User talk:Tony1/Archive03

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Havelock

Thanks for your edits, Tony, which were all very useful. I know you've been back for quite a while, but I haven't happened to run in to you, and I just wanted to say I'm glad to see you around. Chick Bowen 17:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Need some help with copyediting

Hi Tony,

I sent you a message awhile back but you said that you'd be busy until March. You seem to be back now, so here was my original message:

I noticed that you're good at copyediting, and I was wondering if would be able to help us out with the Kerala article. It's up for FA, and as mentioned on that page, "a light copyedit is needed". So, would you be able to help? Thanks.

It's now a featured article, but I'd still appreciate it if you could just check it out. It will be on the main page soon. Thanks. --Khoikhoi 03:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

--Khoikhoi 03:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!! --Khoikhoi 05:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] illuminatus FAC

regarding your comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Illuminatus! Trilogy, the 8 examples you gave i tried to correct, but as you didnt state what precisely was wrong i had to guess. can you see if its ok, if not please be more specific in your objections so they can be actionable. cheers. Zzzzz 23:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] table links

There are two ways to build tables:

  • in special Wiki-markup (see Help:Table)
  • with the usual HTML elements: <table>, <tr>, <td> or <th>.

For the latter, and a discussion on when tables are appropriate, see Wikipedia:How to use tables.

Tony 00:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


singular singular non-singular non-singular unmarked
total B
C D
E F
G H I
J K
L


An example table
singular non-singular unmarked|-
positive lower left lower middle
A table in a table

User:Tony1/How_to_satisfy_Criterion_2a: redundancy exercises

[edit] Thanks!

Thanks very much, Tony, and thanks again for all your help. This one was great fun for me to write. By the way, and don't worry about this, because it's not a big deal and you couldn't have known, but since I became an admin and am dealing with some scarier sorts of people (including one in particular who likes to leave death threats on my userpage), I've been more careful about my name. Sorry about that--again, you couldn't have known. Thanks again for everything. Chick Bowen 16:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scientific Peer Review

Having read your userpage before and having an impression of what you enjoy doing on Wikipedia, I thought you may find my proposal interesting: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Science#A_Scientific_Peer_Review. --Oldak Quill 16:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Links

I'm not inserting date and year links, but I am reverting their mass removal. Wikipedia does not work on an unchangeable set of laws - it works on consensus. There is very far from a consensus on what to do with date links, and the responses to Bobblewik's mass-automated link removals have been about 50-50 support-oppose, so please refrain from patronising me. Ambi 12:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Bob Gilbert Nov 2004.jpg

On this image you have stated it is in the public domain but you have tagged it with {{GFDL}}. Please choose one license and delete the other one. Thanks! -SCEhardT 14:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bach recordings

Hi Tony,
I had some time on our local North German organ last night, so I recorded a couple things. I was going to record all of the things that were planned for the Pachelbel article, but discovered that I left my score at home. One piece I did record was BWV 543, Prelude and Fugue in A minor, which I'm sure you're familiar with. Would you listen to them and see if they are suitable for inclusion on either the Bach page or maybe a Bach (keyboard works) page? (prelude, fugue) User:Cor anglais 16 also recorded the opening of BWV 565, Toccata and Fugue in D minor, so that we don't have to use a piano reduction on that page. He will upload that later today, I think.

Thanks,
—Sesquialtera II (talk) 15:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

When I open those links in Opera, Firefox, or IE (all Windows) they ask if I want to download them. Maybe right click and save as? They're in .ogg format to comply with Wikipedia. I can put them in mp3 format or something if you want.
I'm not the performer on the Pachelbel fugue; I'm pretty sure it's a midi, hence both the poor sound and lack of rhythmic difference. The discussion on my talk page was whether I should record a live version of the piece, which I plan on doing when I next have time in the hall with the appropriate organ. I hope you will be able to actually hear me play using the Bach 543 above. It is not absolutely note-perfect, but it is pretty close, so perhaps we can use it in the article(s). —Sesquialtera II (talk) 07:06, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I uploaded the files to Commons: prelude, fugue —Sesquialtera II (talk) 15:18, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, an email is fine. —Sesquialtera II (talk) 01:14, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Geo Storm Article

You catagorized my writing as mediocre, and offered to provide examples. Please do so. Even if my article is never officially recognized as a featured article, I would like to have it be the same level of quality as those articles, and will gladly alter it if I know what improvements are needed. Evenprime 00:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Slither and hisss

Antonio - How nice to hear from you. Sorry in the delay replying I'm away from home and having problems using the internet. I don't know is the simple answer, in the past I have put them on FAC the same day I have put them into main space (I usually create them in user space). There now seems to be a tendency - some people seem to think in mandatory (so far it is not) to go to peer review first. My personal view is if you're happy with it - go for it. In line cites seem to be the thing to have theses days - so if it's half decent and has plenty of those you should not have too many problems. Just out of interest why have you not passed comment on [1] - I would have thought that was just the sort of thing for you to get your teeth into - musical (of sorts) as well. Good luck with the page The Rattlesnake

[edit] Date links proposal

Hi,

You contributed to a previous debate about date links. You may wish to see the proposal at: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#linking_of_dates. Thanks. bobblewik 08:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John Sculley

Hey Tony, Haven't spoken to you in a long time. I'm wondering if you can copyedit the article John Sculley for me since you're really good at that stuff. Thanks! — Wackymacs 12:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Hey, yeah I've cut down on my Wikipedia contributions quite a lot - I don't really do FAC reviewing anymore - I now pay more attention to making articles featured. If you want to delete a redirect page, put {{d}} on the page and it will be deleted by an administrator - if you want to revert a redirect go into the pages history and save over and older copy of the page. Hope I'm making sense. — Wackymacs 14:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Right so you just need to revert it to the older revision when it wasn't a redirect, click on a date/time link on the History page for the article, then edit the older revision, and click Save. — Wackymacs 14:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Good. :) — Wackymacs 15:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The big secret of the but question on Pakistan

Hi, sorry if it seems like a secret :P but basically there disputes about Pakistan's pre-1947 history mainly focussing around some editors disliking the use of terms like ancient Pakistan (because there was no ancient country or region by that name) in favour of references to Indian history. Other editors disliked any reference to India and eventually the compromise was reached of Pakistan being a modern state but the region having an ancient history as well. Does any of that make sense? (bearing in mind that I am half-asleep at this moment) Green Giant 08:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] US Bill of Rights

Tony, I'm working on your objections. I did want to mention that I thought "the whole article needs scrutiny" was a poor choice of words. The article has had two peer reviews and comments were solicited beyond that. It's not as if I've been hiding this article someplace trying to avoid "scrutiny." Kaisershatner 14:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Small request

Hey Tony,

Could I get you to go over this section for me. I think it is decent, but you seem to find problems in prose that I always miss. Also, I am a little worried about the flow and size of the 2nd paragraph. Do you know anything which could remidy this. This section is to replace the amphibian section of Fauna of Australia. I don't want to put it in until the prose is up to FP standard. I will be adding to the talk page as well (after the prose is good) to make sure noone objects. Thanks --liquidGhoul 11:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry it has taken so long to reply, I moved house, and the internet is now only just working. Thankyou for the edit. I have gone over the comments you left and tried to fix them. The two phrases I had a little problem with were the Corroboree frogs and the disputed taxonomy bits. Could you go over them again and see if they make any more sense? Thanks again. --liquidGhoul 06:17, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
I just went over your comments in my talk page again, and I don't really think that the taxonomy terms need clarifying. This section will be part of a much larger article, which includes these terms a lot. Maybe they should just be wikified for easy access to their meanings? I think it is something to bring up at Talk:Fauna of Australia if you are concerned. --liquidGhoul 06:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Date links

I'd like to ask you the same question. When date links are common practice all across the Wikipedia, why are you so obsessed with removing them no matter how much criticism you get for it? Ambi 02:29, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm well aware that there are plenty of occasions where date links are superfluous, and in these cases, I have absolutely no objection to their removal, but there are many others - particularly with regard to history and some biographical articles - where date links do provide a useful means of establishing context for a particular event. This is something that needs to be considered on a case by case basis - running around with a bot or pseudo-bot killing them on sight is just overkill for the sake of fulfilling someone's style fetish. Ambi 08:06, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/National Anthem of Russia

To answer your question about the Putin and flag photos:

  1. President Putin was the main person who asked for the anthem to change in 2000 and he was the one who made it official. He also was one of the main organizers to get Alexandrov's music as the Russian anthem.
  2. As a lead photo, I decided to rest on the Russian flag. I did the same thing at My Belarusy, since a free lead photo is a must for an article that wishes to be featured on the main page. Since the article is about Russia, I figured the Russian flag will do, since I do not have a CD cover or sheet music cover that is in the public domain that I can use. Also, the Russian flag is used on the TV station RTR when the anthem plays at 2400 and 600 Moscow Time. The Moscow Kremlin is also usually shown, but I decided to just use the Kremlin photo in the article itself.

As for the grammar, I went ahead and fixed it myself, someone else fixed it, and I also put it in a category to have someone take a look at it. I hope this answers all of your questions about the article. Thanks again. Rgds, User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Punctuation question

Hey Tony, I've got a question for you. I've seen a few examples lately of the use of the apostrophe without an s to indicate possession following a singular noun ending in s. So, Jesus' sandals and not Jesus's sandals. I've always been under the impression that the latter is correct, and that the apostrophe without the final s is only used when the noun is plural, i.e., The factories' employees or The three methods' strengths. Any clarity you could throw on the subject would be fantastic. Thanks! —Spangineer[es] (háblame) 02:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Yet more proof of the craziness of English. Thanks for your help. —Spangineer[es] (háblame) 02:50, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mount Rushmore on WP:FAC

Thanks for voting on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mount Rushmore. I have gone through the article and fixed the several examples of errors you provided as well as other errors I caught. Hopefully the article is now satisfactory in your point of view. Thanks again, AndyZ t 01:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ina Garten on WP:FAC

Hey, thanks for all your help on the article! Another editor reviewing for the FAC and I went through it mercilessly and laid waste to a lot of bad wording and references, and I think you'll see it's a LOT better. I appreciate your prompt for me to go through it again. Thanks! Air.dance 07:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Voice leading

I don't understand the subject. For instance, what is led? The voices? The chords? Or does one voice lead the others? Does something lead the voices? More importantly, given the definition we currently have, I don't understand how it is used. Similarly, I have spent some time defining tonality, and feel fairly confident about my knowledge of its definition, I still am confused by the way the word is often used. Hyacinth 09:50, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd say rather that voice leading is a property of counterpoint. Hyacinth 10:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Here's one: How does voice leading [of a certain quality] assist or replace diatonic functionality"? Hyacinth 10:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Why use the seeminly redundant term "melodic voice leading" [2], ISBN 0064671682, p.206)? And if it is not redundant, what are the other types that are not melodic? Hyacinth 11:01, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/AIDS

I had a friend look over it and copyedit it, I applied these copedits today. Your objections noted on the FA page have been addressed, though I don't know which monster sentences you were referring to. If there are any specific points that we may have overlooked, and if you have time, please feel free to help out, as help from a pro would be appreciated in getting this article up to FA status. Regards --Bob 22:13, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Protocol for nominating FARCs

Hi Giano

Do you think it's time to make an issue of the habit of nominating FAs for removal without giving the required notice on the talk page? I've raised this issue in relation to the most recently nominated article, Wigwag. What do you think? Tony 04:14, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

It probably is time, but it is also time to find some hard and fast rules for dealing with the FARC subject as a whole, of all Wikipedia's ill-thought out pages - FARC is probably the worst. If a page is found to be full of bad, or false information that should be a criteria for FARC. If there are no references whatsoever that should be also. English prose etc. would have all been checked at the original FAC and judged acceptable. If a page is considered by a nominator to be non-comprehensive, then in order to have made that judgement, they must be capable of adding it themselves, likewise with prose and grammar.
On the FARC page I think it sad that editors of no standing or proven ability whatsoever (No, I don't mean you and Taxman and one or two others.) seem to spend their lives rummaging through old FAs just to nominate them for reasons which they imagine are adequate, in order for others with a similar lack of understanding to come and jump on the bandwagon with their own ill conceived opinions. What the answer is I'm not sure, left to me - only those who had produced an FA, and with 3000 edits would be eligible to nominate and pass comment (note: I do not say vote - which sadly is what half of them seem to think it is). That would not make a clique, as some claim, but an intelligentsia. There seems to be some sort of intellectual socialism here, which will if not checked will destroy the project.
At the moment I feel there is tendency here to belittle, rubbish, and destroy what exists, rather than to go forward and expand. That people choose to waste valuable editing time on attempting to bring down good accounts of a subject rather than improve, I find, frankly, rather sad. It is also unnecessarily unpleasant for the original editors of a page, who have already gone through the FAC process. I find it very hard to assume good faith when wondering what the frequent nominators are trying to prove with their nominations. If people wish to be thought intelligent here, there is a very easy way to prove it, and it can be found as a nominator, or even reviewer, on the FAC page rather than the FARC page.
Finally, changing the subject 100%, do you want to make a few edits at Sanssouci, It's a mammoth article translated very thoroughly and well from German. It's now almost a community project, see the talk page. I've heavily edited it, and copyedited and reduced it by about half (there was enough for 3 or 4 very good, sub pages) but it still has a very Germanic tone to the language - you with your modern type Australian type English (that is a complement - truly, I only learnt my English there is a difference, than can never be erradicated) might be able to remove. For the sake of the original translator and his helpers, I would love to see it on FAC again. Giano | talk 11:45, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I expect you are probably right. I shall absent myself from the FARC page for a while (unless someone dares to nominate one I've been involved with - so check the history;-). Thanks for the edits at Sanssouci, I've just re-opened the FAC - so hoping for the best. Regards Giano | talk 13:51, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
  • While you are there - please see if you can think of a better name for "Ethos of Sanssouci"" - it's the best I could dream up to overcome an FAC objection! Thanks Giano | talk 14:35, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CCRF

Tony an editor less familiar with the topic has run a few copyedits on CCRF, as have I. He might not be done yet and you've admitted to being hard to please but I'm confident it is improving. Please review. Thanks, CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 12:04, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WORK COMMITMENTS UNTIL 5 MAY

I'm on restricted activity until then, sadly. Tony 00:33, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Sanssouci

Thanks for the message, and your copyedits. I would be lying if I didn't admit to be being realy pleased with the page. It was really nice to just do a page that someone else had done all the hard work on first, not having to do boring research and translation etc first. Thanks Giano | talk 16:21, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I do it all the time :) -- ALoan (Talk) 21:58, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but you know where the commas are supposed to go in the first place. Giano | talk 21:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] FARCs

Thanks for the message, anything that slows the process down, or makes it harder to defeature a page can only be a good thing. I have decided to ignore the FARC page completely, as it is bad for my blood pressure. I note your and Taxman's very worthy efforts to instill some common sense there, but I have now taken that nasty little page off my watch list. With few exceptions it seems to be inhabited by editors distinguished only by their mediocrity, and pomposity. Their only raison d'être seems to be to pull down the hard work of others without attempting to produce anything in its place. I take the view that if one is capable of spotting a problem, one is also capable of fixing it. I wish you luck in what is a very unpleasant area of Wikipedia indeed. I am having nothing more to do with it, and if a page on which I have worked is nominated there, I shall continue to ignore it. Giano | talk 22:35, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citation location

Tony, would you mind commenting at Wikipedia_talk:Footnotes#Citations_and_punctuation? I'm pretty sure that it's commonly accepted that citations always follow punctuation, but you know more about it than me. Thanks! --Spangineer[es] (háblame) 18:15, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Detroit, Michigan - Some help with article's prose

I have placed the article up for peer review in the hopes of one day getting the article nominated for FA. Seeing that you won't be available until May 5, I was wondering if you could, when you have the time afterwards, look over the Detroit article and comment on it? Thanks. PentawingTalk 19:44, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request

Hi, the linkage grants must be done by now, so I was hoping you could add Nauru to your long list of editing requests, I've been procrastinating rather than working on a paper.--nixie 01:52, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Thanks for starting the copyedit. About your question - I really couldn't tell you, there are several historic sources I have through ANUs South Pacific collection (pre-1930) and some newer works that focus on the phosphate/enviroment/ICJ situation. There are some undigital records in the NAA on repatriation which I have requested, but it might be a while before I have an anwser.--nixie 13:25, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History of Burnside FAC

I got an edit conflict when attempting to save a revised and calmer version of my comments. You were right in predicting a bit of annoyance - I don't want to be harsh, I just want to bring this article up to standard. I shouldn't move my own errors onto yourself so I do apologise for my words. I'll be going over the article again in the next day, any chance you could do a copyedit or review it and present as many sentences as possible requiring changes? Thankyou, michael talk 11:00, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] GAs

Damn! I didn't check the edit history. Now I've found the proverbial monster lurking in his cave. I've been following the exploits of the disordered GA brigade for a while, ever since this [3] stupid edit in fact, which rather irritated me. Never mind I think it's good. (your page isn't bad either!) Giano | talk 19:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Irene query

I noticed your query on Hurricane Irene (2005); NHC forecasts do say that tropical waves "organize" (presumably from a diffuse area of low pressure towards becoming a complex heat engine). Happy editing! --AySz88^-^ 06:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's not really a techincal term; the system really does organize in the way most people would understand the term (i.e. to structure or to order). --AySz88^-^ 06:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I addressed the other specific concerns: "The sudden peril of the storm's existence" was bad, to me that suggested that it was posing a major threat — replaced with "The sudden threat to...". Also changed the landfall info to "Irene would make landfall in North Carolina". I agree with the stuff on organization AySz88 mentions above, the NHC uses "organize" to describe what happens in developing cyclones, and means it in the everyday English sense of the word.--Nilfanion (talk) 14:07, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Transhumanism

Hello Tony. I moved the discussion about the Transhumanism nomination text to the Neutral / Comment section at the bottom of the page. I meant to do it before when I was reorganizing the page but I forgot. My apologies. --Loremaster 15:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Halloween III: Season of the Witch

Please don't think I've been being hostile or anything, but I need more specific advice than not "brilliant" prose or "cast your net wider." Who would you suggest I ask to copy-edit? It wouldn't hurt my feelings one bit if you looked over it and performed a copy-edit (I know you're not required to). If not, I don't even need a specific point-by-point list, just a general "things to look for" type of thing (such as your suggestion in the original post about the use of "also"; after reading through the article, I did see far too many). Thanks for the time you've already spent critiquing this article. Dmoon1 19:31, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Wanted to thank you for your helpful comments about Glacier National Park (US). It's always good to get extra eyes to look things over and you presented insight into areas that needed attention. Thanks again.--MONGO 11:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I went through and removed a lot of the redundant "in the park" comments and did a major rewording of the intro...let me know what else you think the article needs. Thanks.--MONGO 06:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

(Borrowing an existing section) Thank you, Tony, for this wonderful copyedit. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 07:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The KLF

Many thanks for your constructive comments for The KLF's FAC. These have been addressed, and I was wondering if you would be able to take another look to see if the changes meet with your approval? I'm also big on getting punctuation right, as it's so important to the flow and meaning of an article. Thanks again. --Vinoir 11:57, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I've just been looking at your user page. Blimey mate, very impressive! I could sense your professionalism in your comments, but had no idea you actually are one. Well, anyway, thanks for the feedback. I hope we've addressed your issues and if not help us whingeing poms out again would you? :) Thanks very much. --kingboyk 12:57, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chola dynasty review

Hi Tony

Thanks for your review of Chola dynasty. I think I have answered your inline queries. Please take a look at the article. cheers Parthi (Venu62) 00:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] farc of gender role

If you start up a farc I'll support it and give my comments, yeah.--Urthogie 22:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] V for Vendetta

Hi, Tony. You know, we've made a lot of changes, but I have a feeling that we're spinning our wheels on the copy-editing on the V for Vendetta (film) article. Copy-editing with the same pair of eyes may be redundant. That said, we are all really determined to get this article to FA status.

Are almost there? How close are we to meeting FA standards? Secondly, if not, are the 20/80 thing we can do to fill this criteria? Perhaps there is a copy-editing request board? Or a "guild" somewhere where we can recruit assistance? Any advice would be appreciated Tony. --P-Chan 03:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Date links

Please check your facts before throwing around allegations. I did not remove the guideline to remove date links from the MOS. It was abolished after mass, lengthy discussion reached the obvious conclusion that there was no consensus on what to do on the matter, and thus no consensus to have a "kill them all" guideline. I can't remember who actually did the honors, but it was a feit accompli by that stage, and IIRC it was a neutral party.

You had the opportunity to participate in that discussion, and for whatever reason, you ignored it. Frankly, I'd like to be able to move on to more important issues, such as writing articles. However, any unilateral changes to the MOS such as you suggest will still be promptly reverted. Rebecca 05:59, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Charming, yet completely unhelpful. Rebecca 06:52, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I explained my rationale for finding some date links useful in the long discussion that was held on the matter. Holding an opposite view to yours is not a reason to assume bad faith.

For the record, I was a mediator, back in 2004 IIRC. I resigned when I was elected to the arbitration committee, and had no desire to go back to it afterwards - firstly, as I'd rather stay well away from wikipolitics where humanly possible, and secondly as I don't quite have the temperament for it anymore - I don't take fools as lightly as I used to. Rebecca 07:08, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Woodruff

The article Michael Woodruff has now reached featured article status. Thank you for your help and your support vote for it. Cool3 20:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cane Toad for peer review

The Cane Toad article is up for peer review here. I would really appreciate your input (so we don't have to go through it during FAC :) ). Thanks --liquidGhoul 07:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bach nomination.

The article on Bach is really wonderful; and so I nominated it for good article status. It says on the "good articles" page that the process for nominating good articles is much simpler than that for featured articles, and so I did not think it necessary to seek consensus before nominating it - sorry if I inadvertently tread on your toes here. On the "good articles" page it does not mention consensus as being required for nomination, merely that the article must match necessary criteria. Had I been nominating for featured article status, then I would have sought consensus. After all, it's hardly as though the article doesn't deserve the status I'm trying to elevate it too! I wholeheartedly agree with User: Giano when he said that if the Bach article does not deserve good article status, then the vast bulk of other Wikipedia entries become "speedy delete" candidates. Cheers,Moreschi 12:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sardar Patel FAC

Hi Tony - I've copyedited the lead as per your suggestions. I'd like to know if the changes are ok - [4] - and what other stuff needs copyediting. Please respond on the FAC page. Thanks, Rama's Arrow 16:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] JS Bach

Pardon me if I lack understanding... I am just curious why an summary of Bach's life in the Weimar court is completely absent.

[edit] Glacier National Park (US)

There have been lots of changes to the text in terms of cleaning up areas that you mentioned...what else do you suggest to help me make it even better?--MONGO 02:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Operation Auca

Hi Tony. I know you're often pretty busy, but if you get a chance to read over this article that I wrote and am about to put FA status, I'd appreciate it. I've tried to get rid of as many instances of "also" and "as well" as possible =). Thanks! --Spangineer[es] (háblame) 17:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sardar Patel FAC

Hi Tony - is this better? Please have a look - I hope you'll reconsider your vote. Rama's Arrow 02:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

"—" is recommended in place of "-." That's why I've used it repeatedly. Also, "transition" is not a historically accurate description of Patel's work. Rama's Arrow 02:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

We may have had (or still have) our differences, but thanks for the suggestions for the Canada article. I have implemented most of them. -- Jeff3000 21:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:1.0

Thanks for joining the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team! You may be really interested in helping us review articles for Version 0.5, and also at FAs first project. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 02:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:How to write a great article

Hi,

thanks for your improvements. Please, understand that we have editors from any corner of the world, and only a fraction of them are native speakers. Style guidelines are perhaps a different case in that they should probably be always written by native speakers, but normal articles benefit a lot from contributions coming from editors who are knowledgeable about the subject despite of somewhat limited linguistic skills. —Gennaro Prota•Talk 11:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi again, I read and I think it is very useful. Please, keep up the good work. I'm happy, by the way, that I had noticed myself some of the pitfalls you point out there, in particular repetition, and poor flow. The latter is a real plague of wikipedia articles (most edits add material without looking at context and surrounding sentences). One question: is "The featured article criteria are a set" correct? Shouldn't it be either "The featured article criteria are demanding requirements" or "The featured article criteria is a set..."? —Gennaro Prota•Talk 14:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Oh, yes, of course, I won't tell anyone! :-x —Gennaro Prota•Talk 14:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] some help

i am new to Wikipedia and i have submitted some new information. there is a bar saying wikify the page, it's not too long less than 1/4 of a page. just general info. could you help me wikify it please?

thank you.

the link to my article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Ernst%2C_Duke_of_Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld

[edit] Johann Sebastian Bach

Hi Tony,

Normally I'd refer people to page protection requests - but it looks like it is already there. They have more precision on that kind of thing then I do - with the relatively low amount of action lately on the article I didn't think it would get protected... I can't really semi-protect myself due to the protection policy currently - so unfortunately you guys will probably just have to revert unless it gets really bad :\. RN 09:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on FARC and FAC though!!! RN 09:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfA

I notcied that you participated in the Michael Woodruff featured article discussion, so I thought you mihgt want to vote in the Rfa for Cool3, the creator at WP:RFA. ShortJason 15:13, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your monobook

If you copy User:Bobblewik/monobook.js to User:Tony1/monobook.js, you will get a 'dates' tab and a 'units' tab in edit mode. You might find it useful. Keep up the good work. bobblewik 16:59, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edward VI of England FARC

Could you take another look? The article has been refactored a bit since you made your FARC comment. --mav 00:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revert of inline comments

I apologize if I reverted older edits which included changes other than the inline comments, though I remember checking for previous edits on the articles I reverted that evening. However, I no longer remember which articles those where, and have no idea which article you are talking about. Hyacinth 06:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah, looking through your contributions I found Tonicization. Since your comments appeared to be about your own changes in many cases I reverted those too. Hyacinth 06:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dog Day Afternoon

I have fixed all the issues you voiced in the FAC (save including the issue # of Life, which can be easily done) and would be happy to fix any other copyedit type issues you find. However, I will try to find a seperate copyeditor as you have implied you will not copyedit any further. In any case, I hope you will consider changing your vote. Either way, thanks for the comments. (I will keep you apprised of copy edits) Staxringold talkcontribs 11:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The article has now recieved a full copyedit. I hope you will reexamine it. Thanks! Staxringold talkcontribs 17:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Article has yet another third-party copyediting bits and pieces of it. Staxringold talkcontribs 22:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for IIT article

Hi Tony,

I came here as I have heard from many people about your professional writing style. The Indian Institutes of Technology article recently became a featured article. Will you please have a look at it and copyedit any remaining traces of unprofessional writing. That the article is already featured should make your work easier, and only minor tweaks might be necessary. Please feel free to edit it according to your wishes, deleting superfluous and un-neccesary information, adding {{fact}} wherever you feel essential, and requesting more detailed information for a broader understanding of the subject matter. As there is no hurry so you may do it whenever you please. Thanks, -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 09:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi,
Looks like you didn't go through my userpage. I am an undergraduate student at IIT Kharagpur. Anyways, most of the UG students of my batch have already decided their PG and doctoral colleges. It will be difficult to find any now who still haven't decided. Another hurdle being that you are asking for fee-paying PhD students. This again is difficult to find (especially in IITs as most of them get some sort of TA/RA, etc. in one or the other colleges). Also, since the Indian Rupee is heavily devalued, people prefer to go the university that pays (or costs less) rather than going to one that costs more even if the latter is signifantly better. Because of these, I suspect whether I would be able to find any suitable candidate for you. However, if the offer is open for the next session (starting 2007), you can mail me the details and I will post them in the group of PG students asking them to follow up themselves. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 12:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] United States article nomination

It seems like you are good at identifying "awkward" sentences, so can you help improve the article by copyediting it? Thank you.--Ryz05 t 01:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

The examples of awkward prose that you provided in the nomination have been addressed. Please take a look at the article again.--Ryz05 t 20:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Many people are pointing to the size of the article for their objection, but few wants to or declines to explain what parts of the article should be left out. Even if they do raise a point, it might be fiercely contested in the discussion page. There are even some who'll object because the article is not comprehensive, even though it is considered long by many. This is a dilemma that needs to be addressed. Because of this, can you at least change your vote to neutral?--Ryz05 t 01:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
I think the examples on awkward proses that you have brought up have been addressed. Also, I think the article has been summarized to its greatest potential, and any removal of sections can potentially harm the article by attacking its comprehensiveness. As I mentioned before, a few users are voting against because of the comprehensiveness issue.--Ryz05 t 02:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
You are better than most people at copyediting. Please think about helping out in improving the article yourself. Thank you.--Ryz05 t 15:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for the suggestion. If there are any more suggestions on how the article can be improved, you are more than welcome to post them on Talk:United_States.--Ryz05 t 15:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
The suggestions do make the paragraph a lot shorter, but it appears that the sentences have become choppy as well. Is there a way to avoid choppy sentences while reducing the length? Thank you.--Ryz05 t 17:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cornell

Pentawing said that you helped with copyediting the UMich article and helped it earn FA. My current project is to bring Cornell University up to FA status, and was wondering if you could offer some advice on its most recent Peer Review. Thanks. -mercuryboardtalk ♠ 22:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] We belong together move

Thanks for moving the stuff to the talk page - I hadn't seen the problem brewing there. Raul654 01:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks.

Thanks for notifying me, ill be sure to add the reason/state who i agree with in future. Thank you :) Matthew Fenton (TALK - CONTRIBS) 10:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] We Belong Together

Hello, a portion of the writing at We Belong Together has been copy-edited, though not completely. Could you provide some input? Thank you very much. —Eternal Equinox | talk 17:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you've responded to the last message I left you or not (I haven't been keeping my records updated), but once again the writing has been edited and tidied further. —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re:request for vandal to be banned

It looks like the anon has gotten tired of the game and gone away. In the future please report requests for administrator assistance against vandals to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. This will help prevent multi-hour delays when the admin you ask for help from has gone to do something in real life. You should also be aware that anyone may use the various vandalism warning templates on a problem anon's talk page. Many times a single warning message will shame the person into better behavior after they realize that someone is watching what they are doing. For the troublemakers that ignore such warnings, the existence of the templates on the anon's talk page will show that appropriate warnings have been made when an admin is looking to perform a block. --Allen3 talk 10:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Restricted activity 16 to 30 June

Work deadline. Tony 04:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gulf Oil - FAC

Tony. I recently put up an FAC titled Gulf Oil. I was looking forward to being roasted by you for my poor grammar, spelling and syntax. But, no luck. Is the article so bad that it is beneath you to comment on?. Be a good chap and take a look at it. Bob BScar23625 16:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Tony. Thanks for your contribution - which is much appreciated. Bob BScar23625 07:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Tony. I have just posted the following response to the Gulf Oil FAC discussion :

Tony. Thankyou for the time and effort you have obviously invested in this article. I have accommodated the specific points you have raised and have invited a number of regular Wikipedia contributors (including your AndyZ) to take a look over it.

Just a couple of asides.

(1) You have switched “New Economy” to “new economy”. But most management literature uses the term New Economy [5]. This may seem odd, given that the same body of literature usually refers to “the new economic paradigm”. Strictly, I think we should adhere to common usage and thus use New Economy. But, I can live with “new economy”.

(2) You have switched a quote from the published GOI Mission Statement into the main body of text. Strictly, I do not think you should do that since it implies that the item is our own writing while it is actually that of a GOI employee. This invites a charge of plagiarism – although I guess that the chances of any such problem arising in this case is less than one in a million.

Once again, thankyou for the time and trouble you have taken. Bob BScar23625 16:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

ps. If you want to take a look at the Betelgeuse incident (current GAC), then your thoughts will be most welcome. Bob BScar23625 16:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tonicization article

Hi Tony1, I just wanted to introduce myself and thank you for the comments on the tonicization article. Since I'm somewhat new here, I'm not really sure what the appropriate forum is to respond to the in-line comments you left (I didn't even realize they were there until I accidentally happened upon a reference to them on Hyacinth's talk page). Anyhow, I have thoughts about your comments -- should I post them in the talk page for tonicization or where? Thanks, Jzmckay 10:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your dissertation

I am extremely interested in what the results of your doctoral dissertation were. As a musician, the process of "reading" music is something I have always wondered about - it's something so instinctual to musicians, but when you try to slow it down and analyze what you're doing, it blows your mind. Any links to the info? — ßottesiηi (talk) 18:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

No, you haven't bored me. I was really more interested in the bit about working memory, because when sight reading, you are almost reading ahead of what you are playing and.. well, despite that I am more than proficient at reading most types of musical notation, I can't really explain it, and thus I am interested in your results and findings. I am literally about to step out of the door and hit the road for a 2 day trip, so I'll see when I have the opportunity to reply. — ßottesiηi (talk) 15:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Who is "WE"

Howdy...that's western Amercian slang for hello, and no it aint proper English. I won't read my resume to you, but suffice it to say that I do have an education. Let me qualify further statements with this comment: I fully appreciate and respect your excellent efforts to help us make our featured articles much better than they are. I see you do this sort of thing for a living and that's great. I want to remind you of a few points and, well, I am going to end up looking like I am being obstinate, so I suppose this will essentially be a waste of time. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort...I have had almost no collaboration on the Redwoods article. The article was awful three weeks ago when I rewrote it, as history will indicate. It has improved a lot in the past few days, thanks in no small part to your advice. There is a way to be helpful without being snide, and therefore, my responses were in kind. Wikipedia is free; I make zero...with this in mind, perhaps it may be best to refrain from critiquing not only the articles but also others use of English in a manner which may appear to be insulting. In a nutshell, if you think the article is completely unworthy of FA status, I'll pull the nomination, but I would prefer if you continue to assist me and also examine the "diffs" I have made since your original comments on the article, and see if it conforms more to your expectations.--MONGO 01:41, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Glacier National Park (US) in which I had one other major contributor is featured, yet I recognize you had objections that were probably never satisfied. I wrote Shoshone National Forest from scratch, with help only while at FAC. Retreat of glaciers since 1850 was started by me and I did at least 70% of the article, which was also on the main page for Wikipedia. Redwoods was a zero basically, so maybe I brought it to FAC too soon, as it has only been three weeks. I completely disagree with you on this matter. I do not find the article to be substandard in any major way...it needs adjustments, yes, I can agree, but it is not nearly as lousy as you indicate. Aside from your opinion that the text isn't brilliant or compelling, does it fail any other criteria? We are talking about a factoid article, not a novel. What exactly is uncompelling aside from some possibly poor choice of words or prose? Have you seen this...[6]--MONGO 02:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

It appears that I will disagree with you on this matter, and bear in mind that we have our own POVs. There is a way to be critically pleasant, which is definitely something you need to work on. Your commentary at FAC is harsh and insulting and you seem to forget that this project is maintained by people that make not one cent...so constructive critique is appreciated of course, but snide commentary isn't. My guess is that an examination of Shoshone NF and the glacier article would have resulted in these also being below your par. These are factoid reference articles where the emphasis should always be on the quality of the information and its accuracy, than on brilliant prose. Doubtful more than a select few wikipedians are indeed capable of such quality work, as they would surely be making a living writing professsionally and not spending time on wikipedia. Looking over every FA we have currrently nominated, not one seems to pass your criteria. Regardless, I do assume good faith and do respect your opinion, I simply and utterly disagree with it.--MONGO 02:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Again, I agree that the bar should be a high one. I am not stating that I am to be exempt from having to write articles at a level equal to others. I view the criteria as soemthing slightly different than you do...I seek to provide knowledge and reliable witness and I don't emphasize sentence structure and prose at the level you demand...this is simply an opinion. Hoever, I do want my articles to be easy to read, interesting and informative. It states for criteria 2a. "well written" means that the prose is compelling, even brilliant I know I am not compelling or brilliant as a writer. I have read through over 30 FAs in the past few days and many of them are simply lousy. I feel mine are better than many I have read. I'll continue to search for someone that is a better editor than I to help me. Retreat of glaciers since 1850 went to FAC twice. The first nomination attempt helped us really improve this highly detailed article, whereby the second nomination was much better after substantive changes made. You'll notice my politeness...I always respond well to politeness. It was an infinitely more rigorous nomination process than redwoods or the other two I have worked on. In the second nomination, I clearly stated that the article was dry...but the evidence was compelling, even if the prose was mediocre. Can you show me an article you approve of that is currently featured so I can read it and work to improve my skills?--MONGO 10:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I looked those over since they are closer to your standards. They both appear decent, but I don't see what makes them written better. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. Thanks for your help.--MONGO 20:00, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] my 2a page

You're welcome. Reading your guide was a delight. I'll use it as a resource frequently. It's kinda funny, I had a bad attitude and did lousy in my school English classes. And here I am years later with the new hobby of trying to improve my substandard writing.

Proper referencing took a while for the comunity to embrace but now it's flourishing. I think Criterion 2a will require some time to root too. --Duk 18:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Albertosaurus

Thank you very much for your input on the FAC for Albertosaurus. As someone with a scientific background, I try to be very comprehensive in my articles and I am trained to obsessively reference everything I write, and I hope you agree that the article is comprehensive and well-referenced. However, I'm afraid I conform to the stereotype of a scientist who can't write that well. I realize that the two don't have to be mutually exclusive though, so I am working to improve my prose. To that end, your exercises and the information on your userpage have been extremely helpful. I already find myself copyediting my own articles in a different fashion than before this nomination, and that is a credit to your input. In the future I will be sure to focus on 2a prior to nomination. Thanks again. Sheep81 22:59, 10 June 2006 (UTC) - PS, thanks to the wonderful people at Cox Communications, I will not have Internet access this entire weekend. In fact I am at the library right now trying to salvage the nomination. I will try to check in here or at work, but there may be some delay before I can make alterations to the article for the next few days. So please don't be discouraged if I don't respond right away. Sheep81 23:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] edward FARC

In fact, at the end there was only one voice to remove. Original nominator haukur changed his mind about de-featuring it, mav and sam supported keeping it FA, and only Tony supported removal with nobody else contributing further. the necessary discussion time had elapsed, with little sign of further discussion, with consensus in favour of keeping. thanks. Niz 12:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hugo Chávez FARC

The psychology of music reading -- that is really fascinating (right up my son's ally). Would you mind having a new look at Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Hugo Chávez? I have only been on Wiki for about 3 months, so I'm not really clear on the procedural/policy issues with the new developments. (The article was reverted to an earlier version with no prior talk page discussion, and in a manner not conducive to the kind of good faith and consensus that had been evidenced prior to the revert.) I don't disagree that a revert may have been in order: I just don't know how to proceed with the FARC, considering that the article still has problems wrt FA status, that now need to be detailed anew. Also, the FARC nomination was from User:joturner, and we haven't heard his input (I will leave him a talk page message). TIA, Sandy 13:56, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Tony. I'm still new, but found that you are referring to WP:FAR, which allows for minor review, major review, and FARC. I wonder if it's appropriate to submit a minor or major review while it is still under FARC? Or if the correct procedure is to 1) wait and see if 172 and Wgee are going to fix the issues, and 2) wait and see the outcome of the FARC? Sandy 15:43, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks again. Glad to help but (newbie alert :-), can you point me to exactly where I should look for the list you're working on? I checked Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates, and didn't find a list you're working on? I've been concerned about Asperger syndrome, although I haven't checked it recently. Sandy 15:57, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Featured article comment

I just wanted to say something about the comments you made in Tikal's featured article comments:

  • Her character is described as 14 years old, 3 ft 1 in tall, and 52.8 lb in weight." "is described as"—who's doing the describing? Do we need to say this? Replace with "is"? Metric equivalents for 96% of humanity, please? "Her character" is then "The character" in the following sentence. Confusing. I fixed it.
  • "voice acting"—do you mean "voice-over"? Fixed.
  • "Moreover" is inappropriate as an agent of cohesion here. Ask me if you don't see this. I'm not sure where it is, so that's why I'm asking you.
  • I don't want to read in passing of "Pachacamac's power-hungry ways" in the lead without some prior mention of it. More logical treatment in the lead is required, or remove it and treat in the body of the article. Fixed.
  • "Tikal's role in the game, Sonic Adventure, is to show what happens thousands of years prior to the game and is the plot of it." The last five words go "clunk". Removed the "clunk" words.
  • "to stop all his fighting, stealing, and killing"—spot the redundant word. I put quotations around it to show that is what Tikal had said in the game.
  • I won't go on. This needs to be "compelling, even brilliant" to pass, no matter how many fans support the nomination here, or vote "Support" just because they like the topic. I would like to improve it to featured article status. What else is wrong?
  • It would be nice if the anonymous nominator bothered to register; there may be reason to communicate with this person one-to-one—you never know. I apologize for the inconvience of talking to an anonymous nominator. If you want to talk to me, you can respond here if you like.

--71.104.176.175 18:09, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: my 2a page

Geez, that is what happens when you go directly to the excercises! If by reading the context the joke is understood, please do keep it. Otherwise, maybe a sarcasm tag can be added (or even a sarcasm clarification pointing to my post in the talk page explaining that some don't understand the joke; I won't be offended at all!). I have been checking the peer reviews during a week, reading comments and suggestions, and improving the articles I am helping so that it can stand a review and a nomination for good article. If you have some time, could you drop by Goldmoon and check if you can find anything obscenely bad? I got some very useful comments by BrianSmithson (talk • contribs) in the talk page which helped me advance more when I found myself stuck. I noticed I have been changing my prose, and the latest article I worked on (Sturm Brightblade) is quite shorter than Goldmoon, but I think in some ways it is cleaner.

You seem to know some about writing articles, that is why I am being bold and asking for a small review. If you can't, don't worry, I understand :) Thanks in advance, and sorry for the obviousreport -- ReyBrujo 01:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Hehehe, that demonstrates I need more wikipedians to check spelling and grammar for me. As for FACs, it is not my intention to make these articles FACs, I plan on getting the skill for creating good articles by "practicing" with Dragonlance-related ones, and then focus on "real life" Argentinian articles. Thanks for your feedback, it was the redundancy example I needed to fully understand the concept. -- ReyBrujo 02:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I am a member of the WikiProject Argentina, although I haven't been contributing to it in the last months, where there are a couple of very active members. Once I am able to give more time to those articles, I will coordinate with them the edition of articles (or "overhauls" as I call them), to get at least one good article per week. I have a couple of argentinian friends who moved to USA when the riots in 2001 started, I am sure they will be able to check spelling and grammar if I request their help (I can't believe there isn't a WikiProject Syntax in charge of helping with that). Currently, I am focusing on fantasy novels because I am reading fantasy novels. -- ReyBrujo 02:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Australian Catholic University

G'day Tony, I was referred to you by Pentawing, who told me you might me able to help me out with the prose of this article. Compelling writing is not my forte If you have a spare moment it would be much appreciated. Cheers Soundabuser 05:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding your comments

I strongly object you blanket branding hard-working wikipedians who supported the IIT FAC as fan boys. Attacking other users and their opinions in this manner is simply mean-spirited and obnoxious. --Blacksun 00:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Image:Smile.png Tony 00:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments on FACs at Wikipedia 1.0

Tony,

I took a look at some FACs, and I see your point about 2a. I'm already very busy trying to help get a CD put together by the autumn, but I will try to help out from time to time (you can see I've already done so). I think it wastes everyone's time if we get a lot of substandard articles promoted, which then become FARCs. Keep up the good work, Walkerma 03:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Help on NHL

Hey Tony, Given your expertise in finding sentences which could be improved, I was wondering if you could take a look at the NHL page which I'm working, and give me suggestions on some sentences I could fix. I've looked at your 2a page, and while it's easy to see the problems you note on that page, it's harder to find the same problems on general prose, when it's not highlighted. Thanks again. -- Jeff3000 22:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] re: congrats

Thanks, and thanks for all the help you have given me over the articles I have gotten to featured. I really appreciate it. I have also started reading through your "passing 2(a)" article. It is really good, and helpful! I am starting to see where my main problems are. --liquidGhoul 12:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: your comment

What's that comment supposed to achieve? Take the caution at face value. I've stepped in to moderate.--cj | talk 15:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Please don't shit stir, Tony. The point is, you've overstepped the mark and I'm telling (yes, telling) you to tone it down. The behaviour you are demonstrating is not worthy of a Wikipedian, and if it continues, you may well find yourself on an enforced cooling off period. Thanks, --cj | talk 05:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Please don't blank comments.--cj | talk 05:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] spelling reform?

I followed the link to Systemic functional grammar on your user page, I haven't spent much time on it yet. Just wondering if you are interested in English Language spelling reform? Grumpyyoungman01 00:15, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ladakh copyedit request

Hi Tony. Could you go through the Ladakh article once, and make some improvements in the prose if possible? Copyediting does require the review of multiple editors, and I've gone through the text so many times that I have gotten too used to it to figure out what to do to improve it. Your contributions will be appreciated. deeptrivia (talk) 04:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attacks

Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by admins or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. -- enochlau (talk) 05:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] threats

Personal threats towards me on your own talk page, please. Tony 05:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blanking

Do not blank warnings.--cj | talk 05:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: your comment

Nobody has threatened you; you have been warned of what consequences your behaviour will warrant if it persists. The phrase I used is both common and legitimate, and it aptly describes your postings to me. Thanks, --cj | talk 06:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: your comment

Wikipedia isn't censored, and neither are my comments to you. I'm afraid that these are the sort of messages one recieves when one doesn't follow the rules. The initial blanking, and now "archiving", of my (and Enochlau's) comments to you is thoroughly inappropriate and should cease immediately. If you dispute the warnings, do so in words, and do so civilly. To simply remove them, however, reeks of a cover up and is, to those who notice, cowardly. I can't see discussion between us as editors amounting to much, given your apparent grudge against me. Nevertheless, I'd note that I am happy to see you've returned to the featured articles process, where your imput is excellent and increasingly important as WP:FAC continues to morph into just another "ballot", rather than review. One article I'd like to know your thoughts on is O-Bahn Busway, which will hopefully be brought by its author, Michael, to FAC shortly.--cj | talk 06:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

You continue to deflect responsibility for your actions; the problem here has been with your behaviour (personal attacks, incivility, and ignorance of warnings), not mine. Your statements at Talk:Sydney Technical High School and to me here are evidence enough of where you stepped wrong. Moreover, I'm quite satisfied with how I've dealt with this circumstance and would have been happy to point to it.
Thanks for looking over the article. I think it's a wonderful topic for a featured article. Happy editing, --cj | talk 07:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request

Hi,

I request you not to get into debates with other editors over the IIT article. I have started making the changes per your suggestions (and applying logic wherever requiered and not pointed by you). Although I don't have good access to net back home, hopefully by the next week I will be able to satisfactorily copyedit per your standards. If you still feel the need, I will ask a few members of the Editorial Team to help me with it. BTW, I asked for your help after the FAC was passed and not during it. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 07:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/o/n/User_talk%7ETony1_Archive03_b714.html"