User talk:Tony1/Archive08

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Manual of Style improvements

Image:CopyeditorStar7.PNG The Copyeditor's Barnstar
To Tony, in recognition of the many hours you have dedicated to improving Wikipedia's Manual of Style. The new additions are clear, comprehensive, and carefully worked to reflect consensus. Thanks for all the work you do to improve the level of writing on Wikipedia! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


I concur! Many have tried before (without consensus) and failed. Congratulations on being the first to get everyone to agree on something.—MJCdetroit 16:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Endash question

Tony, Ceoil is traveling, so Outriggr and I are helping him sort out Triptych, May – June 1973. I added the endash to the article title. My read of WP:DASH is that we have to space the endash when the date elements surrounding the dash have spaces as in June 1973. Do I have that wrong? If so, I need to do several fixes for Ceoil. See my talk page. [1] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Tony (I was losing sleep over the idea that I may have messed up Ceoil's article). Both WP:DASH and WP:MOSDASH redirect to the right place (the dash section) for me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Tony, pls check this, and the others in the same section. By the same logic as above (on Ceoil's article), wouldn't those be spaced endashes? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FAC page clutter

FYI, [2]. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dave Lombardo

Hi Tony, I hope all is well. Did you get a chance to look at the writing of the article for Dave Lombardo, per my request via email? Just wondering. All the best. LuciferMorgan 19:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CBOTB FAC

Have I addressed your objections on the Chicago Board of Trade Building FAC?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 07:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template counterexample

Tony, Building of the World Trade Center might provide a better example for examining the functionality of the templates. It recently passed FAC and was on the mainpage (yet has a surprising number of MOS deficiencies—I came to the FAC on the heels of a lot of "I like it" Support, and made a feeble pass at mentioning the MOS issues). But, it uses no convert templates (looks like all are done manually). I'd wager I could use convert templates *correctly* and duplicate the text exactly. (Is the current text well written?) I suspect the current problems aren't templates, rather issues of copyediting and organization of the text. Another recent example is Scottish Parliament Building. If the text is well organized, it might not need to be littered with conversions anyway. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I fixed a few things there, but I don't see anything there that couldn't be handled correctly by a template if the editor chose that route. The advantage of the template is that 1) it does the math, and 2) it elimates the need to add non-breaking hard-spaces, which are hard to edit around. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cædwalla of Wessex FAC

Tony, if I understand your comment correctly, you are supporting the Cædwalla of Wessex FAC. It has one other support, and no opposes, and it's currently languishing at the bottom of the FAC page. I wondered if perhaps Raul, glancing down it, is spotting only the one support, and is waiting for more input. In case that's so, would you mind bolding your support on it? Thanks. Mike Christie (talk) 01:13, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Mike Christie (talk) 02:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Another request on Jackie Chan (FAC)

Good morning, I hope you are free? If you have some time, please take another look at the prose of Jackie Chan, it's been copyedited several times since you added the oppose. Are there any problems right now? If yes, please let me know.--Kylohk 01:56, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] U.S. --> US

Confused, to be sorted out later. I thought MOS had switched U.S. to US? [3] Also, the MOS still has one mention of U.S. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FACs of VC for NZ and Cunningham

I have now replied to your comments on both the FAC of Andrew Cunningham, 1st Viscount Cunningham of Hyndhope and also on the FAC for Victoria Cross for New Zealand. My statements on the Cunningham page are, for the most part, applicable to the VC page as well.

With regards to your comment "commas would make for easier reading" I don't think that this is neccessarily the case. Excessive commas halt the flow of the article. If you could give specific examples of cases where you think it would be beneficial then please let me know.

I would appreciate any further comments on both nominations. Thanks Woodym555 15:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Just reiterating my request for further comment on the FAC for Victoria Cross for New Zealand. The question on the page is still unanswered. With regards to the Cunningham article, it is being reviewed by an outside party who has made suggestions that are being acted on. Thanks again for your time. Woodym555 22:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Could you please look over the two articles in question. I understand that you are busy in real life, but i would really appreciate these FACs moving on. (VC for NZ is short and shouldn't take long to review) Thanks Woodym555 10:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Thankyou very much for all your help and for your thorough reviews!! Thanks again. Woodym555 16:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Just when you thought you had heard the last from me! Andrew Cunningham, 1st Viscount Cunningham of Hyndhope has been restarted. When you have the time could you please comment on it? If time doesn't permit, don't worry. Someone will be along eventually!! Thankyou in advance. Woodym555 19:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] US, US

"could we avoid 'US, US' by changing the second to 'imperial', or using the same word order as for the subsequent point?"

I'd say "No, yes."—seeing as imperial and US units are two different beasts; e.g. six of their pints are only about five of ours—but a word-order shuffle would do the trick. Jɪmp 02:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WT:MOS

I think you may have left this comment in the wrong section. — The Storm Surfer 10:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hyphens

Tony, if you're still around, pls check this edit to WP:HYPHEN. In trying to sort out how to deal with the hyphens at CBOTB, I found the MOS contradicted itself. I hope I got it right. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Peru

Hello, thanks for your comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Peru. Since you made them the article has undergone some major copyediting by Calliopejen1 and me. Could you check it again before you leave? Hopefully it has improved enough for you to support it. Greetings, --Victor12 14:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bob Meusel

Hi Tony, can you do me a favor, I'm close to making Bob Meusel an FA, can you do a quick copyedit if you can. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 22:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks anyways Jaranda wat's sup 04:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Brackets question

Hi Tony1. Could you help me? I am uncertain about the manual of style regarding brackets in the following sentence:

Trish Stratus (born Patricia Anne Stratigias (IPA: [strætɛˈdʒiːʌs]) on December 18, 1975)…

To me, it doesn't seem right to have parentheses inside another set of parentheses. Can you please restructure the line so it is correct? Thank you for your time. - Deep Shadow 10:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Cool. I'll give it a try. Thanks. - Deep Shadow 06:22, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Inversion (music)

Hi Tony, just to let you know, I've offered to take over mediation of the above dispute, when you've got a spare moment, can you pop over to the above page and let me know if it's OK that I mediate? Thanks, Ryan Postlethwaite 07:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] William Shakespeare FAC

Hi Tony. Would you care to review the William Shakespeare FAC? The article failed in the previous FAC because of prose and citations. During the preivous review, qp10qp decided to take on the article, writing new sections and reorganising it. Tom Reedy joined us later and helped with copyediting, often by adding material sourced from scholarly works. I have been active since the previous FAC, mostly in copyediting. qp10qp apparently esteems you very highly. RedRabbit 12:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Headings

I was under the impression that headings with only one subheading were to be avoided as they are in academia. However, I can find nothing to support this view on Wikipedia. Did I hallucinate this, or is this situation of one subheading under a heading to be avoided? Sincerely, Mattisse 20:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Of the current FAC, the following articles have one or more:

Mattisse 12:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, next I'd like to know precisely what the disadvantage is in this structure. I'm not convinced either way yet. Tony 12:25, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

As an academician with an undergraduate degree in English Literature and a graduate degree in a field that emphasized research, I was taught this was poor form. Why have a one if there is no two? I realize this is not a university. However, I believe in most cases where this occurs, the information under the subheading can be subsumed under the heading and the subheading in these cases is redundant. Mattisse 13:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My note on summer and winter

Sorry about putting my note in the wrong place, and thanks for telling me the right one. —JerryFriedman 03:59, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Peru

Hello, glad to see you're back. Thanks for your comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Peru. The article has undergone some serious copyediting since then and I think your concerns have been addressed. If you have some time, please give another look to the article. Greetings. --Victor12 18:46, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Geology of the Bryce Canyon area

Long, north-south-trending faults, such as the nearby Sevier and the Paunsaugunt, were created (some may have been reactivated) between the plateaus.[2] ...

  • ... north–south-trending ?? hyphens, dashes? Mav says it's ready (at FAR). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. More eyes on autism wouldn't hurt. It's really come along from what was a diseaster, so even better would be if you just ce'd anything you're concerned about :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:20, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Nice :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:29, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Isle of Portland FAC

Thanks for your notes on where the article failed Criterion 1a. I have checked for other instances of what you noticed in the entire article, rephrasing and correcting sentences which weren't right. I'm just checking the article again now for any other things. However I don't know what you mean by ", and" ... ", and". Rossenglish 10:13, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Cheers for clarifying. If you do notice anything else add it to the FAC page! =) Rossenglish 11:04, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Could you update your position on the FAC please? If you still oppose then you can leave it as it is :) Regards, Rossenglish 15:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Page ranges

Tony, see discussion on my talk page, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cranmer

Your suggestions were of great value. Please send more. Your professional expertise in copyediting could really help us get this article to the next level. My degree is in Speech/Com, so I am not surprised you spotted somethings I had missed! -- SECisek 21:30, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion. Please check the article again in a day or so as I will see that it gets the attention it needs ASAP. -- SECisek 06:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] None -- singular vs. plural

Tony, I didn't want to post this on the Ine FAC page, since it's a bit of a digression, but I wanted to respond on one point of grammar you raised. You say that "none" should always take a singular. Some introspection led me to doubt this, so I searched online till I found an authority I trusted who commented on this. Take a look at this page, and tell me what you think. Michael Quinion works for the OED, and I regard him as pretty reliable. Of course even if you agree, it might be the case that "none" should take a singular in the specific sentence I wrote, though I don't think so myself -- I think the sense is "none (of these coins that may exist) have yet been found". Anyway, I thought you'd be interested, and I'd like to know if you feel Quinion is wrong on this. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk) 13:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I'd asked Outriggr to copyedit, since he's helped me before, but he seems to have gone off-wiki for now. I'll ask Geogre or my wife to pick it up if not; and if Raul does promote, as he may, since there are a couple of supports, I'll try to get it done anyway. Mike Christie (talk) 13:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Interesting site; I might add it to my 1a page list of references. Unsure now about "none"; I'd still go with the singular in most cases, though. Tony 13:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
With mass nouns, you have to use the singular. ("None of the wheat is...") With count nouns, you can use either the singular or the plural. ("None of the books is..." or "None of the books are...") Usually, the plural sounds more natural, unless you're trying to emphasize the idea of "not one", or if the words that follow work better in the singular. ("none is" vs. "none are") RedRabbit 16:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
The American Heritage Dictionary also has an interesting discussion. RedRabbit 16:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Thx; will consult. Tony 00:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vkhutemas

Thanks for your review Tony - I've given it another 'thrice over' [4] and hopefully fixed your comments to your satisfaction. Would you care to take another look? --Joopercoopers 13:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Would you give me some actionable ideas regarding what I should do to move your 'cautious neutral' to a 'support'? Thanks --Joopercoopers 08:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History of Stoke City F.C. FAC

Cricketgirl has given the article a copy-edit since you opposed it, as it did not meet Criterion 1a. Would you like to reconsider your decision perhaps? Thanks. Dave101→talk  19:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Apologies for my hassling but have you had another look yet? I would really appreciate it if you did because the FAC has been very quiet recently. Dave101→talk  17:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History of Baltimore City College FAC

Thanks for your comments on this article. As a result of your comments, I undertook a copy-edit of this article. I was wondering if you would be willing to take a look and see whether or not sufficient progress has been made. Thanks, Golem88991 04:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I have addressed the MOS issues that you brought up, but I am unsure how to improve the overall quality at this point. Any suggestions? Thanks, Golem88991 15:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Power of Nightmares FAC

I have attempted to remedy the issues you brought up at The Power of Nightmares's FAC. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 16:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The infobox I can't fix. That's just how it formats the dates. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 17:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE: your comments at Attack on Sydney Harbour's FAC

Although Attack on Sydney Harbour has been promoted to FA, I just want to ask and see if your points of opposition in the FAC have been addressed, and if not, what else needs to happen to improve the article further. -- saberwyn 01:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FA review for Alan Kippax

Thanks for your review, it is much appreciated. I have addressed your concerns about the article's quotations, en & em dashes and references. I have also rearranged the links in the first paragraph to reflect the difference between New South Wales the state and the NSW cricket team. However, I am unsure about your first point, ie. the use of the phrase "during the era between the two World Wars". Could you please clarify the problem and perhaps suggest a solution at User talk:Phanto282 and I will deal with it ASAP. Cheers Phanto282 07:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tony. I have reduced the number of links at your suggestion. Thanks again for your time. Phanto282 02:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Your comment on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/SR West Country and Battle of Britain Classes

Thank you for discovering that little mistake, which has now been rectified. If you wish to continue to review the article, then please do so.--Bulleid Pacific 08:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FACS

Hi Tony, would it not be helpful to add links to the obscure parts of the WP:MOS? only a suggestion! On a related topic, what does MOS breach title case in titles mean, i think i have rectified your problem, please do check. The same goes for the non-sentence captions one. I am however, having difficulty in locating the breach for the measurements. Could you please enlighten me?

Are the commas the only problem you have with the Cunningham article because i will take it to the WP:LOCE if it is. Thankyou Woodym555 14:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I had thought it would be a clever way to make people scrutinise the MOS, but i do accept that time pressures can play a part! I have now fixed the mm, g and i found kg as well. I do wish for a conclusion to the Cunningham FA soon as it has been dragging on and i can't see anything that should inhibit it becoming an FA. Featured articles do not have to be absolutely perfect, (just very close) and there should always be scope for continual improvement. Thankyou for sticking with them thus far. Woodym555 15:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request

Thanks for your view on the triptych article; none of your points were obvious to me. At the risk of pushing my luck, can you review [5]. I'd like it to be as good as it could be. I give you licence to be ruthless. Ceoil 02:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC

Your support means a hell of a lot to me. I'll fix thoes, thanks for the look. Ceoil 06:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
No worries. Ceoil 06:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Though and although

Hey Tony. Do you have any preference on these terms? I think they're both perfectly acceptable but it's one of those internal diction debates I'd like to decide on. Marskell 17:57, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


My personal preference, and that of my desktop US Encarta dictionary, is for although in formal contexts, such as WP articles. Here's what Encarta says on the matter:

USAGE Although and though are interchangeable in the senses listed above, the only difference being that use of though tends to be less formal than that of although. In formal writing, although tends to sound better than though as the opening word of a sentence. Some uses of though, however, are not interchangeable with although—e.g., adverbial uses (it was nice of him to phone, though) and uses in conjunction with ‘as’ or ‘even’ ( | she doesn't look as though she's listening).

I add al when I'm copy-editing. In 20 years, though might well have taken up the formal sense, too, but for the time being, it looks better, IMV. Tony 01:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, that follows my intuitive sense. I tend to add al as well because it feels formal but not entirely consistently, as I wonder if I'm changing what isn't wrong. I was staring at Titan (moon) half the day yesterday and noticed editors there tended toward 'though.' I think I shall change it. Marskell 05:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FA Review of Charles Ives

Charles Ives has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Mrprada911 08:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Asperger syndrome

<grumble, grumble> I'm not yet sure if the article is stable; my past attempts to correct the issues were reverted, but hopefully that has subsided. I hate to ask you to copyedit in the event new text is reverted, and I'm not sure it's worth it, but if you're interested in ceing in bits and pieces and have time to spend on it, I rewrote the History section yesterday and was planning to work my way up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Tony, in the Table in my sandbox, how do I punctuate and capitalize (or not) the list of six items after "Asperger's Disorder is defined in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) by six main criteria:" ? No hurry. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. Not sure what to do about the "delay"; they say "delay in language", but "delay in cognitive development". Here's the DSM wording. I don't think we can change the DSM wording. What an exhausting article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you SO much, Tony. I put some feedback here. Comorbids through the end of the article should be done now, and I'll be adding in the Diagnosis section later today. I asked Eubulides to have a look at Epidemiology, since that seems to be his field, but I haven't heard from him yet. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

What do I do about the list of Chromosome numbers (per WP:MOSNUM) at User:SandyGeorgia/Sandbox2#Causes? I still need to link them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:51, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think they need to be numerals, but then when I link them to the chromosome articles, they'll look weird: 1, 2, 3 ... if I switch them to numbers, that will also be weird, since I don't think chromosomes are used that way. Maybe I should just not link them? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
I think they should be linked, and they look just fine (non-weird!). Tony 02:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
OK, thanks, I'll do that. (I am so sick of this article.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

On the copyediting, I've been holding off asking you because it would make me furious/crazy if you did a lot of work and then the article became unstable. I think there are enough editors on board that we can consider it stable. Causes is still in my sandbox, Classification and Characteristics haven't yet been touched, and I'm hoping Eubulides will rewrite Epidemiology (although the sub-section Comorbidities is done). So, from Diagnosis on down, everything is rewritten except Epidemiology and Causes, which is in my Sandbox and I'll move it in tomorrow. I haven't paid any attention to wikilinking because it's not clear that the section ordering won't change, so I'm going to do that last. Anything you want to work on, at your own pace, would be spectacular. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

That was a beautiful ce ! I hope it wasn't torture (translation, I hope my writing has improved somewhat in the last year :-) Don't forget, Causes is not in the article yet; it's in my sandbox. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
You are far too kind: it's just a formula. Tony 03:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I resolved the copyedit inline queries that I could; the rest came from Eubulides' text that I cribbed from autism, so I asked him to look at them. Have a look at my edit summaries to see if I addressed your concerns (not all that is inattention is ADHD. An example I'm familiar with is that one can look inattentive when one is distracted by tics even if there is no ADHD). Also, I moved Causes into the article now. Thanks !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:42, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what to do about EQ SQ theory at Asperger syndrome#Causes. Empathasizing-systemizing or empathising-systemising. The article uses American English, the literature about EQ-SQ is mixed, but it appears (not sure?) that Baron-Cohen originally named it with British English. What do I do? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:27, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

AmEng, unless in a non-US quote. Zeds must be used. Tony 00:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks (although I just found out I wasted your time. Seems it's a fringe theory, given undue weight in the article, and should be deleted anyway.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm done with 3 of the 4 sections of User:SandyGeorgia/Sandbox2#Characteristics, and will write Speech and language maybe tomorrow night. I've also asked Eubulides to have a look. Oh my gosh, I'm so sick of this, but the end is in sight; with all this work, I have no intention of letting this article decay again as it did over the last year. That's all I can do for today. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

ahhhh, at last, done with the last piece at User:SandyGeorgia/Sandbox2#Speech_and_language. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Ohmigosh, we are almost there ! That remaining piece of Characteritics is in my Sandbox, and I've started a draft lead there, which Cas liber has approved. I don't want you to spend time on it until I know Eubulides and others accept it; if/when they do, it will be ready to ce and move to the lead. Then I can do final wikilinking, etc. The end is in sight!!! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Tony, really great stuff; we should end up with a fine article. A few things: the "aim to ameliorate" on treatment is casliber's and he really wants it. If we need to adjust it on the final runthrough, we should discuss on article talk. Eubulides wants to stick with ASDs as that is the term used most often in the literature (I'm going to go through the rest of the article to make sure we're clear on PDD vs. ASD). There are some times when we have to use "children" rather than "individuals" or whatever, because we're talking about developmental stages, such as when children acquire language. New version in my sandbox reflects Eubulides' input, and once we've moved everything to the article, we'll be ready for the final pass in a few days from now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Grrrr ... too busy on AS, this is what passes FAC. Nobody even bothers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

For gosh sakes, at least eight of the last 12 promoted had MOS breaches User:SandyGeorgia/FAs for review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chris Young FAC

I believe I have addressed your concerns. You have not noted a change in your opposition to Chris Young (pitcher). Do you still oppose?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 21:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your support. You should note I have converted Chris_Young_(pitcher)#Career_statistics section to icons following what is going on with Barry Bonds. I hope this change is kosher, but will revert if this is an inappropriate use of copyrighted imagery. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 19:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SI

Tony, You said "If this proposal is to move forward, it will have to be raised at MOS as well.". What does this actually mean? Should I do it? Should you? Should someone else? I've used wikipedia for a year and edited a number of articles but this is my first effort in doing something in the Manual of Style. I really want to push this as hard as I can and get as much support as possible. Regards, Jim (from Hobart) Jim77742 04:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Witold

Hello, Tony. You helped me contribute to the Lutoslawski article. The canned message below may or may not interest you; the FAR nomination was not by me, even though I know the article is not perfect! :-)

Witold Lutosławski has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. --RobertG ♬ talk 11:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Y2K fix ?

Pls follow discussion at User talk:Daveknell, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] India page

Hi Tony, Since the India page is modeled on the Australia page (at least in Nichalp's description) and since you have experience with the latter page, I wonder if you'd like to weigh in on the discussion here. Yesterday, out of the blue, user:Blnguyen, who has no history of editing the India page, made a post suggesting that the article be expanded to twice its current size. His post has created confusion on the page, prompting various people into voicing their various idiosyncratic schemes for expansion. Nichalp is busy and seemingly unreachable. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Yeah, the military section was added late last year by some editors who felt strongly about its inclusion. I'm afraid the Indian elite seems preoccupied with these issues. Meanwhile, 14 million poor people with no social security or insurance lose what little their have in floods. The NY Times reported the other day that most Indian newspapers have been eerily silent on the subject of the recent floods. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mary FAC?

We think we've addressed your comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mary: A Fiction, but you haven't said anything for over a week. Is there something else we can do, or have we satisfied your opposition? --AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] William Claiborne

I am probably responsible for the endash over use in William Claiborne as I am not sure what the rules are. And please don't tell me to go read MoS, as I am one of those people with some sort of dyslexia that cannot make much sense of it. My head starts to spin. Sorry if I caused problems in the article. Regards, Mattisse 14:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I cannot get the article William Claiborne to load so what is there will have to do. I was going to at least undo my edits but I cannot get the article. Sorry! Regards, Mattisse 16:36, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Looking at my watchlist, it did save some version of what I was trying to undo. For some reason the FAC's are always hard to find and hard to load and hard to comment on! I'm done with it. Too stressful. Regards, Mattisse 16:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] eye tracking merge

You're welcome! Shawnc 03:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks mate, have a cookie! Tim Vickers 13:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks mate, have a cookie! Tim Vickers 13:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyedit request

Hi Tony, I've been working on the article Economy of ancient Tamil country for a while now. The article recently had a peer-review, where one of the comments was to make the prose flow tighter and fix possible copyedit problems. I tried to fix some of it myself, but an expert hand is really needed now. I request you to help with the prose and other issues in the article, when you get a chance. It would also be great if you could leave your comments about what else is needed to make it an FA. Thanks. Lotlil 13:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback on the article. A couple of other cpeditors have also given me some feedback. Once I address all of your concerns, I will leave you a note again to have another look. Thanks. Lotlil 14:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History of Baltimore City College

I was wondering if you would take a look at this article and leave comments on how the prose can be improved, possibly so that it can be renominated as an FAC. Thanks, Golem88991 16:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A request for a brief look at the prose of Rob-B-Hood

Hello,

After the successful promotion of Jackie Chan to featured status, I've been working on one of his films Rob-B-Hood. I'd be grateful if you could have a brief look at the prose and identify any possible problems before I nominate it some time later on the peer review page. Thanks in advance.--Alasdair 03:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC) (formerly Kylohk)

[edit] The 'on' word

There is a further inconsistency involved. See Wikipedia:Embedded citations (and Talk page), which is not consistent with WP:CITE. Ben MacDui (Talk) 09:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MOS

I was just correcting a typo, it originally had a masculine ordinal indicator. (there's a reason I linked it in the edit summary) --Random832 15:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] PaddyLeahy and PatLeahy

PaddyLeahy and I (PatLeahy) opposing each other at MOS Dates and Numbers was purely a coincidence. If you look at his edit history you will see he has a long history of interest in scientific articles and my history of template edits show my interest in providing unit conversions. The only thing any one is guilty of here is my copping his style of capitalizing the L the username when I noticed him doing it. -- PatLeahy (talk) 06:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your recent edits

Hi, there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button Image:Wikisigbutton.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 14:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My recent change of MOSNUM

Hey there. I've responded on my talk page. — Coren (talk) 16:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Authoritative approach in guidelines

I'm getting flak for including the authoritative approach in a guideline (instead of words like "should be", etc.). You might want to leave a comment about this at WT:FICT. I do agree that such an approach is probably too intense for a mere guideline...— Deckiller 21:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bob Meusel

I was wondering if you would be willing to weigh in on this one. You and I are the only ones that have made any comments and it would be a shame if it closed with no more than that. You seemed to like it. The nominator/editor is a little discouraged, judging from his post on the FAC page. And he he about to go on wikibreak due to work. Personally, I think it is a beautiful little article if modest. Regards, --Mattisse 03:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Past tense question

Hi Tony, quick question for you—what's your opinion on using the conditional as a past tense? For example, some text from History of American football: "Davis's methods worked, and in 1966, the junior league forced a partial merger with the NFL, when it was agreed that the two leagues would have a common draft and play in a common season-ending championship game, known as the AFL-NFL World Championship. Two years later, it would change its name to the Super Bowl."

I don't have a problem with the "would" in the first sentence, but the one in the second sentence I feel should be removed and the phrasing modified to "it changed". I've seen this construction several times and feel that it's redundant, but I thought I'd ask for your thoughts on the subject. Thanks! --Spangineerws (háblame) 03:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

You're absolutely spot-on. Tony 06:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:MOSNUM and consistency

I'm not sure where you think the MOS insists on consistency of units of measurement. Mangoe 13:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

It's glaringly obvious in the opening paragraph. Tony 13:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Style-guideline

Boys, talk. It. Out. You are both top-notch editors. Don't make me do the lockdown thing. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

  • What gives you the impression that MOS entries have an authority and a status? >Radiant< 14:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
    • This needs to be discussed at the talk page of MOS and/or the template, not here. You seem to think you can impose a major change on the whole system unilaterally. I will not allow this to happen without consensus. Tony 14:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
      • OK: is there a disposition for discussion here, from all those involved? I would rather not have to protect this. By the way, Tony, all admins are bound by policy to protect whichever version the page is in. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
        • Well, if it is locked as is, it won't be my doing. I'm recusing myself on this one. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Tony - no, this is not a major change on anything, and neither is it unilateral. I'm kind of wondering why you think it is such a big change when it clearly isn't, and I'm likewise wondering if you actually object to the change, or just to the apparent lack of discussion. >Radiant< 14:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
      • If you think it's not a major change, why are you so keen to revert? That's rubbish. It is outrageous that these arrogant people are attempting to make a premeditated wholesale change in the status of MOS without the slightest consensus. Clearly, the proposal MUST be discussed at the talk page first, as for any other proposal for major change. This practice of launching in and changing policy text without discussion is Manderson's established modus operandi; a lot of people are sick of it. Tony 14:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
        • Like I asked before, what gives you the impression that MOS entries have an authority and status? Your every argument (and apparent outrage) seems to stem from your apparent assumptions that MOS pages are set in stone, may not have exceptions, and must not be treated with common sense. I am wondering whence you got these misconceptions. Other than that, I do not know Manderson, but I would appreciate your leaving ad hominems out of this. >Radiant< 14:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
          • I'm NOT discussing it here. YOU need to raise it at talk, and gain the consensus yourself. Don't pour your rubbish on my talk page. This is NOT going to go away. Tony 14:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
            • So in other words, you are refusing to explain your reasoning, and you are refusing to consider that you may in fact be wrong. Okay, that's very helpful. This is not a big change, and it has been explained several times why it isn't. I have an inkling why you're making such a big deal out of it, but nonetheless the big deal is misguided. >Radiant< 14:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Are you DEAF? It is way out of line to make the change WITHOUT SEEKING CONSENSUS ON THE TALK PAGE. Not here, not on your talk page. You need to involve OTHER EDITORS. Tony 14:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Radiant, since it seems you were trying to reflect the wording in Template:Guideline, I brought that in, and hope that covers it. The "clumsy, inaccurate" verbiage was really unnecessary, confusing and condescending (I suspect PMAnderson probably wrote that as it's typical of his writing, although I didn't check). I hope this is a reasonable compromise that at least leans in the direction of satisfying everyone, but that "clumsy, inaccurate" type prose is really gosh-awful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bob Meusel

Hi Tony, can you explain this edit for me. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup Sports! 18:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Tentative support only, because I didn't have time to do a detailed review again. I saw things like 6-foot 3-inch frame, unconverted (I know it's clumsy, but I genuinely don't know what that is, beyond, I guess, that it's just pretty tall). Is slugging a formal word? I'm unsure. Sounds more like a term you'd use in sports journalism. Why not merge the two tiny bookend sections into one biographical section? Awkward structure as is. 4–0 requires an en dash (MOS; and there are other examples with hyphens, too). Tony 01:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I fixed the slugging and the frame issue, I'll fix the dashes tommorrow, the issue is that it seems that you supported in the wrong place (in Mattisse comment). Can you fix that. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup Sports! 01:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality

No problem; I'm here to help.

I would like the MOS to be closer to what Fowler often does: an effort to explain the alternatives and their advantages. We cannot, and should not, attempt his spirited and idiosyncratic judgments; we are a collectivity, not an individual. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question about punctuation

Hi there. How are you? I notice that you are a professional editor, so you may be the one most-suitable to answering my question. When using quotation marks, where should the comma and period go? I know that some punctuation marks, like the question sign and semi-colon et al, go outside of the quotation mark, unless they are apart of the quote. But does the same rule apply to commas and periods?

I'm a self-proclaimed grammar freak, so I did a little research. Two of my favourite books, 100 Ways to Improve Your Writing (Gary Provost) and On Writing Well (William Zinsser), as well as a couple online sources, owl.english.purdue and grammartips.homestead.com, state (or imply) that commas and periods always go inside.

One may think that this should give me all the answer that I need, but I'm still unsure. It's convention on Wikipedia to place the commas and fullstops outside the quotation marks (as per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Quotation_marks), much to my annoyance. Also, a few others have told me that the marks go outside.

What's your opinion? (PS: Sorry for stretching this question beyond its limits. I wanted to be thorough ;).) Orane (talk) 06:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Not being North American, I put the final punctuation outside the quote marks, unless it's part of the quote (except, by convention, in direct dialogue in fictional registers). It's the only logical thing to do, and US style guides should get over it and move on, in my view, Chicago included. I was pleasantly surprised to find that WP uses the so-called logical format. However, it irritates a lot of American editors, who don't see the benefits. I strongly recommend that you follow MOS on this. Tony 08:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm American, and I use a mix of AmEng and BrEng. My business writing teacher was confused :) — Deckiller 10:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
While some North Americans use the logical style (I can't remember the publications that do, but there are a few), it causes tension. Tony 10:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Warning

Calling people Nazis is uncalled for under any circumstances. I suggest you withdraw your remarks. If you cannot behave civilly and persist in making personal attacks, you will be blocked from editing. >Radiant< 11:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attack concerns

With regard to your comments on Wikipedia talk:Build the web: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. I'll freely admit that I didn't read the entire context of the discussion that took place between you and Radiant! (t c), but no amount of context or provocation can justify you using the term "Nazi" to describe a fellow editor. I'd suggest using preview and waiting a few minutes before hitting submit when you're replying to an editor who's made you angry. Also, remember that any comments about your fellow editor's behavior will typically come across as an ad hominem and potentially reduce the face value of the point you're trying to make. --Darkwind (talk) 12:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Well that's a nice, polished text that would have done its job well. However, I withdrew the comment, so what you're saying is quite irrelevant. And this does nothing to address the extreme behaviour of Radio. And if you had read the whole of the discourse, you'd have realised that it did indeed involve this person's behaviour, far beyond an issue of encyclopedic content. Tony 12:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Looks like somebody failed to read WP:DTR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I took some time to read over the discussion, and I agree with Radiant's concerns about your behavior, as well as Darkwind's use of the NPA2 warning. You did a good job initially of voicing your concerns about the policy/guideline, but when you were met with resistance, you began to tell the other editors how "offensive" you find them (particularly Radiant, though to my eye, Rossami has said more to dispute your claims than Radiant has). While you did retract two of your personal attacks (good for you!), I believe you are still in violation of WP:CIVIL on this matter - there are better, more civil ways to discuss the situation than the route you've apparently taken.
I do agree that in some cases, official WP policies and guidelines do not appear to be very clear or address all the issues that they need to. Keep in mind that it IS a difficult process to change them, though - consensus discussions occurred years ago on those policies and have long since been archived, so it makes it difficult to find them. But attacking other editors in any way, shape or form is not going to help your cause.
I'd advise you to make sure you're familiar with WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and WP:COOL, step back from the discussion (and certainly do not threaten to be in a "protracted battle" with anyone), and come back when you're in a calmer state of mind. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for bothering, but this misses the main point, which is the offensive behaviour of Radium. Registers a nil, I'm afraid. Tony 23:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I do not see a pattern of offensive behavior by Radiant, beyond some minor things which I have advised him/her on (like citing Godwin's Law). If you have some specific issues with Radiant, I encourage you to post links to the relevant diffs and describe what you feel is uncivil and offensive about them. A Wikiquette Alert has been opened to discuss this dispute - feel free to participate, and we'll attempt to mediate. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Courtesy notification: I have raised this issue at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Admin_Radiant.21. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Block

It now appears that my whole ISP has been blocked; this is an unfortunate coincidence, coming in the middle of a dispute. I can edit this page, but no other. I therefore reply here that I have a suspicion that Radian has been stalking me with the intention of provoking disputes with me and trying to have me blocked on that basis. I may be reading too much into his/her actions, since I've been apprised that Radian routinely guards/maintains/controls some of our tags—specifically, the "private reflections" and "dispute" tags that I've recently posted and had reverted multiple times by Radian. I find his edit summaries particularly offensive.

Radian has indicated extreme discomfort at my analysis of his strategies at the gender-neutral language debate at MOS talk. S/he clearly does not like to be exposed in this way. I'm sorry to have been so direct in that analysis, but I felt the deceptive techniques (as I perceive them) needed to be discussed in the open. Others at the gender-neutral have been put off by R's comments (e.g., "kettle", on the talk page of the proposal).

So it appears that I've stupidly fallen into a trap. That is why I find it hard to take the posts above seriously. I'll just have to avoid Radian for the time being when it comes to those tags. Tony 02:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Tony, please use an Unblock Request template to request that you be unblocked. The block message should give you some information on how to do this. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 05:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks; it was kindly handled by BenB4 and ChickBowen. Tony 05:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gender

Hi Tony. Sorry if I'm more trouble than I'm worth, given the little dust-up with Hoary. (The weird part is that we hold the same opinion on singualar they!) I thought my advocacy of gender neutral was full-throated on WT:MOS, so I've done that much. Perhaps we should shorten it: two or three crisp sentences. Perhaps we should lengthen it: a full page guideline, as we have with WP:LEAD. Dunno. I will say that these issues are going to continue to be here, so it's not wrong of you to bring it up. But there's a lot that interlocks here, so it it may not be done tomorrow. Marskell 21:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

On that same thread, looks like it's a bit of a raw nerve for some (I guess older but who knows) editors. Gwen Gale 06:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tony1, I have responded to your comments on my talk page User A1 08:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Yo Tony, doesn't the latest Great Debate have its hilarious moments?

One writer says: singular they not only should this not be suggested, it should be depreciated. As for as i'm concerned, I'd go further and say its forbidden, but not all will agree.

Pity he didn't throw in singular you for good measure. Or maybe move to have three-time perps of singular they blocked for 24 hours. I was going to comment on this wackiness, but "Stanselmdoc" (of "another side, like me, finds GNL to be nothing but offensive" fame) has already done it for me. Viz:

It is utterly ridiculous to ask editors to avoid a properly grammatical language that some have become so accustomed to using in intellectual settings (which is what I thought an encyclopedia - even one like WP - was supposed to be).

Quite. If "singular they" really is too much of an abomination for some of the [stylistic] palaeoconservatives who populate those talk pages, then the guideline can simply omit any mention of it. Gosh, it will then be The Pronoun That Dares Not Speak Its Name. People free of the baleful influence of Strunk and White's risible Elements book (see the Language Log, passim) can continue to use it, but with an extra frisson. -- Hoary 15:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Haha! I'd say they shouldn't ever be singular, it can too easily mislead. Gwen Gale 15:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Palaeoconservatives!!! I love it. Hoary, you do have a witty way. But on a serious note, at least one antagonist is so upset that he's listed me twice in one day on some Wiki-etiquette list; and he's having a proper go at Sandy, too. Phew. We'll keep standing as much as they want to blow the house down, but it's sickening. Tony 15:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

And he didn't have a go at me too? Aw, I feel left out of the club. . . . I have to go to bed, though I'm (metaphorically) kicking myself for my inability to come up with anything for this (without opening up any of the dozens of art books in the hoary household; that'd be cheating). -- Hoary 15:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to but in, I have not been following this at all, so if I have the wrong end of the stick - forfive me. In cases of doubt people are always referred to as "he" as this is flattering to their ego whatever their sex. Giano 21:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Idiot! Bishonen | talk 21:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC).
No Bishonen dear, you are quite wrong, an idiot can be of either sex. Giano 21:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Giano: you have a wry sense of humour! Tony 23:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: draft gender-neutral proposal

Yes, I think with the “Please consider” approach, that your proposed draft is generally acceptable. However, I’ve made some suggestions for a better flow which I’d appreciate your comments on. Cheers, Askari Mark (Talk) 15:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Good catch! Yes, its absence was in error and I've amended the proposed text accordingly. Cheers, Askari Mark (Talk) 18:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No animus

Hi, Tony. I wrote this post in the thread "Admin Radiant!" on WP:ANI, and was taken aback to find that Marskell thought it an expression of "animus" against you.[6] I certainly didn't intend it to be—I didn't mention you, and I didn't have you in mind. You and I don't think alike about everything, and we had a conflict a couple of centuries ago, but I hope that ancient history is forgotten on both sides. I appreciate the work you do, and appreciate very much the way you always speak pleasantly and considerately to me in the rebarbative FAC environment, where I'm not very comfortable. If I sounded like I was talking about you, and with animus, I'm sorry for it. Bishonen | talk 21:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Imperial units on solar system bodies

Hi Tony,

I've been working through removing imperial units on the solar system bodies articles and infoboxes. Have had full support so far. There have been some bizzare imperial conversions present. Density in lb/US gallon on Jupiter and lb/cubic ft on the Sun. Just weird stuff.

Anyway I want your thought on something. It sort of goes against the MOSNUM. When it comes to linking the first use of a unit (e.g. AU) there is no problem and it is quite clear. But should we link the first use of km, g, cm - the basic SI units? MOSNUM says yes but as someone has pointed out they are taught everywhere - even in non-metric countries. I'm happy either way, just want another opinion. Regards, Jim77742 09:07, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Tony1/Revised guidelines for autoformatting User:Tony1/How well do you know your Manual of Style? User:Tony1/FAC checklist for intending nominators Nominal group (language)