arbcom's policy, structure and procedures.
(5) Neutrality. Familiarity with the principles of conflict of interest as they would apply to oneself as an arbitrator and to other users. The ability to interpret and act on evidence in an even-handed way.
Desirable
Strengths in either or both of the following areas are an advantage, but not a prerequisite:
(6) Drafting skills. The ability to draft judgments, motions and injunctions, including the ability to identify potential ambiguities and unintended consequences in draft text.
(7) Management / dispute resolution skills. Demonstrated experience of dispute resolution, mediation, or acting in a responsible role on Wikipedia, that shows the ability to deal in an even-handed way with parties in heated situations, and to work effectively towards the resolution of behavioural disputes.

I am posting this because the current electoral process presents voters with a vast quantity of noise, in many cases concealing the evidence of each candidate's skill-base. It is up to voters to filter out the noise. Feedback is welcome below; I am open to suggestions. Tony (talk) 11:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You won't say that the ideal candidate has a minimum of 15 FA's, including at least five having to do with Richard Nixon? :)--Wehwalt (talk) 12:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's six on Nixon; you just missed out! Tony (talk) 12:48, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's the media, they're the enemy!--Wehwalt (talk) 13:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, work in the mediation area, in the absence of significant content contributions, could be less than desirable. We need people with dispute resolution skills in conjunction with content building. Otherwise, we could end up with more mediators and less arbitrators, and decisions that aren't workable in the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and where tendentious editors can disrupt content contributions. That is, No. 6-- without ample evidence of 1 thru 5-- could be problematic. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy, (1) is mandatory, as far as I'm concerned; so are 2–5. 6a or 6b would be a bonus. Is that different from what you understood it to mean? Tony (talk) 16:12, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't read that way now; it seems to give equal weight to No. 6, which is where I see the problem-- a big problem. We don't need a mediating Arb Committee-- that is what other steps in dispute resolution are for. Readers may see 1 thru 6, and miss "advantage, but not a prerequisite"; you might solve that by changing the numbered bullet points, so that 6 is clearly distinct? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's better ... do you have that posted somewhere on a subpage? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:48, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted this as a subpage here, with its own discussion page. Tony (talk) 01:34, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seattle Sounders FC FA review

First, thanks for your comments on the review page. I've addressed all of your specific comments and have attempted to do a more thorough copy edit of the entire article as you suggested. I discovered your tutorials and they have helped me immensely. That said, I'm definitely still a novice at this, so I look forward to any further comments you have on the article. Thanks again! --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 07:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate Statement

Hiya Tony, Thanks for the note about my candidate statement, ill trim it down right away. When i first posted I was under but then made changes so I must have gone over then. Seddon ^talk|^WikimediaUK 09:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GovCom

Hi Tony. First, check out my talk page. I've replied to your comment regarding the length of my statement. Second: I read with interest your GovCom box. As a matter of principle that I care a lot about, I would agree that the committee is elected not to govern but to resolve disputes. But it's important to distinguish between government and its role as an influential "executive committee" (for want of a better description). Would you say that the committee is to some degree a kind of steering committee, simply by virtue of its high exposure across the project and of its not-negligible capacity to influence the workings of the encyclopedia? I've always held such a view, even if I think that it probably shouldn't be (project governance should be strictly within the remit of our community), but I'm interested in yours. (For clarity: take this as just a curious by-stander questioning you on one interesting aspect of your views, rather than as a candidate trying to canvass votes :-).) AGK 10:39, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My candidate statement

I undid your one word trim, because it took my statement down to 399 words. Having assumed you counted my redundant signature as a word, I remvoed that instead. Hope that's ok - Fritzpoll (talk) 11:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note

I'm finding the questions very helpful this year on my "undecided" candidates (didn't even read them, though, for the candidates I know well :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the General Questions that we rationalised and presented thematically? I have misgivings about the way in which the so-called Individual Questions are undermining users' succinctness in the GQs. Tony (talk) 03:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm finding both helpful in the undecided cases. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:17, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, Sandy, I've put in a request to Manning Bartlett that he be a candidate in the ArbCom election. I don't like to do this, as I'm supposed to be an election coordinator—a civil servant without fear or favour; but I hope people might allow me this latitude just once. Tony (talk) 03:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to pick eight candidates right now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:26, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MOSNUM edit doesn't change the meaning

> Was "to either Johnson or to architecture" ungrammatical?

Yes. You can say "to either Johnson or architecture", but you can't have one "to" before the "either" and the other after it. There's no difference in meaning between "A to either B or C" and "A either to B or to C", where A, B, and C are sentence fragments. Either way, it's just a shorthand for "Either A to B or A to C". I guess "but not both" is suggested by both forms, but I've seen them used the other way too. —Codrdan (talk) 11:55, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the second "to" definitely needs to be removed in whatever form. I prefer the previous form thus. Tony (talk) 12:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hawaii hotspot

Issues fixed. I have to argue about two of your points, however. ResMar 17:49, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FAC backlog

Tony, the FAC page is seriously backlogged. Could you please revisit your oppose at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1997 Qayen earthquake/archive1? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:49, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Link audit

When I saw your edit to the Switchfoot article, I wasn't quite sure about some of the changes you made. Could you explain (or at least point me in the direction of the relevant guidelines) why links shouldn't exist in the references, and why you removed links to surfing, Grammy Award, and YouTube? Thanks —Akrabbim^talk 23:07, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind if the links to publishers go back in the references; but their website is given anyway. A link to "Daily Nebraskan" doesn't seem helpful when http://www.dailynebraskan.com/arts-entertainment/switchfoot-breaks-mold-with-modern-rock-album-hello-hurricane-1.2059264 appears too. But I don't mind.

"Surfing" is a common-term dictionary word that should rarely be linked. Please see WP:LINK, especially since it's within a quotation.

[[Grammy Award|Grammy]] nomination for [[Grammy Award for Best Rock Gospel Album|Best Rock Gospel Album]]"—this is a "chain" link, where the more specific, second link will itself link to the more general, first one. There is no reason to link both. Thanks for your inquiry. Tony (talk) 04:12, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, that makes sense. Thanks. —Akrabbim^talk 11:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From WikiProject Military history

		The WikiChevrons
		I have the happy duty of presenting you with these WikiChevrons for contributing "Copy-editing essentials" to the Academy. Thank you for participating in the 2009 Academy Content Drive. We appreciate your help in building this valuable resource! Maralia (talk) 04:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it's a delight to receive this. Thank you indeed, Maralia.Tony (talk) 07:38, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RFC

Well, it's looking kind of closed here. I've seen the discussion about whether it should be closed, but no-one has re-opened it, which kind of means it is closed. Hiding T 11:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 23 November 2009

Uploading tool: New tool for photo scavenger hunts

Election report: Arbitration Committee Election: Nominations closing November 24

Fundraiser: "Wikipedia Forever" fundraiser continues

News and notes: Government stubs, Suriname exhibit, milestones and more

In the news: The Decline of Wikipedia, and more

Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations

Features and admins: Approved this week

Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 13:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FAC backlog

We sure could use some help. [8] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So...

Anything further on this? ResMar 13:04, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are your original comments resolved? If so, can you please close 'em up? The length is starting to get out of hand and I want to get the done stuff closed :) ResMar 23:01, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Query

Hi Tony, do you have an opinion on whether is it proper (or acceptable) to use whose as a possessive form of which? Should it be used solely in reference to animate subjects (i.e. possessive form of who)? Эlcobbola _talk 14:14, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, the lack of a single word for "of which" is bad engineering in the English language. I think it grates with people to use "whose" as a substitute, although I've been sorely tempted to do so on several occasions. Might be OK orally, but in writing I'd play safe and recast the clause. Tony (talk) 14:38, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Definitions of whose - OneLook Dictionary Search. -- Wavelength (talk) 16:07, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The following articles may be of interest.

-- Wavelength (talk) 19:13, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cato June FAC

I have replied to your concerns.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:27, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Urn lead

The lead of the poem was altered after a few people decided that they did not like the standard formula used for most poem pages. This is a somewhat accurate diff for the previous version. I would love to bring back that first paragraph, but I don't like to get in between conflicting reviewers. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:26, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I rewrote the lead to get rid of things that I felt were inappropriate or just blah. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:33, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I feel more confident about the lead as it is now. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:16, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review vs. FAC Signpost Dispatch needed

See Wikipedia talk:Featured content dispatch workshop#Peer review vs. FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:17, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ACE: copyedit/review needed

Tony, if you get a chance today, can you take a look at {{Arbitration Committee Elections comment page}} and copyedit/expand as needed? Thanks in advance, Skomorokh 08:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, I appreciate it. The personnel for the elections have been finalized, so I hope we won't have to bother Tim any more. See Wikipedia_talk:ACE2009#Finalized. Can I leave the business of emailing these editors with our expectations of what they should be doing to you? I've told them to expect something tomorrow. Roger Davies ought to have advice from the AUSC elections if it helps. Skomorokh 02:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Links

Not true. I add links only when appropriate. Deb (talk) 12:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost election report

Hey, seeing as Manning has retired would you be up for writing our weekly election report at the Signpost? — Pretzels^Hii! 13:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to throw one together now-ish. It's best to check with Sage, User:Ragesoss, he's the chief. If he wants to delay until tomorrow, let him know I can publish at 10-ish UTC with the usual flaw-filled performance. Hiding T 16:16, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, pushing back until 10-ish is fine.--ragesoss (talk) 17:27, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hang on, this means you're still going to write it, yes? Hiding T 18:20, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Are you still able to write the election report up? I think everyone got their wires crossed before, it looks like. I thought you were asking for a delay to be able to write it, was that not the case? Hiding T 09:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Wires crossed, it looks like. I'll just note briefly in News and notes that the elections have started. If anyone thinks there's something really important that needs to be included, that can be added post-publication.--ragesoss (talk) 12:12, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Not a problem. I'm not sure it's better than what you could have put together, but thank you. Good luck with all your work, hope it goes well. Now, how are you fixed for next week? :) Hiding T 14:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 30 November 2009

Election report: ArbCom election begins December 1, using SecurePoll

News and notes: 35k donated, WikiProject for Wikipedia-Books, 2M rated articles, and more

In the news: Reports of Wikipedia's demise, prescriptions for its ills, and more

Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations

Features and admins: Approved this week

Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 14:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Archive search box

Here is an archive search box for your talk page. You can modify it and place it according to your preferences.

-- Wavelength (talk) 17:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart & Sons

I see that back in October you were following the Stuart & Sons article, however you may have missed that a sidestepping article, Stuart and sons, was created by Rainbow1000 in late October. There is now a discussion here about merging it into Stuart & Sons.shaidar cuebiyar ( talk | contribs ) 22:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chain linking?

Another article I was tinkering with had the city state Wikilink question come up. Totally unrelated, it came up art the help desk, too. I was wondering if you had a style guide line you could point us to. See: Wikipedia:Help desk#Guideline for location wikilinks. Looks like you have tons on your plate IRL so no problem if you don't get to it.Cptnono (talk) 10:49, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

more information

Hi Tony,

you were going to send me "more information" "the other day" - just a friendly reminder :) effeietsanders 15:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replied to Effeietsanders at WP.nl Tony (talk) 04:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Not seen you "around" for ages. Hope you're well. Did you see my post at the Arbcom Noticeboard? --Dweller (talk) 16:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Auto-archiving

Tony, I put in a new auto-archiving system. If you need anything adjusted, let me know (the configuration page is here). Dabomb87 (talk) 17:32, 6 December 2009 (UTC) Thanks, Dabomb! Tony (talk) 02:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ISS FAC4.

Hello there! As an editor who has posted a comment in one of the recent Peer Reviews, GANs or FACs of International Space Station, or who has contributed to the article recently, I was wondering if you wouldn't mind commenting in the current Featured Article Candidacy with any suggestions you have for article improvements (and being bold and making those changes), whether or not you feel any issues you have previously raised have been dealt with, and, ultimately, if you believe the article meets the Featured Article guidelines. This is the fourth FAC for this article, and it'd be great to have it pass. Many thanks in advance, Colds7ream (talk) 16:43, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Draft election report for The Signpost

I've made a tweak just to contextualise where we are in the time-line. It looks damn good to me, thank you. Hiding T 17:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 7 December 2009

From the editors: 250th issue of the Signpost

Editorial: A digital restoration

Election report: ArbCom election in full swing

Interview: Interview with David G. Post

News and notes: Wikipedia's death report premature, fundraiser, usability, new CSD, noms, and more

In the news: Ron Livingston sues vandal, disclosure of IP address ordered, brief headlines

Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations

Features and admins: Approved this week

Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 06:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

United states Geographical MOS

A while back ago, you were involved in a discussion about how to refer to the United States Geographical locations on wikipedia. A similar discussion is taking place here. Any comments on this topic would be helpful.--Jojhutton (talk) 00:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Images

Are you aware of any idiot's guide to Wikipedia image layout? I always set mine to thumbnail, which used to be the requirement. I was dimly aware that you'd gotten that changed, but I've kept doing it just because I didn't know what else to do (I liked the old rule not because it produced good image layouts but because it allowed me to avoid resorting to my extraordinarily bad judgment on the subject). If there's some kind of tutorial around of the sort that you've done for redundancy, linking, etc. I'd love to see it. If not, I'd appreciate whatever words you have for the unwise. Thanks for fixing up Premiership of John Brownlee, in any event. Steve Smith (talk) 13:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Steve, yes, I seem to be complaining on lots of FAC pages about teensy-weensy images. Images are something WP does not do well, something we've received bad press about recently (NYT?). When we actually can use an image freely, we often squander the opportunity through poor placement/size. We need a task-force to go around fixing them. Sometimes there are far too many images, all of them squint material. There's a tutorial for images, but I need to go check what they've done to it recently. The MoS tells you how to enlarge (I'd use px, not the proportional method); images need to be individually judged for size depending on the level and size of detail, the importance to understanding the surrounding text, the resolution, the images and text in the vicinity (text squash and image clutter can suggest not too large a size for each), and the vertical–horizontal dimensions. Tony (talk) 13:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did a Google search for "wikipedia images tutorial", and after the first two of the results below, I sped things up by searching for "wikipedia images tutorial site:en.wikipedia.org/". I stopped after the first 50 results on Google's list.

Incidentally, Category:Tutorials has been deleted. -- Wavelength (talk) 17:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Number ranges

WP:YEAR states a convention for contracting ranges of years with an en dash. I thought that, once upon a time, WP:MOSNUM had a generalization of this ~~rule~~ guideline for all numerical ranges. In fact, I remember conforming the page and year ranges in Joseph Priestley to this ~~rule~~ guideline when the article was headed for FAC. The examples of page and year ranges at WP:ENDASH are consistent this, but I can't find the broader ~~rule~~ guideline stated anywhere. Did I imagine this? Was it wishful thinking on my part?—Finell 05:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will you edit a page for me?

Hey, hope you are doing well!

The dermatology task force is working on a new project, the Bolognia Push, and at that page we have created a page outlining the project's goals, etc. With that being said, since multiple editors have organized and worded the text, it reads a bit rough. I wanted to know if you would consider proofreading and editing the page to make it better? Regardless, thank you for all your help in the past! ---kilbad (talk) 15:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrapping up and signing off

Yo Tony. At this point, having heard nothing, I'm assuming that polls will close in three and a half hours. Do you know if the scrutineers are sufficiently briefed to be able to audit the results in the next day or so? Skomorokh 20:27, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, we've dodged that bullet; might still be a good idea to nudge the scrutineers tomorrow (presuming you've been in contact regarding their instructions). Cheers, Skomorokh 21:04, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Xa Loi Pagoda raids

hi there Tony. I've replied to your commets, thanks YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles finally at Featured topic candidates) 15:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/A Rugrats Chanukah/archive1

Your issues have been resolved, but there is some unclarity (sorry if this is an unnecessary ping, I'm unsure if you've watched the article) The Flash ^{talk} 20:47, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, if you feel all your issues are taken care of, do you think you can support it? The Flash ^{talk} 16:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Computer trouble

User:Hiding is having computer trouble, apologies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.92.54.229 (talk) 14:35, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paranoid

I just started a new article, and although I'm fairly confident an en dash is needed, can you reassure me that the redirect Dillaway–Thomas House and the bold mention in the redirected-to article are properly hyphenated? Thanks – Sswonk (talk) 16:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Publication maybe around 4:00 UTC

Tony, thanks for covering the election! I'm travelling and hope to try to wrap up everything for this issue by around 4:00 UTC.--ragesoss (talk) 22:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A breaking news update is fine.--ragesoss (talk) 17:43, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notuncurious maps

Hey, Notuncurious did some new versions of the maps based on the issues you raised. Are they satisfactory? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:48, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

err .. which FAC was that? Tony (talk) 10:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 December 2009

Election report: Voting closes in the Arbitration Committee Elections

News and notes: Mapping geotagged articles language, import sources enabled, and more

Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations

Features and admins: Approved this week

Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 16:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Minus signs and sortable tables

− should not be used in sortable tables, it breaks the sorting. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:51, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re Congratulations

Thanks Tony, will do. KnightLago (talk) 14:25, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XIV (November 2009)

The November 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy holidays!

Notification: Proposed 'Motion to Close' at Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC re: a 'Motion to close', which would dissolve Cda as a proposal. The motion includes an !vote. You have previously commented at Wikipedia:WikiProject Administrator. Jusdafax 00:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 December 2009

Election report: ArbCom election result announced

News and notes: Fundraiser update, milestones and more

In the news: Accusation of bias, misreported death, and more

Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations

Features and admins: Approved this week

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:51, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wormholes

I think a wormhole to Mars is a lot more possible than the other thing you mentioned. :) davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:00, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARs

Hi tony. People seem to be happy with the content at Arsenal FC and Sound film so you might want to look at the MOS/prose. Thanks YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 14:21, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. There's a whole set on the page that you're hosting as well YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 16:24, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Page that I'm hosting? I'll try to get lots of reviewing done over the next few days. I'm alone, thank heavens, during the consumer/greed/frenzy period. Bliss! Tony (talk) 17:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Teh FAR urgents, YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 17:21, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas, Tony!

Thanks for making me pay attention to my sentence structure! Have a wonderful holiday with much sun and relaxation. --Moni3 (talk) 14:26, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering

I know you dislike it, but was this really necessary?[[9]]Abce2|Free lemonadeonly 25 cents! 17:24, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the drama-out is drama in itself; that is its basic irony. It seems to want to convey a message that policy and process work on WP are somehow undesirable. Why? Me, I'm not going on strike. That's for 20th-century union-dominated industries. Tony (talk) 02:36, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In my view, it's not saying that drama is bad, I use it to help focus on articles I've planned but never got to. Abce2|Free lemonadeonly 25 cents! 04:00, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Tony re rhetorical implications of the Dramaout. Proofreader77 (talk) 02:52, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with Tony on his rhetorical strategy for countering it. :-) Les analysis, more mockery, please. lol Happy holidays. Proofreader77 (talk) 02:54, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not meaning to be dramatic, Abce — Mainly just an excuse to say "Happy Holidays" to Tony. :-) And to you, as well. Proofreader77 (talk) 04:05, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Err...I was talking to Tony, though same to you(the holiday part).Abce2|Free lemonadeonly 25 cents! 04:07, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but that's why I bulleted... :-) so as not to intermix in your conversation. Feel free to move yours up to a direct reply to Tony. Proofreader77 (talk) 04:10, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay.Abce2|Free lemonadeonly 25 cents! 04:11, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: en dashes

The singer-songwriter article was only just moved to that title to correct the en dash to a hyphen. The edits you saw I make was before that move. I was using WikiCleaner to fix links to disambiguation pages and it includes a feature to fix redirects. Now that the article is correctly named, any future edits with WikiCleaner will fix links to the current and correct name. --Geniac (talk) 03:02, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And now, for FV's traditional last-minute nonsectarian holiday greeting!

Here’s wishing you a happy end to the holiday season and a wonderful 2010.
Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:43, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago) FAC3

Thanks for the comments. I did not understand one of them.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:38, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the speedy reply. I have explained my mistake and posted further questions. Please come look at these issues.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:05, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am quite pleased to have overcome your opposition. Is there any chance that you might be supporting this nomination?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was just looking at the FAC and it seems like you meant to withdraw your oppose, but the FAC still has a bold "I'm Still opposing".--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Project in development :-)

The Sublimely Dramalicious Mock-Around-the-Clockery 2010

Out out damned Dramaout! lol Happy holidays, Tony. Many blessing. And much mockery of the guilty who feign otherwise. :-) Proofreader77 (talk) 10:46, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Upcoming media attention

Hey, Tony.

I've been working for almost six months on improving Mary Rose and Anthony Roll. During my work on them, I managed to get the Mary Rose Trust interested in Wikipedia and convinced them to donate images. They will officially be the first UK-based organization to do so, and there's going to be a press release from Wikimedia UK and Wikimedia Sverige about it on January 3. It will be a nice contrast to the debacle with the NPG only some months ago. The images themselves are going to be uploaded the day before that and will be included in Mary Rose and various other relevant articles. Today I made major updates of both the articles mentioned above and I have placed a DYK-request. Since they might receive considerable attention in about two weeks, it would be nice to show them at their best. That's why I'm checking to see if you're interested in applying your copyediting skills to them. I know you normally don't copyedit articles that aren't nominated for promotion, but I thought you'd might be interested in making an exception for an occasion that can bring a lot of good publicity to Wikipedia.

sincerely,

Peter ^Isotalo 16:27, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re

Hey, thanks for getting back to me. No, don't worry about that earlier request. Just make sure you prevail on the endash space debate. I have been reading along and totally agree with your position. ---kilbad (talk) 17:04, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Tony1. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/International Space Station/archive4.
Message added 15:30, 27 December 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Colds7ream (talk) 15:30, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FA-Team revival

I've made a proposal to bring the FA-Team out of inactivity—with a mission a bit different than we're used to. This is just a generic note I'm sending to members asking for their input. Cheers, Mm40 (talk) 01:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I'm finally turning my attention to FA ... and the story of the FA-team ... has attracted my attention. :-) Proofreader77 ^(interact) 01:49, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Are there any particularly good essays that provide insight into the FA process? (I now have time to wrap my mind around that. I must learn what "good" means in this context. Thanks. Proofreader77 ^(interact) 02:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obama assassination scare FAC

Hi Tony, it's Hunter Kahn from the 2008 Barack Obama assassination scare in Denver FAC. I've addressed the specific comments you made at the FAC page, and I've done some further tweaks and copy editing to the prose, as per that FAC discussion. I think I've addressed the overlinking problem, and I hope I've addressed the prose concerns, but I was hoping you would take a quick look and see what you think. As I said at the FAC, I'm totally willing to submit it to a peer review if necessary, but I'm also very much hoping the issues are minor enough that they can be addressed within the FAC itself. Let me know what you think, and thanks for your help! — Hunter Kahn _(c) 02:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Third Test

Thanks for the pointers. Replied YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 14:05, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Tony1. You have new messages at Beagel's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Footnote grammar

Would you mind proofreading the grammar of several short footnotes? I think I have used the word "respective" improperly? ---kilbad (talk) 17:11, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Date linking in Year articles

Would you please take a look at this about date linking. Your comments are appreciated. Thanks. Truthanado (talk) 18:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 December 2009

News and notes: Flagged revisions petitions, image donations, brief news

In the news: Criticism from climate change sceptic, decade in review

Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations

Features and admins: Approved this week

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:17, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prototype award

How do you like this prototype award?

	The SILIWILI
	Congratulations, this "SILIWILI" is hereby awarded for finding the Silliest wikilink of the month of January 1999! You are now entitled to put a SILIWILI userbox on your user page. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 07:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I don't win with woman then I'll be forced to conclude that this panel of experts inhabits an alternate universe. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 08:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to admit it's a good one. I was going to use that as an example with an embedded diff, but unfortunately diffs don't seem to work inside the template. Shame, it would have made things a tad more interesting. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 09:09, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Silliest wikilink of the month award

Yeah there are a few pages I'd like to improve over my two weeks off, though to be honest my #1 priority is to go back to uni rested and refreshed.

I like Ohconfucius' prototype above. Just an idea: perhaps the award and/or userbox could contain one really ridiculous wikilink? Tricky to think of something so bad as to make the irony obvious though.

Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 08:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly; possibly not. I have asked His Grace the Duke of Waltham to be the first judge, and am awaiting His reply. Still time to sneak in entries for December 09. Tony (talk) 00:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year!

A noiseless patient spider,
I mark'd where on a little promontory it stood isolated,
Mark'd how to explore the vacant vast surrounding,
It launch'd forth filament, filament, filament, out of itself,
Ever unreeling them, ever tirelessly speeding them.

And you O my soul where you stand,
Surrounded, detached, in measureless oceans of space,
Ceaselessly musing, venturing, throwing, seeking the spheres to connect them,
Till the bridge you will need be form'd, till the ductile anchor hold,
Till the gossamer thread you fling catch somewhere, O my soul."

—"A Noiseless Patient Spider" by Walt Whitman

Happy New Year Awadewit (talk) 05:53, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Answering here, this time

Tony, you left this note at my talkpage:

An FA nominator-to-be has translated into English most or all of the direct quotations that will be used in the article. Is it accepted that if no reference is made to a translater, it's been done by "WP"? Should the user's name be mentioned somewhere? If so, where?

I'll continue discussion here, because I am about to archive everything before today (1 January 2010). I don't know quite what to in the case you mention. Certainly translators ought to be acknowledged (!), but I don't know of precedents for this case at WP. Point me to the page itself, and I'll think it through.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 04:48, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

1997 Qayen earthquake passed its FAC - thank you for all the help you gave me. But I'm confused - what do you mean by "a native"? ceranthor 01:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, I am a native English speaker. Well, American English, but... ceranthor 01:48, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVI (December 2009)

The December 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:45, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Translating bits and pieces

Hi, Tony. I happened to notice Noetica's reply above, and answered on his/her page. Hope you don't mind my interferingness, and thanks very much for your help! Bishonen | talk 19:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Request for a return to Baker Street and Waterloo Railway FAC

Hi Tony, Could I ask you to have a look at my responses to your comments at Baker Street and Waterloo Railway FAC of a couple of weeks ago. I believe these have been addressed, and yours is the only oppose at the moment. --DavidCane (talk) 22:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Drinker Cope FAC

I have contacted several users to provide another set of eyes on the article, but unfortunately it is unlikely they will be able to get to it in the immediate future. I have gone through the rest of the article with an eye towards eliminating redundancy and clunky phrasing. Can you take another look when you have time? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Noun phrases v nominal groups

Since you're familiar with Halliday's work, can you shed some light on Talk:Noun phrase#Noun phrases v nominal groups? (The CGEL's definition of "noun phrase" is in the second chapter, which can be downloaded from http://www.cambridge.org/uk/linguistics/cgel/sample.htm.) ― A._di_M.^{2nd Dramaout} (formerly Army1987) 02:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to appear like a smart-alec, but: Noun phrase vs. Nominal_group_(language). I notice that at the top of the "Noun phrase" article is the banner: It has been suggested that this article or section be merged with Nominal group (language). I also notice that at the top of the "Nominal group (language)" article is the banner: It has been suggested that this article or section be merged with Noun phrase. If both suggestions were carried out simultaneously, would we still have two articles; or would we have none? Cheers. HWV258. 03:01, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"With" ({{merge}}) not "into" ({{mergeto}}): the suggestion is to have one article, but it doesn't specify what its title should be. (Anyway, Tony answered that they are different concepts, so that's moot now. But I'm not sure I get the distinction right, so I think the articles should mention each other with more than a bare "See also" link, so that the relationship between the two concepts is clearer.) ― A._di_M.^{2nd Dramaout} (formerly Army1987) 03:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I always try to remember the point that confused me when encountering something (in the hope of updating the article to help others who may have the same question). HWV258. 03:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brazil

Hello, Tony! I am currently working on the article about Brazil along with other editors. We have almost completely remade it from scratch. I noticed that you were one of the editors who were against the article's assessment to featured status. I was wondering if you could take a look in it, but not a serious overly detailed look because we are not finished yet. Just a quick look to see if we are going into the right direction. Thank you very much and regards, --Lecen (talk) 03:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

International Space Station

Hi Tony, taking up your concerns about the prose in the above article, I did a run through a few days back. I've also done a lot of work reducing the overlinking. Would you be willing to take another look for its current FAC? hamiltonstone (talk) 05:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 January 2010

News and notes: Fundraiser ends, content contests, image donation, and more

In the news: Financial Times, death rumors, Google maps and more

Features and admins: Approved this week

Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nature of WT:MOS

Hello! You recently commented on my talk page. I previously noted your good work with the ACE2009 volunteer team. Thus, I feel comfortable asking an unrelated question purely out of curiosity. I have been reading many of the recent MOS discussions. For example, I read through the recent discussion(s) on en dash spacing (or lack thereof). Are MOS discussions usually that... lengthy and mildly circular? They seem to be more prone to esoteric reasonings and general contention than other areas of Wikipedia. It (MOS in general) seems like an interesting area, but do you really feel that the repetitive and theoretical threads are productive? Thanks in advance for your thoughts. :) —James Kalmar 07:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Soviet invasion of Poland FAR

Hi Tony, can you have a look here? There is a dispute as to whether the prose is ghood enough. Thanks YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 03:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the link: Wikipedia:Featured article review/Soviet invasion of Poland/archive1. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, you also voted "Delete". Also final Fantasy VIII has a pile of keeps, so a prose check needs to be done there YellowMonkey (bananabucket!) 04:27, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Noun plus -ing

Hi Tony, I hope all is well. I have thought of you frequently over the last few months because I now subscribe to The Economist, a British newspaper that seems to have a rather high standard of research and journalism. They incessantly use the "noun plus -ing" in their writing, so much so that I suspect it to be an editorial preference. I believe I witnessed you waffling about the issue a bit—any updates? --Andy Walsh (talk) 22:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andy. Yes, latest thoughts are:

I don't entirely understand it, and nor does anyone else.
It seems to be the result of a collision over the past two centuries or so of two grammatical structures—one adjectival and one possessive. For example, "see the birds flying south"; i.e., "see the birds [that are] flying south" (what kind of birds? the ones flying south) versus "see the birds' flying south" (the act of flying south is that of the birds ... witness this act).
Often it's clumsy, and sometimes it's ambiguous or creates a vague relationship between the nominal group and what is meant to be describing it.
Where it's clumsy, ambiguous or vague, it should be avoided by rewording. The result is almost always better. There needs to be an analysis and guidance on where it's worth rewording.
Journalists all over have taken it up as a lazy way of writing: jamming together some kind of verbal adjective and a nominal group ("This would make the government being re-elected difficult"—erky). Occasionally you find just one slip-up in a text, but there's often a pattern of it among writers who get into this groove. Dreadful. The current FAC International Space Station was riddled with them; some are still there.
In a few decades' time, it will sadly have become a standard construction, free of criticism from snotty-nosed commentators like me. But it's not yet in that privileged position. Tony (talk) 23:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to usurp your talk page for a discussion not involving me, but actually it is already a standard construction, although the version with the genitive is more formal: see Huddleston (2008), A short overview of English syntax, subsection 13.2. And actually, the version with the accusative subject is older than the one with the genitive: see the discussion following the example (7) in Pullum (2004), Ideology, power, and linguistic theory. ― A._di_M.^{2nd Dramaout} (formerly Army1987) 13:55, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Huddleston mandates "We objected to them being given extra privileges." Yuck. "Their", please, whatever the formality of the register; or "We objected to the extra privileges they were given."

His version is all traditional grammar with extra layers of complexity that fold in on themselves. It's clunky, restrictive and superficial. It's not well written for someone who holds themselves up as a grammarian. Some of the examples are awkward. Try Halliday's Introduction to functional grammar—it's the only way. The 1995 edition is easier to plunge into than the 2004 edition. Tony (talk) 21:59, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And look at this whopper in Pullum's lead: "There are few signs of any knowledge about grammar dating from after 1900 having become known to a broad cross-section of the general public or having had an impact on education." Oh puhlease. "There are few signs that any knowledge about grammar dating from after 1900 has become known to a broad cross-section of the general public or has had an impact on education." Even then, what is dating is unclear. Tony (talk) 22:37, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mandating? What Huddleston actually says is:

In gerund-participials a personal pronoun Subject usually appears in accusative case, but genitives are found in relatively formal style: We objected to them/their being given extra privileges.

Here as elsewhere, he doesn't presume to tell anyone how to use English. Putting aside questions of superficiality and clunk, in what sense is what he writes "restrictive"? -- Hoary (talk) 07:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's certainly an awkward sentence of Pullum's; your revision is an improvement. (But this is a preliminary draft, I think.) What's new since 1900? Quite a lot: try this summary. -- Hoary (talk) 10:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting: I'll read it soon. This caught my eye, under his Section 2: "The test of a word's being a noun ...", which is the possessive solution to the problem of "The test of a word being a noun ...". Using 's here is hopelessly old-fashioned, I think. Better to reword as "The test of whether a word is a noun ...". Tony (talk) 11:11, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Superficiality is hard to avoid when summarizing a 1842-page book into a 423.4-kilobyte webpage, I suppose. And Huddleston is doing descriptive linguistics: he's saying that native English speakers use that construction (which is indeed true—I don't think all the instances you found in the ISS article and all the instances Walsh found in The Economist were written by learners unaware of which construction would natives use), not that he likes it or that he recommends it. Saying that only the construction with the genitive is used, that would be incorrect. The previous sentence is an example of left dislocation, as described in section 15 of Huddleston's overview. ― A._di_M.^{2nd Dramaout} (formerly Army1987) 13:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, How?

I am frustrated by the oblique nature of WP procedures. You seem to be authoring Administrator Review procedures, so perhaps you can help in two ways.

First, I was drawn here trying to seek review of an administrator--PMDrive1061-- who deleted one of my articles. I'm not keen on the back room ways WP operates, but I've certainly edited enough articles. An article should go through an AfD procedure and be discussed--direct deletion is only for a case that blatantly abuses a policy. When I went to this guy's talk page to complain, I notice he has polite complaints from a litany of other writers questioning similar, direct deletion of their articles. In short, this guy is habitually abusing his power as an administrator. The significance of my article is not the issue I wish to raise, but I think it will survive a notability challenge--it was about a small multi-grade Christian school that educates high school grades. From everything I've learned, a high school is notable. Period. Much more important, I wish to raise this administrator's Abuse of Power. We need to rid WP of administrators who unilaterally think their opinion is so important that they can simple delete knowledge from the database without anybody else getting to discuss it. Other editors might roll over, they might not know how out of line this is. I'm not going to tolerate this because we have to protect WP and its valuable information from people like this. How do we go about getting this guy out of the elite administrators pool?

Secondly, since you are deep on the inside, maybe you can address this. WP procedures are just too oblique for the common user to understand. This stuff is designed for geeks. It is difficult to find, difficult to understand and is thusly self limiting to the deep insiders who those who spend the time to figure this crap out. I wish to encourage you to think about simplification, from the procedures, to the search to find the procedures to the explanation of those procedures. If you note the vote for Global Sysops. Yes, something as simple as a vote, publicized on every page and we've barely got 1,000 people participating worldwide in WP procedures. WP has made itself into an elite old-boys club. Maybe you can do something to fix this.Trackinfo (talk) 23:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trackinfo, I'm sorry but I'm not authoring Admin Review procedures. I suggest you raise this matter at ANI. It would be most effective if your post there were brief and non-emotional. You would need to provide example diffs. Tony (talk) 00:33, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Announcement: Silliest wikilink of the month awards

Users are advised that His Grace the Duke of Waltham has announced the Silliest wikilink of the month awards at WT:LINK. There are five monthly winners (August–December 2009) and an overall winner for 2009. The Duke's private secretary, Harold Cartwright, has emphasised that no correspondence will be entered into regarding the awards: His Grace's decision is final. Tony (talk) 10:25, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trivium: Do you recall which article contained a wikilink to swizzle stick? --Andy Walsh (talk) 22:46, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, but go there and you see the makings of a featured topic! Tony (talk) 08:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/International Space Station/archive4

Would you have a look at the status update i've done at the bottom of this? I'm hoping you will check and strike your "strong oppose". Thanks. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

		The Teamwork Barnstar
		For your assistance in ensuring full attention to the copyediting needed at International Space Station. Ta. hamiltonstone (talk) 22:34, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 11 January 2010

From the editor: Call for writers

2009 in review: 2009 in Review

Books: New Book namespace created

News and notes: Wikimania 2011, Flaggedrevs, Global sysops and more

In the news: Wikipedia in British schools, Hitler's Downfall meme, and more

Features and admins: Approved this week

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 09:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost

Tony, thanks! I look forward to working with you once you have a little more time. If you want to review any specific books, please send me an email with your mailing address so I can request review copies for you ahead of time. I like your idea about specifically inviting talented Wikipedians to do reviews, etc.; if you have any suggestions (especially specific person-book pairings) drop me a note.--ragesoss (talk) 20:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dash it, Tony

Tony old bean, what's got into you? I mean, a row of edits like this one; do you suppose that the kind of reader wanting to know about some Z-list sleb gives a bowel movement one way or another?

Some IP's recent edit to WP's truly atrocious article on Magnum Photos got me thinking. He marked Dennis Stock as dead. He couldn't do so anywhere else, because Dennis Stock is redlinked. And who might Stock have been? Well, an active full member of Magnum for half a century, for a start. I don't suppose that this is of much interest to people brought up to think that USA Today is a real newspaper and that standing in a row of photographers during a staged photo op is photojournalism, but what I thought might interest middlebrow editors was that he took a lot of well-known photos of major US slebs. And we all love slebs, don't we?

Me, I'm rather more interested in his other photography than in the sleb stuff, but I realize that I'm kind of odd. And there's no reason for you to be interested in photography at all, of course. But dicking around with dashes in articles on interchangeable starlets? Please, Tony, something else!

For The Great Wikipedia MoS-Out. -- Hoary (talk) 10:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I looked up "sleb" to no avail. Sounds NY Yiddish in origin.

I think the diff you provided is the wrong one. I'm concerned only that Greg U's most excellent dash-bot didn't screw anything up; I look out for false positives, and there have been very few.

Those photos are special. And it's nice to hear the old man, too; he may not "make a fool" of his individual subjects, but that belies the social commentary. Tony (talk) 11:02, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and didn't Hitler say that those "little Stalins" at MoS, those "sniveling power-freaks", can "shove their en dashes up their rear ends"? Someone has just called me "an asshole" on YouTube. <grins> Tony (talk) 11:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Haha well the wisdom of those intellectual luminaries who comment on youtube videos is well documented.

Not sure whether you were being sarcastic before, but I believe "sleb" is a bastardisation of "celeb(rity)".

</talkpagestalking>

Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 11:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Technetium FAR

This too please Tony YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 04:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Franz Ferdinand

This edit was a mistake I believe. Thanks, Dave Smith (talk) 00:23, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, thought you'd want to know b/c you seemed to be running a script at the time. Dave Smith (talk) 00:54, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Pitt

Hi, you raised comments about the quality of the prose on Brad Pitt in its FAC in June last year. I've recently undertaken a copyedit, at the request of ThinkBlue, the nominator, and I wondered if you would be kind enough to take a look and provide a little feedback- I wouldn't be surprised if I'd missed something, so any examples of prose needing improvement or general constructive criticism would be greatly appreciated. Thank you for your time, HJMitchell You rang? 22:04, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know you're busy, but I would be exceedingly grateful if you could spare just ten minutes to provide a little feedback on this- I'd really like to make sure any issues with the prose are rectified before another FAC so reviewers can focus on the content itself. Kind regards, HJMitchell You rang? 15:56, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So...

		The Surreal Barnstar
		Just discovered your Silliest Wikilink page. RB88 (T) 01:01, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would it count as an award entry if I delinked the above? ;-) Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 11:56, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Former FAC candidate question

Former featured article candidate, The Naked Brothers Band: The Movie was not promoted. What team efforts are you referring to, as you said on the archive? And could you at least explain the main problems, so I can renominate the article in a few weeks if you think it has a chance of meeting the criteria. For a year, I've kept improving and re-nominating, so it will mean a lot if you can address the problems with the article. Thanx! ATC^{. Talk} 20:24, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It needs an independent copy-edit. Tony (talk) 22:35, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know what a "copy-edit" is but what do you mean by an "independent" one? ATC^{. Talk} 05:18, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A copy-edit by someone who has strategic distance from the text; i.e., not you. Tony (talk) 12:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see. What if I print out the article and ask people I know who are good with writing if they can spot anything that I didn't. Since I am way to close to the article because I am very knowledgeable about the topic itself, I can get other people to spot things who don't know about the topic. Thanx for the advice! ATC^{. Talk} 15:47, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you able to assist as an MOS expert?

Can you offer an opinion into a date formatting issue here?

The general issue is whether to date day/month for Haiti, or month/day because the majority of readers will be American. I'm not stating my opinion as yet. --Moni3 (talk) 00:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Community de-Adminship - finalization poll for the CDA proposal

After tolling up the votes in the revision proposals, it emerged that 5.4 had the most support, but elements of that support remained unclear, and various comments throughout the polls needed consideration.

A finalisation poll (intended, if possible, to be one last poll before finalising the CDA proposal) has been run to;

gather opinion on the 'consensus margin' (what percentages, if any, have the most support) and

ascertain whether there is support for a 'two-phase' poll at the eventual RfC (not far off now), where CDA will finally be put to the community. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:33, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overlink

Without sounding too waxy, please see several FA-class articles such as Michael Jackson, Janet Jackson, Mariah Carey, and Gwen Stefani among others. Having two extra links that direct readers to articles about the state and the country are not overlink by any means. Chase wc ⁹¹ 07:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip about those FAs. Tony (talk) 07:49, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think I see your point about the country but the state is pretty specific too, is it not? Chase wc ⁹¹ 07:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Important notice about VOTE 3 in the CDA poll

You are receiving this message as you have voted in VOTE 3 at the Community de-Adminship 'Proposal Finalization' Poll.

It has been pointed out that VOTE 3 was confusing, and that voters have been assuming that the question was about creating an actual two-phase CDA process. The question is merely about having a two-phase poll on CDA at the eventual RfC, where the community will have their vote (eg a "yes/no for CDA” poll, followed a choice of proposal types perhaps).

As I wrote the question, I'll take responsibility for the confusion. It does make sense if read through to the end, but it certainly wasn't as clear as it should have been, or needed to be!

Please amend your vote if appropriate - it seems that many (if not most) people interpreted the question in the way that was not intended.

Regards, Matt Lewis (talk) 16:07, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: wikilinking

Hi Tony, how are you? I accept what you said and will make corrections accordingly, although I think another user already did it. Thanks anyway. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 06:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 18 January 2010

News and notes: Statistics, disasters, Wikipedia's birthday and more

In the news: Wikipedia on the road, and more

WikiProject report: Where are they now?

Features and admins: Approved this week

Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 15:42, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RfA notice

Because you are one of the handful of editors with whom I have had by far the most direct and regular interaction over the years, especially at WP:MOS and related pages, in agreement and sometimes in vehement disagreement, I am notifying you that WP:Requests for adminship/SMcCandlish 2 is going live today. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 22:28, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lipstick on a Pig?? No longer!

Thanks for referring me to the Wiki style preference for autodating. I have reviewed all my contributions and cleaned them up. Jlhcpa (talk) 15:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overlinked

Please be carefull when adding the {{Overlinked}} template. If there are only a few superfluous links, either remove them or leave it. If there are many links, but all non-trivial and non-repetitive, then there is no need to tag the article. Debresser (talk) 17:05, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Supernatural (season 2)

Hi, Tony; could you revisit your oppose Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Supernatural (season 2)/archive2? Thanks ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:22, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Erum Ali

Tony, I removed the notice you put on Talk:Erum Ali; that goes on the talk page of the user who created the article. Also, you may want to address the comment at Talk:Erum Ali made by the administrator who declined the speedy deletion. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 05:16, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Dermatology task force

Would you be willing to proofread the WP:DERM dermatology task force pages? I want to get more dermatologists involved, and would like the project pages looking as professional as possible. Regardless, thank you for all your help in the past! ---kilbad (talk) 19:18, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for editing the main derm page! I made a few additional minor edits. How does it look? Any major changes you would like to see made? ---kilbad (talk) 21:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I shall. You might consider establishing a pairing system for newcomers, in which a number of your members agree to provide assistance, smooth the way for new editors. Tony (talk) 00:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Erum Ali

Hello Tony1. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Erum Ali, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Thank you. Ged UK 21:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 25 January 2010

BLP madness: BLP deletions cause uproar

Births and deaths: Wikipedia biographies in the 20th century

News and notes: Biographies galore, Wikinews competition, and more

In the news: Wikipedia the disruptor?

WikiProject report: Writers wanted! The Wikiproject Novels interviews

Features and admins: Approved this week

Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 04:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Dodd at FAC

Hello. Please celebrate Australia Day by checking out this article about an intriguing yet obscure Indigenous Australian, and contributing to its feature article candidate discussion, before it fails owing to a lack of reviews! Thanks. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will, but after midnight. I won't blurt out my attitudes to nationalism, especially when the anniversary of the European invasion is the date chosen to celebrate nationhood. Tony (talk) 12:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Consider it a shared blurt. Particularly since Cronulla, seeing people walking around wearing Australian flags (at the hardware store for instance!) just gives me the creeps. But i thought i'd carpe the diem anyway. Any time you get to it i'm grateful. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your oppose vote at FAC

I went through the article Subway (Homicide: Life on the Street) with a fine-toothed comb following your review of it at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Subway (Homicide: Life on the Street)/archive1. Your oppose vote was primarily based on prose, which is what I concentrated on as well in my own review of it. In my eyes, it now passes. Please take a look at it once again, and re-assess it. Binksternet (talk) 22:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping sourcing simple

This is a bit of a tangent to the citation template discussion here. For the record I partially disagree with you about citation templates. They prevent needless disputes over trivial formatting, which given the nature of wikipedia is a benefit in itself. I think the bigger issue is that list-defined referencing does not receive the promotion that it should. I only found out about it two days ago!

But I came here to ask you about keeping citation simple. I was wondering what details you consider necessary for an online source, and what details you feel should be discouraged or banned? WFCforLife (talk) 00:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I usually put the web page title, URL, publisher, access date, date published (if it has one) and author (if it has one) per Wikipedia:CITE/ES#Websites. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:09, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain what those weird dots and spaces are in the ref citation numbers (e.g., after "dog")? What is a "group"? Wikipedia:LDR#List-defined_references Tony (talk) 01:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A "group" allows an editor to create different sets of footnotes. For example, one set could be for citations (e.g. <ref name="NYT" group="citations") while another could be for explanatory footnotes (e.g. <ref name="explanation" group="footnotes"). These "groups" are independent of each other, so you have to put each list of footnotes/citations at the bottom of the article, separately. As for the example, the "." was the name of the group. I have changed the page so it is more clear. Hope this clears this up. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly is clearer now; the dot was bizarre. I think that page needs a user-friendliness audit. Tony (talk) 03:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In inserting citations, I apply common sense. In that vein, I agree with Dabomb as to what fields should be required, but would add that the isbn could be included if it's a book - although that leads to quite a lot of blue. Although WP is undoubtedly home to a fair number of obsessive-compulsives, we need to stop the anal urge to included every minute detail about a source which adds little value. Yes, that page is overlong and has a tendency to technobabble. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Ryoung122#Year linking

Hi, Tony1. As you just commented to Ryoung122 about WP:MoS, would you provide a third opinion on a similar issue at User talk:Ryoung122#Year linking? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. I see that you've already commented about it. Best, Cunard (talk) 08:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would you respond to Ryoung122 (talk · contribs)'s queries at User talk:Cunard#Wiki policies? I'm unfamiliar with the history of the "date link" changes that occurred. Perhaps you know more? Cunard (talk) 09:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your comment about the mistaken posting: it wasn't a mistake; you did not post on Ryoung122's talk page. He added that section there. Cunard (talk) 10:06, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; and it fooled me, because he didn't clarify "Copied from ...". I really did think it was my mistake. Tony (talk) 10:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John Adams refimprove

Re: Talk:John Adams#Referencing, that issue is a little bit scrambled right now, as you have added a second tag. If you read the section on the talk page directly above the one you added, there was a bit of an issue back in October over this. Then, the result was that I agreed references could be improved but given the large number of books cited as general references, the article traffic and its general stability, I moved the first refimprove tag down to the references section. Now you have added a second. Rather than repurpose your comments, I am wondering if it wouldn't be better if you remove the tag you placed at the article top and place your comments as a subsection of the previous discussion, which is linked to by the tag I moved down. As you may know, the article is also up for peer review, which should help resolve the refs issue sooner rather than later. I think placing a tag at the article top may invite some conflicting, non-review related but good faith attempts to edit the article. Sswonk (talk) 21:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll make it a priority tomorrow (it's 10:30 Wednesday night here right now) to look into fixing some of it, and work with User:Connormah and the peer reviewer to cite the unreferenced sections you mentioned. Sswonk (talk) 03:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Latin edittools

Hi Tony1. Since I think you are interested in this: We are planning to update the ordering of the Latin characters in the edittols. See MediaWiki talk:Edittools#Mixed case ordering and character identification.

--David Göthberg (talk) 01:17, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

		Thank You
		For your excellent and wonderful contributions at Wikipedia:Featured Article Candidates during the month of December 2009. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thank you

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tony1/How_to_improve_your_writing#Eliminating_redundancy

People say Wikipedia is not a "how to" manual. Your advice is very good. This is an ignore all rules exception! Thank you for writing it. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 19:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dates

What are double square brackets? Do you mean the & ? If so, then adding dates in those brackers were how things were done for about 5 years before some small group decided they knew better than everyone else but didn't feel the need to tell the WHOLE community. THAT'S what makes me mad. A notice that this was going on should have been broadcast to the entire community of registered users.Stereorock (talk) 04:19, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From my talkpage, I am confused (and tired). I don't remember why I linked American & radio & on which articles. I am also trying to grasp what you mean about the geographic location. Do you mean Chicago, Illinois instead of putting down Chicago, Illinois for example?

Cite Book template: "pages" is correct

FYI[10] you are breaking the template here. (I've made the same mistake before myself) -- Kendrick7^talk 05:16, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. Thank you. More reason templates are a bigger trouble than they're worth. Tony (talk) 05:22, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are mistaken. See {{Cite book}}; there are two parameters: page= outputs p. while pages= outputs pp. Maralia (talk) 05:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my bad; geez I'm such a geezer around here. I'm glad they fixed it since I last looked and got yelled at; now: you young kids get off of my lawn! -- Kendrick7^talk 05:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Occasionally something actually gets improved around here! I have to say, though, that you'd have to be fairly well ossified yourself to consider either of us a kid :) Maralia (talk) 06:31, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		You ongoing efforts, including your My self-help writing tutorials and your efforts for reform, has helped to make Wikipedia a more viable tool for capturing human knowledge. Dan Dassow (talk) 22:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dan, that is very kind of you. Thanks! Tony (talk) 00:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

		Like a Box of Chocolates...
		... your contributions at Wikipedia:Featured Article Candidates during the month of January 2010 are greatly appreciated. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Broken image size, maybe a script problem?

Your last edit[11] on Fremont, California seems to have made the image much larger. I've fixed it, but I noticed as I was doing so that the X in the pixel dimensions had been replaced by a multiplication sign. I think it's most likely a problem with the script you used, so I thought I'd let you know. Maybe you could modify the script to ignore Xs in infoboxes or image boxes? 69.105.232.38 (talk) 05:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, thanks very much. Reporting this to Greg U (dash script), and will check it out on the way. Tony (talk) 07:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, it was entirely my fault, manually. There was I trying to MoSify a piece of text without realising it had to be a breach of MoS to work. Thanks for fixing. I did notice the huge map when I closed, but dummy here didn't related it back to that action. Tony (talk) 07:40, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FAC/Tropical Storm Marco (1990)

I finished most of your listed problems. Also, there seemed to be a nowiki tag in the comments and it screwed the entire page. I just fixed it and replied to your comments. For sake of Sandy and karanacs, re-add your signature, because the four tidles was appearing as my signature due to it.Mitch32^{(We the people in order to form a more perfect union.)} 07:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John Beilein Overlinking

I have taken a close look at the links in John Beilein. I have classified the most common links in the article at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/John Beilein/archive1 and await feedback.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the archived FAC, I noted the most preponderant types of links. If you could give me feedback on the types that you feel are unnecessary, I might be able to make the article more palatable to your tastes. Drop a note on my talk page. I have capitalized my T and C for you.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:17, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. I will have to look more closely at it. Would you be interested in working with me on this at a PR?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I appreciate and endorse all the changes you made to the article except I am not sure about Lockport. I grew up in Snyder, New York (part of [[Amherst, New York]), which is a half hour from Lockport and if you asked me to say exactly where it is in Niagara County, New York on a map, I would be unable to. Thus, I know anyone who is not from Western New York will need a link of some kind.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 09:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're right: red link missed in edit mode; the School thus can't be the start of the chain. Tony (talk) 09:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, plenty of overlinking there. There was a conflict - I hope I didn't crush your edit. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 09:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I like those edits; I hope Tony TT likes them. The article is necessarily heavily linked anyway, so any savings are good. Tony (talk) 10:03, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have tried to improve consistency of linking. This has created numerous redlinks for articles that are sure to come. It links each NCAA season once, which I think his the high caliber way to write about a college coach. I have two problems with this edit. First, I am against delinking works in citation templates. Things like The Buffalo News, Charleston Gazette and Richmond Times-Dispatch s/b linked in my opinion. Second Western New York is probably the Buffalo equivalent of Southern California. It is an important regional term that should be linked. Comments welcome.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:37, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Kindly note that one instance of linking of those journals names were left. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 08:34, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - I think you are missing the point. In the text we remove redundant links because it is expected that the reader looked at the link the first time the term was used. We do not assume that a reader reading footnote 80 read footnote 17. Thus, the links are not redundant in the footnotes.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think Ohconfucius has made the reference section more readable and more attractive. Instead of being drowned in a sea of blue, at least you can easily see the publishers' names. Who wants to read an article about a publisher? If they do, they can look for its first occurrence, which is now very easy. Tony (talk) 10:16, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I consider these accessory links. These links to publishers' articles are occasionally useful, but certainly not germane to the topic. The whole point about the refs section is for the reader to go to the source article referred to - when they reach that point, they are unlikely to find a link to the Charleston Gazette valuable, because their cursor will actually be sitting on top of the Gazette's website. The search box is available in those rare instances where the reader wants to delve. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 12:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not contest his delinking and removal of publisher information. I have agreed with this for some time. I disagree with delinking both the publisher and the work parameters and always have. People may not care about the publisher, but the work is often relevant in helping the reader assess the reliability of a source. Unlike some works I present where the sources are internationally recognized works such as The New York Times, Time, etc. The reader of Beilein's article are left wondering whether the sources, such as Richmond Times-Dispatch, Ann Arbor News, Charleston Gazette, The Buffalo News, Charleston Daily Mail, etc., are sources he would respect as reliable and has no way to assess the importance/reliability of the source. For these reasons, whereas publisher is not relavant, work remains an important source for the reader. It helps the reader to attribute the facts to reliable sources that he can evaluate. The work parameter is not decorative blue. It is important information for the reader.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:00, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let me just take The Charleston Gazette in the article as an example: there are 161 references, of which 36 are for that journal (22%). I believe we must strive for an optimum link density, and I absolutely fail to see how it could be valorising and not distracting to link on all occurrences of the term in that rather densely-packed piece of 'monitor real estate'. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 16:21, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I concede link density is a relatively important consideration in the text. However, in the citations, each citation has one long link for the title and at issue is a second link for the work. In the last year or so we have cut down citations from 5 links to 2 by eliminating links to publisher, accessdate and publication date (actually 3 links per date). I agree with these link reductions because they do not provide information to the reader. However, the link for the title contains the fact and the link for the work contains a link for the reader to assess WP:RS/WP:ATT. I have seen the benefit of reducing ref links from 5 to 2, but not to 1. What percentage of readers do you think know the reliability of The Charleston Gazette without taking a look at the article.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sea of blue is rather daunting in the reference section because of the way titles are linked, and there is no overcoming that, but I believe there are other palliative measures which can be adopted. As the Gazette is not a national title but is used heavily in the article, I would suggest embedding a link within the article itself, or in the 'See also' section, to establish its credentials as a source. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 23:42, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I very much dislike this approach. I feel it makes information hard to gleen. I will accomodate, however.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:42, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have created a See also section. Is this what you envisioned?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:06, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've re-examined the way you have cited the article. Citations from the Charleston Gazette are almost invariably doubled up by another ref from the Charleston Daily Mail, so I really don't think anything is gained by covering the citations section in blue for both - the Gazette and Mail together make up over 40% of the number of citations. I don't like the 'see also list of journals' at the end; it also arguably depasses what it's supposed to be used for; listing well known titles New York Times, Detroit Free Press and ESPN there are, frankly, overkill. Another approach I've often seen is to make attributions in the body of the text to the journals, where it could be linked - that doesn't work here as neither are stating any opinions or anything authoritative. ~~If you really insist on having more links, maybe you can scatter another two or three links each for the Gazette and Mail in the refs section.~~ Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 14:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am confused. What did you mean when you suggested a see also section?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking out loud. In the form which you inserted, it clearly doesn't work. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Against my better judgement ...

... I decided to write an article on my favourite novel, and to put it up at FAC. I very much take to heart the idea you've expressed that articles on literary topics have to be especially well written, so if you could find a moment to glance over this one I'd be very grateful. I won't be upset if you think it's crap, so do your worst. --Malleus Fatuorum 05:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RFC FAC

There's an RFC at WT:FAC; I don't see that you have weighed in? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; of course, I don't watchlist that page because it brings up every new nomination too, cluttering my watchlist. This is a great pity. Can't it be separated? Tony (talk) 06:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 February 2010

From the editor: Writers wanted to cover strategy, public policy

Strategic planning: The challenges of strategic planning in a volunteer community

News and notes: New CTO, Britain Loves Wikipedia, Telefónica partnership, Multimedia and more

In the news: Wikipedia on CDs, BBC uses Wikipedia content, and more

WikiProject report: WikiProject Dinosaurs

Sister projects: Sister project roundup

Features and admins: Approved this week

Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 22:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quick question

Tony, could you please take a look at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1910 Cuba hurricane/archive1 (particularly Auntieruth55's comments) and advise on the capitalization of "gulf" in a certain context? Diff in question. No problem if you're too busy. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Newbie central

That picture is used on Amy Sedaris's page (the woman in the picture), so I do not want to repeat it. I am just adding the links, to dip my toe in the water without getting my hair wet. Still working on the page.Ethel&bobby (talk) 12:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re. User_talk:MBisanz#query

Hi there Tony. Long time no see - I hope you're well! Anyway, I've just seen your note to MBisanz - If a user is banned by the Arbitration Committee, they should email the committee directly with their appeal and it will then be passed to the BASC to look at (or perhaps given it's an ArbCom ban, the whole committee will look at it). If they ask for it to be copied to the amendment's page, the Arbitrators will most probably revert it and tell them to appeal directly by email. Hope that helps - if you have any more questions, you're more than welcome to ask. All the best, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010 in British music

Oops! I guess you didn't notice that when you changed # for No. in 2010 in British music, it broke a load of links. You should probably check your diff before you save.[12] I fixed it, though. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 12:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aaahh, thanks, first time I've ever corrected that MoS issue, and I did take a quick look through the diff. But of course I forgot to be wary of # as a section link symbol. Thanks for fixing. Tony (talk) 07:06, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVII (January 2010)

The January 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/July 2009 Ürümqi riots/archive1

Thank you for commenting on this FAC. I believe another user and I have addressed your concerns, and I left a message at the FAC. Best, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:09, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for your comments. I've addressed them as best I can (and also left you a couple questions, for whenever you have some free time). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for your comments. I've addressed most of them, but left you a question about the "and 10% are of other ethnic groups" one. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:34, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Linking

Tony, FYI, I've restored the change to "relevant" at Wikipedia:Linking. For one, it was suggested/changed by two separate editors in the past week as preferable to "germane". I'd agree that "relevant" does feel more accessible to a general audience, and several dictionary and thesaurus definitions indicate that the terms are interchangeable in this context. I've reviewed the RfC results, and - while the version chosen did have the word "germane" in it - it is used interchangeably with "relevant" throughout the RfC, including as the heading for the chosen option ("link only relevant dates"). If there is a link to a point when specific language using "germane" was mandated by ArbCom, could you please provide it? If so, I'll certainly self-revert immediately. This is truly a minor matter, and definitely not something for the two of us to argue over. However, given that two unconnected individuals have suggested the need for such a change, it might be worth considering. --Ckatz^chat _spy 07:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So let's consider it at the talk page. It is a major change. I'm reverting now. Tony (talk) 08:06, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: your note, I am of course fine with having others weigh in. One favour, though, based on your initial response at the linking page. Please keep in mind that this is not my proposed change, I just happen to agree with the two who originally proposed it (making me the third person referred to there). We should probably get comments from them as well. Cheers. --Ckatz^chat _spy 18:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Personal stuff"

Tony, the concerns I posted here earlier remain unaddressed. They have nothing to do with the Gilliam page, so please do not simply move this discussion there. However, I would really prefer that we try to resolve this. --Ckatz^chat _spy 00:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't this just a circular re-run of personal complaints you've made before about me? We've been there so many times, without success, and it always comes up during your utter refusal to engage in substantive debate. It seems to have been a strategy that has served you well in some fora, but time's up on that one. Wikis are best when they focus just on the substantive issues. Tony (talk) 03:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, Tony, it's not a "strategy", it's a legitimate concern over a pattern of behaviour I've observed in you, and one that you refuse to address. Do I really have to go back and list all of the times I've had to stand up to you when you've misrepresented me to others? Or the times you've called me out for certain supposed offences, only to have to retract said claims when they were proven incorrect? Actually, I don't; the claims you've made on the Gilliam talk page, and even this effort to dismiss the matter as a supposed "strategy" speak to the depth of the problem. (Note that this behavioural issue certainly isn't just about me. I've observed you doing this on numerous occasions with other people, but I can only speak for myself.) --Ckatz^chat _spy 05:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's quite simple situation to resolve – rather than shouting on the rooftops that Tony has been lying about you, you should nail your colours to the mast for all to see. I suggested at Terry Gilham that you should go to WT:Linking, and outline your vision of linking policy - the good and bad of the current, and what you hope to see done there. On the flipside, your failure to do so will perpetuate whatever rumours exist about your being a 'link fanatic', because your actions tend to suggest you to be rather liberal with low-value links which dilute valuable ones. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 05:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The issues with Tony's conduct, while certainly a factor in the linking matter, should be addressed separately from that topic. As for the suggestion I'm "rather liberal with low-value links", please do provide diffs to back up your claims (or else stop making them). Keep in mind, though, that simply listing instances where I've preferred to link a country won't cut it; that aspect of the so-called "common terms" matter is certainly controversial. If you have evidence to support your assertions, it would be a big step in terms of improving the problems; one of my primary beefs with Tony is his habit of making unwarranted and incorrect claims, not providing anything to support them when challenged to do so, and (even worse) glossing over the matter or trying to deflect the conversation when it becomes clear that he is wrong. To be perfectly honest, I'd have a hell of a lot more respect for his position (even if we differ) if he stopped making those sort of untrue claims. It's just not right under any circumstances. That is why I take great pains to make sure that any claim I present, especially in the more public forums here, can be backed up with hard evidence that proves it is correct. I don't mind if someone says "You're x" and I can look at it and think, "Yes, I am, what's wrong with that?" I do however strongly object to being pilloried in public when the information being presented has no basis in reality. --Ckatz^chat _spy 04:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't try turning the question around. Of course, to ask for evidence of your link-manic preference, and then to say citing linking countries "doesn't cut it" is pure bunkum - it is part of the proof. There are undoubtedly more, but I don't have time to waste on in just now. Let us all know what you think at WP:Linking, as I suggested. Persisting in this personal assault on Tony is the wrong way to go about it. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 05:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Persisting in this personal assault"?!? And you accuse me of pure bunkum? So, what would you suggest then - that we should just allow editors to say whatever they feel like saying, no proof required, no need to worry about consequences. Might as well just toss WP:CIVIL in the bin and have at it, then. --Ckatz^chat _spy 07:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you ~~refuse to~~ do not do the simple thing I suggested, then there's nothing I can do to help, I'm afraid. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 07:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who's "refusing"? Please don't misinterpret "pretty busy both on site and in real life, so that gathering up all the details to illustrate the problematic changes to the guidelines has to be a relatively low priority" as meaning "refusing", since that would be a mistake. However, and yet again I'll point this out, the problematic behaviours I've outlined with respect to Tony1 is a separate matter from the "overlink" debate. Suggesting that the resolution lies in talking about linking strategies is really just a distraction from the actual problem I've repeatedly described. Given that I've had to call him on it multiple times, with no success to date, any help you can provide in reaching a more civil status between us would be a real benefit. --Ckatz^chat _spy 10:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so you're not refusing. That's fair enough, I guess, if that's how much you care about your reputation to relegate it to 'low priority'. I've struck out the relevant part of my comment above. As to your points about Tony's 'behaviour', he seems to have explained himself quite clearly already. I'll let him speak for himself, if he feels there is any more to add. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 10:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CKatz, you seem to have time to pour into this hatefest, yet none to engage with people who wonder at your stance about the linking of common terms. Yes, I was wrong on one count (last year or 2008, I can't remember), in which I apologised directly and publicly to you; it looks as though I'll never be allowed to forget it. However, I stand by the other issues on which I've taken you to task, and the outlining of your strategy of trying to get your way by personalising issues to avoid debating them. This hate-section is a good example, where you're utterly refusing calls to explain your extreme stance on common-term linking in two places: here and here, although there's the first glimmer of slight engagement in your most recent post there. I find it a pity that such a talented editor has to be dragged into debate, usually to walk away immediately. Several others, including John and Ohconfucius, have alluded to this in the past few days as well. Tony (talk) 10:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Hatefest"? That's way over-the-top, Tony. I've been asking you to please stop misrepresenting me when we interact for quite some time now. So far, it has met with little or no success. Even in your most recent post, you've used loaded terms such as "extreme stance" and "hatefest", which have no relation to anything I've actually written. You claim I'd happily "link everything", even though that also has no basis in fact whatsoever. And yet, when I call you on this, you claim I'm attacking you. I'm sure you can understand how that might get frustrating after a while. The reality is that we're both here on the project, we have a certain degree of cross-over in the ares we work on, (especially with respect to guidelines), and we need to resolve this matter. --Ckatz^chat _spy 17:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, I'm serious about wanting to resolve this issue. I'd appreciate a constructive two-way dialogue, in some form you're comfortable with. Cheers. --Ckatz^chat _spy 20:47, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RE: My WP:LINK Edit - germane

Hi Tony, Thanks for your comments. I only changed it because I had to look the word up to find out what it meant. But if it has been the subject of past disagreement, I have no intention of starting something. So I'm happy to leave as is. I did consider linking the first occurrence of the word to the wikitionary entry, but particularly because of the articles subject matter, did not want to add an inappropriate link. On the upside I did learn a new word. Thanks. Matt5AU (talk) 10:19, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Matt, let's see what other people think. I must say, I should eat humble pie about the closeness of the definitions of these two words; you and Ckatz have turned out to be right on that count, at least as far as Wiktionary and Encarta are concerned. Tony (talk) 10:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Only just now have been back to WP:LINK and seen the other changes and talk page, didn't realize the change would trigger that. It is only a minor matter for me, so as I said above I happy to leave it. Will leave it to you and Ckatz to decide whether to change the word, link it, or leave it as is. Sorry to have started it. Cheers Matt5AU (talk) 11:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tony, thanks for your latest message. I understand that I'm welcome to contribute to WP:Link, just felt at first like I had set off some old argument when you and Ckatz started your discussion on the talk pages. In the end I could see the point of view of the others who responded in the talk pages, but felt that the reason for my original edit may have been missed. Hence the reason for my recent post. I thoroughly agree with the intention of the section, I think it should be rare that a date be linked.

I'm not really a word smith, most of my contributions are more technical (i've made a couple of templates) and update a few of the pages that summarise cricket scores. I'm working my way up to adding real content.

I would be interested in your opinion on the original reason I visited the page. On cricket pages some editors will always put a link to the wikipedia page Not out when a batsman is not out (i.e. 99*). This can be quite useful, because it would explain to a lay person the reason for the asterisk and it is only small so does not distract significantly from the page. However on a page summarising the results of 30 games, you could end up with 10-20 of these links. Cheers Matt. Matt5AU (talk) 07:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well ... "not out" is a technical term, and I think it's desirable to link it (once, first time) in a cricket article. Truth is, I heark from the cricketsphere but am so ignorant of the sporting world that I can't tell you what it means! Tony (talk) 08:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Tony. Matt5AU (talk) 08:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 February 2010

News and notes: Commons at 6 million, BLP taskforce, milestones and more

In the news: Robson Revisions, Rumble in the Knesset, and more

Dispatches: Fewer reviewers in 2009

WikiProject report: WikiProject Olympics

Features and admins: Approved this week

Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:35, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FAR prose checks

Hi Tony. The Flag of India and Darjeeling are mostly done now for content and referencing. Can you check the prose please? Many thanks YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 02:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spot check?

Your thoughts on writing were the last on the Qwest Field FAN awhile back. It looks like you do not like doing full-on CE, but I was wondering if you could find the time to do another quick spot check on the article before I put it up again. I did not adjust the iron work line since the sources didn't go into detail on the ugliness. However, "utilize" is gone. A few editors have gone over it since then. Any thoughts you have before I nominate it again would be appreciated. Cheers.Cptnono (talk) 11:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your edit to Katharine McPhee

With this edit, [13], you deleted California and United States from the infobox when Template:Infobox musical artist says that information should be located there. Aspects (talk) 03:44, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that discredited infox template ... I would take no notice. Is there some mystery for English-speakers about where California is? Tony (talk) 06:20, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be mighty surprised - LA is pretty much regarded as the centre of the entertainment world. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 10:32, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Except, as usual, the template seems to be "owned"; i.e., everyone else is locked out of editing it, despite the fact it's used widely. Tony (talk) 11:38, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think there is a legitimate reason for the protection; Wikipedia:PROTECT#Permanent protection says that highly visible templates/pages that are transcluded (i.e. used) on many articles may be fully protected. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:27, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if this is what you guys are referring to, but the template is editable. I happen to know because I edited it a week ago. There's a link, Template:Infobox musical artist/doc, at the bottom of the page. SamEV (talk) 21:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your VOTE 2 vote at CDA

Hi Tony1,

you are receiving this message as you voted in VOTE 2 at the recent Community de-Adminship 'Proposal Finalization' Poll. Unfortunately, there is a hitch regarding the "none" vote that can theoretically affect all votes.

1) Background of VOTE 2:

In a working example of CDA; ater the 'discussion and polling phase' is over, if the "rule of thumb" baseline percentage for Support votes has been reached, the bureaucrats can start to decide whether to desysop an admin, based in part on the evidence of the prior debate. This 'baseline' has now been slightly-adjusted to 65% (from 70%) per VOTE 1. VOTE 2 was asking if there is a ballpark area where the community consensus is so strong, that the bureaucrats should consider desysopping 'automatically'. This 'threshold' was set at 80%, and could change pending agreement on the VOTE 2 results.

This was VOTE 2;

Do you prefer a 'desysop threshold' of 80% or 90%, or having none at all?

As a "rule of thumb", the Bureaucrats will automatically de-sysop the Administrator standing under CDA if the percentage reaches this 'threshold'. Currently it is 80% (per proposal 5.4).

Please vote "80" or "90", or "None", giving a second preference if you have one.

This is the VOTE 2 question without any ambiguity;

Do you prefer a "rule of thumb" 'auto-desysop' percentage of 80%, 90%, or "none"?

Where "none" means that there is no need for a point where the bureaucrats can automatically desysop.

Please vote "80" or "90", or "None", giving a second preference if you have one.

2) What was wrong with VOTE 2?

Since the poll, it has been suggested that ambiguity in the term "none at all" could have affected some of the votes. Consequently there has been no consensus over what percentage to settle on, or how to create a new compromise percentage. The poll results are summarised here.

3) How to help:

Directly below this querying message, please can you;

Clarify what you meant if you voted "none".

In cases where the question was genuinely misunderstood, change your initial vote if you wish to (please explain the ambiguity, and don't forget to leave a second choice if you have one).

Please do nothing if you interpreted the question correctly (or just confirm this if you wish), as this query cannot be a new vote.

I realise that many of you clarified your meaning after your initial vote, but the only realistic way to move forward is to be as inclusive as possible in this vote query. Sorry for the inconvenience,

My first edits

I was listening to an interview with Martha Plimpton and she gave the impression she was upset by her Wikipedia entry. I read it and decided to edit it. Did I go too far? I am still working on the David Rakoff entry, which is almost as long as that for "History of Christianity".Ethel&bobby (talk) 14:29, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Lewis (talk) 14:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]