User talk:Tony1/Archive09

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Beyond Fantasy Fiction

Hi, Tony; I've had a crack at fixing the problems you identified at the Beyond Fantasy Fiction FAC. Would you mind having a look and letting me know what you think now? You mentioned there were more problems than you'd listed. I did already get a third-party copyedit on it, so I hope the prose is acceptable. Thanks -- Mike Christie (talk) 17:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bruno Maddox FAC

Tony, thanks for the comments. I addressed them all at WP:FAC as much as I could. If you have any further comments I'd appreciate hearing them. Actually, I wasn't able to fully comprehend how you wanted the first sentence changed. If you want to just make that edit yourself that would be great. Best, BillDeanCarter 22:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey. thanks for the reply at FAC. Let me know if you have any more comments.-BillDeanCarter 20:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] See also

Tony, nice work on the SIP article. I've made some changes to the see also sections of some of the other articles you modified (spot welding, robot welding, and welding) because the links put in see also sections ought to be included in the article itself. I think it's like putting "etc." at the end of a list of things—either something is important enough to mention, or it isn't. All of these articles include links in the article body that allow the reader to get to more general subjects, so I feel that most of the see also links you added aren't necessary. But we need to figure out the best way to add SIP links to the article text to make it easily accessible for the interested reader. --Spangineerws (háblame) 20:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Ta; I do think that arc and spot welding might include brief mention of SIP, since it's one of the few significant technologies to have impacted on them in the past half century. Warning: I'm an amateur aficionado, so please don't assume I know much about the maths or the algorithm. Thanks for checking it. Will be pleased for your subsequent review after a week or so. Tony 01:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 7 World Trade Center - FAC

Thanks for reviewing the 7 World Trade Center article and providing feedback. Copyediting has been done to the first section and the lead section. We are working on copyediting the rest.

The MOS and your note about use of decimal places is not clear to me. Use of decimal places seems to depend on context. I have identified where decimal places are used and what I think could be rounded and what should not be. If you can give me some guidance on this, it would be very helpful.

  • 8.2 seconds - collapse time (needs decimal place, can't round the number, precision is important here)
  • 4.3 m - height of wall (possibly can round)
  • 19.8 m - width of wall (possibly can round)
  • 6.5 ha - 16 acres, size of WTC site (suggest not rounding this)
  • 100.6 - length of building footprint (could be rounded)
  • 42.7 - width of building footprint (could be rounded)
  • 1.7 million sq ft - floor area of building (needs decimal place, can't round the number)
  • 185.9 m - height of building (could be rounded)

Regards. --Aude (talk) 22:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Not sure if you check the FAC pages or want me to notify you here? I replied to you there. Please let me know if there are specific outstanding issues for us to address. Thanks. --Aude (talk) 21:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trouble

You have been implicated [1]. Ceoil 01:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Ha! Now a have a crick in my neck. Tony 01:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Exalated. Choose your next words carefully. Ceoil 02:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
To other users: this is a light-hearted venture. Tony 02:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spelling

Not that I doubt your assertion, but could you link me to that policy? I can't seem to find it. Thanks. Phasmatisnox 13:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Anytime. By the way, can you lead me to some information on welding engineering jobs in Australia? I understand that there are some big mines out in Perth that I presume could use some WEs. Thanks! Phasmatisnox 07:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Interesting. Do you think it might stay that way for very long? My brother just moved to Australia from the US and I had a chance to check Australia out last month when I was there. If the welding engineering economy looks stable, I'd definitely consider moving there. Thanks for your info. Phasmatisnox 07:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Beyond Fantasy Fiction again

I've expanded the lead per your most recent comment at the FAC; let me know what you think now. You had listed 1a and 2a as concerns -- I hope this has dealt with 2a at least. I understand that you indicated there are more problems, and I know it's time-consuming for you to list everything you see, but any pointers you can give me to problems in the body that are sustaining your oppose would be very helpful. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk) 13:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Eye movement

Although this piece is not about music, you may be interested in some of the details - Hidden method of reading revealed BBC News article (linked from BBC News main page on 10.09.07).--Alf melmac 15:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Grammar check

Tony, would you mind checking this edit? I reverted it, hypothesis --> plays. Am I missing something? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Tony/Sandy, I'm a bit puzzled by the edit summary

I agree with the Sandy's change to "play".

since Sandy reverted the text back to "plays" after an anon had changed it to "play". The problem sentence is

The unproven and contentious hypothesis that Pediatric Autoimmune Neuropsychiatric Disorders Associated with Streptococcal infections (PANDAS) plays a role in the onset of tic disorders and OCD is a current focus of research.

It seems to me that the "Pediatric Autoimmune Neuropsychiatric Disorders Associated with" doesn't fit into the sentence, but has been included to introduce the acronym. The sentence is possibly overlong and could be recast. The hypothesis is that

Streptococcal infections play a role in the onset of tic disorders and OCD

In addition, the authors of this hypothesis hold the view that such disorders are (or are sometimes) autoimmune. Combining these two we get the so-called

Pediatric Autoimmune Neuropsychiatric Disorders Associated with Streptococcal infections (PANDAS)

How about

In 2002, a team at the National Institute of Mental Health proposed a hypothesis that both obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) and tic disorders may arise in childhood as a result of a poststreptococcal autoimmune process.[1] Children who meet five diagnostic criteria are classified, according to the hypothesis, as having Pediatric Autoimmune Neuropsychiatric Disorders Associated with Streptococcal infections (PANDAS). The hypothesis is the focus of clinical and laboratory research, but remains unproven. [2]

Perhaps I've nicked too much from Kurlan/Kaplan? Is the preceding sentence ("Autoimmune processes may affect tic onset and exacerbation in some cases.") related or independent? If related, then it could be dropped. Feel free to move this over to the TS talk page if you think it less about grammar and more about TS. Colin°Talk 21:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I prefer Colin's rewording, actually (barring uncomfortably close paraphrasing, I haven't read the source). The "PANDAS hypothesis" doesn't play any role; the hypothesis is that certain strep infection-associated autoimmune disorders play a role in the onset of etc. The acronym isn't fitting in. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I see the problem. Since almost all of my favorite editors are weighing in here, and since I'm traveling, I certainly trust you all to do what's best, insert what's needed. But here are the concerns. I don't have the source here with me, but I'm fairly certain it was described as contentious (it is, *highly*, and the subject of heated debate). Also, I was initially hoping to keep mention of PANDAS to one sentence since it is *so* contentious, and it's best to keep the controversy over on the PANDAS article. The idea was to avoid too much definition in this article, mention that it's contentious and the subject of much research, and keep the rest in the PANDAS article. The preceding sentence is both related and independent; other researchers believe that *something* is may be happening with autoimmunity in perhaps as many as 20% of cases, but that the current PANDAS hypothesis may not be correctly formulated, so perhaps best not to drop that sentence. Does that help? I'd like to keep definitions to a minimum, and we do not need to mention that it's contentious. Thanks all for keeping an eye, and I'll try to catch up when I'm home. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

    • My apologies: I didn't read it properly (tired and stressed over GNL etc.). I think Colin's version looks fine, but I won't get over there till later to look properly. Tony 01:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I've incorporated the text (with "contentious") and have copied this discussion over to Talk:Tourette syndrome. I've still got some programs with my text, but perhaps I'm worrying too much. Colin°Talk 12:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Today

While we've had many difficulties and unfortunate personal exchanges recently, I've found Pmanderson amicable and forward looking today. I think just moving forward with the basics is probably the best idea and I note that you agree on his talk page. I think we should defend the very simple wording for now. No attempts to expand or retract—just a general "try to do this." Sensible? --Marskell 22:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I had already left a note on his talk page saying I approved of his insertion. Despite deep issues between us, he occasionally does things that I think are pretty good. Tony 00:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Neither my position, nor (as far as I can rell) my attitude has changed. I have always approved of this much - I suggested some of it; I have never believed there is consensus or justification for much more. The sentence I just tweaked was Tony's; but I agree with it as I understand it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Psychology NOS

Have a look at Category:Psychology. I have been working on it two days now. There is a list of subgroups at the top (many, many subgroups). If your article does not fit in one of those subgroups (or a subgroup of a subgroup), then create a category for it, or think about whether it is Psychology and not another category. An article running around loose in Category:Psychology is not the answer. The only articles that should be there are the general articles like Mood disorder or Anxiety disorder -- general articles that spawn a category like Category:Mood disorder which will automatically put articles in Category:Mood disorder in Psychology without having to add it separately. Regards, --Mattisse 00:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

One of the problems is the general poverty of psychology articles on WP (strange, that). So many are stubs. It's hard to fit eye–hand coordination into a single subcategory: cognitive psychology is about as deep as you'd want to go. It involves sport, piloting, music reading, machine operation, copy-typing, and lots more. Tony 00:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Look at the subcategories and sub subcategories. For example, if you put an article in Category:Neuropsychology, it will automatically be in Category:Clinical psychology, Category:Neurology, Category:Cognition and Category:Neuroscience. So there is variety without being in Category:Psychology which means nothing. It takes some investigation. I think your article belongs in there somewhere because it does involve Neurology. However, Categories in Psychology is a mess and needs an overhaul. --Mattisse 01:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Uh-oh. I don't think some people will be comfortable with all of that coming under an umbrella of Neuropsychology. I'm wondering why there's a problem if a large number of articles are categorised under a single one. Problem is that a lot of psychology-related stuff is going to lie in more than one of these large-scale categories, don't you think? Tony 03:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia has labeled Category:Psychology as a problem category because of its size. Wikipedia's directions are to put articles in subcategories. Feel free to disregard Wikipedia's directions. I was foolish enough to be altruistic and try to help out. Being a psychologist myself, I find Wikipedia's Category:Psychology immensely depressing. However, I am done with my altruism. Put your article where you want. Regards, --Mattisse 14:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Accurate

Hi Tony. I think you represented my views on your GNL proposal well here. [2] I want to apologize for losing my temper and getting angry before about it, although I do still disagree with it. It's hard for me to keep my temper about language, as I'm an aspiring linguist, and have strong views. But taking a day or two away from the discussion cooled my head and made me realize I was pretty rude. I'm sorry. I'm glad you were able to gain consensus though, because that's what WP is about - and even if on the "losing" side, I still respect the process of compromise. Good job, Stanselmdoc 14:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, you've made my day a happy one. I'm so pleased that I haven't offended you, and I, too, am sorry for being intemperate. My best wishes. Tony 15:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mooved your proposal to an essay

Someone suggested that I do this and I gather it will make getting the examples right easier, although I can't remember why at the moment. I moved your proposal to Wikipedia:Gender-neutral language. Stressed enough yet? ←BenB4 03:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Radiant! moved it to a proposed guideline, in spite of the consensus at the talk pages to give it time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/7 World Trade Center

Tony - can you please revisit and update your comments at this FAC? As I already said at that nomination, I don't consider the fair-use objection to be particularly meritorious, so yours is the only outstanding objection. Raul654 14:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sig

I don't know of a guide; I just went to a Sandbox and started messing around until I got it. In Preferences, I have the following in my Signature and I have the box, Raw, checked:

[[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]])

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A questions

I wants to get you're opinions farther on the linkings inside of a quotations, so I asked. Just noting it hear in case you wont seen it. (And made this annoyingly gramatically incorrect, to drive the point home. ;-) ) Mahalo. --Ali'i 16:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AS

TimV, Tony, and Colin, Eubulides (talk · contribs) has completed his rewrite of Asperger syndrome; it's ready for a fresh look by any new eyes who want to review it. He was working under pressure and on limited time, so he invites an additional prose check. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Hello. This is a group thanks to all of you for your many comments and help in making the Bruno Maddox article reach FA. All the copyedits really helped polish up the article. I hope to work with you all once again. Best of luck on your own projects, BillDeanCarter 00:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MoS query

I see that you're busy and I will perfectly understand if you are unable to contribute to this but I was wondering if you could look at something. It seems to me that:

and will be a source of endless battles about the capitalisation of this school or that school etc. I have posted to this effect in the proposed draft but perhaps it is being overlooked in the clamour. --ROGER DAVIES TALK 18:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for coming back to me on this. I've proposed a fix to the text. One man's meat is another man's jelly, huh? I read your comments in MOS with interest, always pertinant and well-informed. Good stuff! --ROGER DAVIES TALK 08:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Not a copyedit request...

...exactly. I've just dropped Brabham BT19 off at WP:FAC (It's the Formula One racing car Jack Brabham used to win his third world title, btw). I've got a perception that sports articles get a much easier ride in some ways at FAC than say fine arts or political ones. In the interests of countering that, if time permits, could you give the BT19 article a grilling? I'm happy just to have examples of problems pointed out. Cheers. 4u1e 19:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Con

Hi Tony. Nice to meet someone who has a passion for excellent writing. I found the bit about Verbrugghen's being the only salaried member from a newspaper clipping. I'm an inveterate clipperer (?) and hoarder and I'm just now culling my collection, adding interesting tidbits to Wikipedia and chucking out most of the rest. It's like purging my soul, really. I normally add the citation but I seem to have forgotten to do this one. I'll fish it out of my recycling bin and do it today.

By the way, I have 2 (extremely tenuous) personal connections to Henri Verbrugghen. I used to live in Canberra and one of my various addresses was in Verbrugghen St, Melba, which was named after him; and I was born on the anniversary of his death date, 12 November. -- JackofOz 22:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, a pianist (not professional, just for the love of it). -- JackofOz 01:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Andre Kertesz:

Hi, noticed you corrected a few things on the mentioned article ([3]). Thanks for the help. I've fixed/explained all but one (Your first imbedded point about moving some clause down?). I'm not sure what this means - I'd love to fix it, but would you be able to explain what it entails first? Thanks! :) Spawn Man 12:43, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, yeah - I hadn't thought about it that way before - It was there before I'd rewritten the article and I'd thought it sounded good, so left it. You're 100% right, absolutely weird! Thanks for the suggestion Tony, it was helpful. Thanks, :) Spawn Man 05:03, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Forgiven?

Perhaps. When the silliness of the six-four saga is all fixed.– Noetica♬♩ Talk 22:41, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't silly; it's a critical point. Tony (talk) 00:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] S.H.E FAC

To the best of my ability, I have tried taking your concerns and applying them to the article. If you could give the revamped Musical style section a look, that'd be great. If time permits, of course. Pandacomics 05:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Have you time to look at a template?

Hello there. Awadewit and I are working on a talk page template, {{MoSElement}}. She suggested that I ask you, an "MoS guru", to have a look and offer suggestions. If you have some time, could you take a peek?

I also wonder if you know if there is a method for proposing templates like this to the community? Any direction you can offer is greatly appreciated.

Finally, we'd like to get the opinion of one or more math/science editors who might add their thoughts on what would be useful for people in that world. Do you know any such individuals? Thanks in advance. – Scartol · Talk 13:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BAE Systems FAC

Hi Tony. Thanks very much for your support, compliments and useful suggestions.Mark83 20:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nepal at FAR

Nepal 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. --Victor12 00:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] minor

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ATony1%2FHow_to_satisfy_Criterion_1a&diff=161421202&oldid=150753663 consider.--Asdfg12345 13:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tramadol

Bold because they are all names and a list because of the difficulty with spotting names, when they a written 10 names on each line. --Law Lord 13:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RBH, again

Hello, long time no talk. Anyway, I just moved into my new dorm, and have set up the internet, so I can finally reply to you. Let's take those points one at a time, shall we?

  • I've delinked many redundant words in the article. Things like continental links and incomplete dates have been delinked, as well as those words which you mentioned.
  • The spacing with the em-dashes are removed.
  • I've also removed the contractions, they were by another editor, it seems.
  • Red links have all been removed.

If there is anything else, please let me know. Cheers. (Let's hope the LOCE doesn't have to be involved.)--Alasdair 13:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I was referring to Rob-B-Hood.--Alasdair 16:42, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Brabham BT19

Thanks very much for your comments (and your support, but I hope that came from your reading of the article, rather than from my request ;-)).

I think I've got acceptable solutions to the points you raised, maybe not quite what you suggested, but should be OK. There's an ongoing hyphenation issue with the unit conversion templates, which means there's currently a MoS breach in the article. I'm hoping the templates will get fixed, if not I'll just go back to manual where it's a problem 4u1e 15:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

This has come up before, and SandyGeorgia assured us all that you just have to use the template the right way to achieve hyphens. I don't like the template, myself, but see if you can find out how to work it (Talk page of template?). Otherwise, manual for those ones? Tony (talk) 15:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Ah, thanks for the tip! I guess I'll just have to go and read the manual. Which goes against my religion, dammit. :-) If I can't figure it, I'll just remove the auto templates (which I rather like myself, it saves fiddling around with conversion tables) and go back the original text. Cheers (You'll be pleased to know that somebody eventually suggested remving 'one-off' from the article altogether, which I've done, so I guess that one's solved too ;-)) 4u1e 15:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Make-Up FAC

I did my best to take care of your concerns concerning The Make-Up. I was hoping you could find some time to re-review the article. Thanks. Drewcifer 19:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you again, but like I said, I think I took care of your concerns with The Make-up (FAC). If I have, and you feel I've done enough to change your vote from Oppose to Support, then I believe the FAC would have enough support votes to close. The FAC is almost two months old (currently the oldest FAC still active), so if possible I would like to have things settled. Thanks for your time. Drewcifer 06:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Duck!

The Socratic Barnstar
for rational guardianship of workable standards in the Wikipedia Manual of Style and its sub-guidelines. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 07:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with you 100% of the time, but your integrity and sanity about the MoS are a nice, cool breeze across a frequently parched landscape. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 07:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, thank you very much! I'm touched, and thankful for your authoritative input. Me? I'm just a technician with a few ideas. Tony (talk) 07:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments on capitals

Since you are well known about MoS implementation, could you comment on this question? Thanks. --RelHistBuff 11:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Which do you mean?

Tony, I'm not sure of the scope of your remark on my talk page. I made a lot of changes for consistency at WP:MOS. Which do you mean? I did look through unarchived discussion, but saw nothing definitive or settled that had a direct bearing on my edits for consistency. In the end, no one seems to have bothered to make use of italics and quotations systematic, exemplary, and friendly to the reader on this flagship page. I don't mind how or by whom this is done: just let it be done! So I did it – subject to rational revision, as always.

– Noetica♬♩ Talk 03:07, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I've now read what you have just said there in Discussion. (Nothing is very easy to spot about these things, let me say!) My view is that the changes I have made represent the best way by far – especially when we consider those utterly noisome directed quotes: “ and ”. These are a pain in the proverbial, since they can't searched for and can't typed in except by techno-nerds and Aspergers-editors (and I mean that in the nicest possible way). I would compromise: allow these wretched curled quotes in MOS, but minimise their use by maximum application of italics, including for full sentences.
For convenience, continue this dialogue here only, if you like. I'll pick it up.
– Noetica♬♩ Talk 03:16, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Um, what does this mean in your recent edit summary: Still bothered by the last item, which doesn't quite fit anywhere. Which last item, where? (Note that last is ambiguous in English, as are its translations in other European languages: 1. Final 2. Immediately preceding.)– Noetica♬♩ Talk 06:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, post at my page exclusively instead. That'll be fine. (See recent reply there.)– Noetica♬♩ Talk 07:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] U.S. vs US

Tony, my only objection to moving to US is "Oh no..." because of the effort getting the supplementary manuals to agree to conform to the main manual, and to make changes to many, many articles (actually I marginally prefer US). Similarly with p.m./pm. If you can get consensus to change to an undotted abbreviation preference, then that's fine. I don't want to see us going to an "either or" situation - these should be reserved for the "biggies" like BCE where people feel strongly enough, for example, to leave the project. People can write, pretty much, how they please, and are unlikely object if someone comes and makes their writing conform with MoS, regardless of which side of most fences we come down on.

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 09:35 7 October 2007 (GMT).

It's partly a "variety of English" issue, so I don't know how we can escape having both options. Many Americans will object to being told not to dot it (despite whatever diadvantages others might assert about their choice), and many other English-speakers will object to being told to dot it, when their variety of English uses the undotted version. As much as I'd much prefer to enforce the undotted, I accept that this is not acceptable to too many WPians. As long as each supplementary manual is consistent in its use of "US" or "U.S.", I don't see a problem. Same for articles. No one wants a huge back-compatibility problem.

The undotted versions of "am" and "pm" are widespread, especially outside the US. Again, it's partly a variety of English issue. Allowing the undotted option was agreed to by consensus some months ago; but there was no agreement to allow caps, whether dotted or undotted, and no agreement to allow them to be unspaced (12:30pm).

MOS is always going to be push-and-pull WRT options. Sometimes it comes down on one side; sometimes it allows more than one option (consistently within an article). The lack of cohesion might be slightly apparent when you consult groups of related articles that have chosen a different option. But people can live with that, can't they, just as they might live with "Economics" in AmEng, and "Economic history" in BrEng (I'm just guessing for the sake of the example). Tony (talk) 10:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reply

Again, a reply here. Timneu22 16:21, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Boring", huh?

MDAC is also boring. But then, you don't work with computers. I didn't find that comment particularly helpful on FARC, what precisely do you want me to do? As for the audience... well, anyone interested in the Architecture of Windows NT, obviously. Personally, I don't really care if you find the subject matter boring.

I do agree it's poorly referenced and should be delisted, however. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No new requests?

What a pity. It means I can't invite you over to Wolfe City, Texas. But maybe you'll enjoy looking at it anyway. Sample:

This is the chronology history of Wolfe City / Wolfe’s Mill and surrounding communities. It’s nowhere near complete. I’m sure there were many more very important events. This list was compiled from many sources, newspapers, books, computer Internet and personal conversations with Wolfe City area residents (both present and former). I will be using the old address system for Wolfe City unless I note it’s the new 911 numbers. All the other communities / cities will not have an address. The addresses all changed in the 1990’s and 2000’s to the new 911 numbering system.

Isn't that good to know? -- Hoary 20:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] In the Þick of it

My patience with some people is wearing Þin; see here. -- Hoary 14:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rob-B-Hood

Hello, it's been a while, and I've attempted to address your concerns listed in Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rob-B-Hood. I'd be grateful if you take a second look and see whether the changes are satisfactory. Cheers.--Alasdair 19:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I just came here to ask the same thing - can you revisit your comments there? Raul654 01:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Manual of style

Sorry about my silly questions, but I'm now intrigued as to how aspects of the MOS are determined. Why is there standarized use of punctuation, dashes, quotation marks, etc. but no such adoption of a standarized approach to spelling? A cursory glance at American and British news sites finds that while approaches to certain punctuation in quotes varies, commas that separate clauses are by consensus in quotes. Has this been considered in formulating the guidelines? I don't intend to bug you, I'm just genuinely curious about these things now. Thanks. WesleyDodds 03:50, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll illustrate using examples from some of the news items I viewed today, although after deeper analysis I have further questions
British usage
"We believe that to make the joint work of Russian and US experts most effective, plans on deploying [the missile defence system in Europe] should be frozen," he said.
I doubt that comma is the end of that sentence; regardless it is placed inside the quotation mark (They also used the double lines for quotations, which we know isn't often used in the UK). This is repeated throughout the article.
In daily, full-page notices in newspapers and frequent TV announcements the public are warned against tuning into the "traitors," "saboteurs," and "neo-colonialists" at the BBC, Voice of America and Radio Free Asia.
Similar usage.
Will the UK-Russia row make things worse? Well, as one leading British diplomat noted, "it could mark a further toughening in the relationship".
"It is one thing [for Russia] to react bilaterally," he went on, "quite another to put security in the Balkans at stake."
Period in first paragraph is not inside quotations, as is the standard in the UK. Once again the comma used to divide clauses is inside the quotations.
The 2004 ballot result "reflected [Mr Putin's] consistently high public approval rating", outside (OSCE) observers noted, but also talked of the contest's "dearth of meaningful debate and genuine pluralism".
Ok, now this just confuses me. Both commas and periods are outside of the quotation marks. This is the standard throughout the article.
Two excerpts here:
Other influential figures added their voices to the chorus. Jimmy Carter, former president and a fellow Nobel peace laureate (his 2002 award was famously cast as a "kick in the legs" to Mr Bush over the build-up to the invasion of Iraq), said in a TV interview that he hoped this might encourage Mr Gore to "consider another political event". Mr Carter added: "I don't think anyone is better qualified to be president of the United States."
"The man's not running. Even if he won the Nobel prize for curing cancer, he still wouldn't run," said Charlie Cook of the respected website the Cook Report. "I don't know a single serious person in America who thinks he will stand."
Period included in quotation where appropriate; comma still inside quotations.
American usage
That was just for the first Bourne film, "The Bourne Identity." Gilroy also wrote or co-wrote the other two, "The Bourne Supremacy" and "The Bourne Ultimatum." He describes the overall process as "an odyssey."
Punctuation inside quotation marks when they obviously aren't part of the original titles or quotes. Of course, those titles should be italicized instead . . .
Although not a complete unknown, Pine’s biggest gig to date has been the male lead in the 2006 Lindsay Lohan movie “Just My Luck,” which flopped. The 27-year-old Los Angeles native also caught some eyeballs with a scene-stealing role as a neo-Nazi assassin in “Smokin’ Aces,” also directed by Carnahan.
Same deal here, right down to the same issue with italicizing.
Sanchez said the war in Iraq is "a nightmare with no end in sight," adding America has no choice but to continue fighting or the country will sink into chaos, which will spread throughout the Middle East. America will be there "for the foreseeable future," he said.
More of the same. Punctuation inside quotation marks regardless of context. No italics to compare this time.
While the issue of punctuation inside quotation marks becomes more complicated, I believe I have unintentionally added more rational to the usage of double-lined quotation marks in the MOS. WesleyDodds 04:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I've asked Wesley to wait for 12 hours while I deal with clients (and Raul's request here). Tony (talk) 03:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Usage in all varieties of English probably varies WRT both single/double quotes and the "inside/outside" punctuation issue. Your examples demonstrate this. The second issue appears to be more strictly delineated across the Atlantic, probably due to CMOS's long-standing dictum on illogical punctuation. Then again, direct quotations in fiction seem to use illogical punctuation in all varieties of English.
WP's concerns are different: here, because it aims to be a highly authoritative tertiary source, the reliability and veracity of our quoted material has been carefully considered over a number of years. The overarching principle of making as few changes as possible to directly quoted sources has produced a consensus, at MOS and elsewhere, that it's undesirable to add punctuation to direct quotes that is not in the original. Where a quote within a quote uses the inside method, we faithfully reproduce this; but not on the levels above this. Tony (talk) 02:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Right. See my comments at Talk:The Smashing Pumpkins#MOS_punctuation. This is not a US vs. UK English stylistic preference of aesthetic import, it is a register issue, between what some consider a pleasing style visually, but which is imprecise and often leads directly to misquotation and other errors, and a completely unamiguous style that is used pretty much universally in scientific, technical and other publications that require precision (like an encyclopedia does). American encyclopedias on paper tend to use typesetters' quotation (the illogical style) still, but they do so at their own peril. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 16:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quick MoS question (not urgent; answer whenever you have time)

Is it correct to drop the initial A from A Streetcar Named Desire in the first paragraph of this article? I'm following a rule from Strunk and White's Elements of Style, but I'm not sure if we're supposed to do the same at Wikipedia. Thanks. Zagalejo^^^ 02:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi. It's a title, so u gotta have the "A", even in heading-initial position. Tony (talk) 02:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I ask this because Strunk & White and other style guides (eg. National Geographic's) advise to drop the A or The in a title if immediately preceded by a possessive. Is that just an American quirk?
To make sure everything is clear, I'm wondering about the second sentence from that paragraph. Is "a musical version of Tennessee Williams' A Streetcar Named Desire" preferable to "a musical version of Tennessee Williams' Streetcar Named Desire"? Zagalejo^^^ 05:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I see what you mean. MOS doesn't seem to have a policy on this. Probably either is acceptable, but while removing the "A" reads more smoothly, retaining it does have the advantage of reminding the readers of the actual title. WP is a stickler for retaining the wording and form of original sources. I wonder whether others agree. Tony (talk) 06:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I personally prefer it with the "A". It doesn't read poorly at all and is the correct title.
This caught my eye because I run into a similar situation and am curious as to your take on it. I edit articles in the Zelda series of video games. The proper name of the series is not "Legend of Zelda", but "The Legend of Zelda". I frequently encounter editors changing between "... is a game in The Legend of Zelda series" and "... is a game in the Legend of Zelda series". The rationales are the same here—proper titles versus flow. We obviously don't want "... is a game in the The Legend of Zelda series", despite what the programmer inside me says. The phrase "Nintendo's The Legend of Zelda series is useful for avoiding the situation, similar to the Streetcar example above. What do you think? Pagrashtak 16:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, "Nintendo's The Legend of Zelda series" presents the same problem as above. It's a possessive followed by the article of a title.
I do appreciate the replies, though. Zagalejo^^^ 01:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that's why I said it was similar to your example. For me, it avoids the double the conflict. Pagrashtak 14:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Two "the"s in a row is insufferable! I'd prefer to use the initial "A"/"The" unless there's a reason not to. I'm not too fussed about it. Tony (talk) 01:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll probably include the "A". Lots of people have been sneaking it back into the article anyway. Thanks for your thoughts! Zagalejo^^^ 01:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2007 Malaysian Grand Prix

I've renominated this for FA status. Any chance you could comment on the article at the above link? Much appreciated if you could comment! :) Davnel03 14:59, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I'll try and get someone to have a look at them - if not I'll improve it myself. I'll leave a message on your talkpage when they have been changed. Davnel03 17:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I couldn't be asked to get someone else to look at it - so I did it myself, mainly in case the article wasn't promoted in the next few hours. I've made amendments on the article based on your points. Please, can you reply to my comments, please. Thanks, Davnel03 17:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Left a further comment. If you have problems with the article, just list them, I'm not going to bite your head off. It's been copy-edited twice as it is! Further comments left at above link. Davnel03 09:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FAC Golden Film

Thank you for your vote and comments to the featured article candidacy of Golden Film. I replied to your post. – Ilse@ 15:46, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comment on units of measurement change?

Hi Tony, I value your opinion very highly on style issues, so could you comment on the Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Units_of_measurement, if only to say "OK"? Tim Vickers 02:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tim: I read it and thought it was fine. Thanks. Tony (talk) 02:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi again, User:Gene Nygaard and I have been discussing the application of this guidance at length on Talk:Enzyme kinetics. He is describing this change to the MoS as a "disputed addition", but I don't see this as a very accurate statement. Could you comment on the MoS talk page? Sorry to bug you about it, but this problem keeps recurring in science articles and having clear guidance in the MoS might save everybody a lot of time. Tim Vickers 17:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Canvassing

I feel this message is inappropriate as it appears intended to recruit negative attention to a specfic RFA. I would ask that you remove that message. Dragons flight 04:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

We tend to have a negative view on canvassing, i.e. posting messages with the intent to influence the outcome of polling type discussions. You are free to remove comments you make when there haven't been other comments in reply that would be confused or lost by doing so, and I think that would be appropriate in this case. As for "not here", I took a ~6 week break from Wikipedia last month, came back for a week of activity, and am trying (with mixed success) to go back to my break now. Dragons flight 04:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the link color change guide

I did your little modification to make blue links stand out less a few weeks ago, and I'm glad I did. Thanks for posting that useful information! Phasmatisnox 11:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Milner FAC

Your feedback has been Transfered to this PR. Please reply there. Buc 14:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Could you maybe copyedit this article when yo have the time? Buc 19:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Seeking an opinion

Hi Tony,

I'm just looking for an opinion on whether insisting on a grammatically correct "whom", in place of "who", is a legitimate comment in an FAC, or if you'd consider it to fall under "Misplaced formality" in your excellent guidelines? Thanks. Carre 17:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. The phrase in question is inspired by Depp's study of nomads who he compared to pirates, (from the Jack Sparrow FAC). If I understand your response correctly, the who in this case is fine for WP, yes? Carre 09:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tony1‎

Just to let you know, someone has filed an RfC against you, and you may wish to comment on it. I've got no feeling on the matter, I just noticed your name being listed as I have the user RfC page watchlisted. Ryan Postlethwaite 11:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Yep, the someones are the other participants in a long-standing dispute on a key aspect of music theory, which has been in (content) mediation for about six months. Instead of stalling the mediation, faced with inevitable compromise and my requests for a time-line to resolve the dispute and unlock the page, they've chosen to walk out of the mediation, thus killing it, and to transform it into a personal dispute. The (ex-)mediator is encouraging negotiation of the text that will resolve the dispute, on the talk page of the locked article; I will attempt to move the issue forward there by writing a compromise text that might gain consensus. Strange situation. Tony (talk) 01:18, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MOSHEAD

Replied at my talk page, but in case you missed it: Shouldn't be deleted, since people refer to it; it should be redirected to the #section in MOS that it applies to, so that the links don't go red. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:23, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your Welcome!

Just trying to be of service. I always feel a little sad when an article has to be redirected or merged, or deleted. However, when everyone (or enough of everyone to call "everyone") agrees it should undergo one of these demises, I'm pleased to help.

By the way, redirecting isn't all that hard. The icon at the top of an edit box, containing a capital R with a # in front of it, will redirect a page when you click on it, just tell it where to go. Or, I've found the manual way of doing it is actually much easier. Just erase the contents of the page, type in one dash mark (#), and write, entirely in capital letter, the word REDIRECT. (It should look like #REDIRECT. Then place in a colon mark, so it looks like this: REDIRECT: (I didn’t put the dash in, in case it triggers a redirect of your talk page). Then, one space away, add a link to the page you want to redirect it to. There you go! Happy editing! Wilhelmina Will 02:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 1a page

Oh I didn't want to tamper too much with your advice page, and just made one little edit. On the FA criteria draft, I had place the advice section above the see also and thought the placement/arrangement was fitting and appropriately valuable for the majority. I'll just let the FA criteria draft sit for a good amount of time and let it go where the majority takes it, though may do some tinkering along the way. We'll see what works and work doesn't. Happy editing. Learnedo 09:48, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

No, the 1a page is pretty solid and I agree with everything there. I don't think I would have anything to add. I'll definitely need to read it in full one day, demonstrating its quality and sound advice even for the fairly experienced. Learnedo 10:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:SIZE

Hi Sandy; so should that link be in the Criterion itself? Tony (talk) 15:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be, but I have no idea if that will garner consensus. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:06, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unpiping

I didn't notice that pipe earlier. The only thing that gives me pause is that "style guidelines" and "Manual of Style" aren't precisely synonymous. For example, Wikipedia:Red link is marked as a style guideline, but not part of the MOS. Perhaps Category:Wikipedia style guidelines would be a more appropriate link, but I think linking to the MOS is better than a category. Off topic (but still on the topic of pipes!), you're correct—pipe organ. Were you a church organist? I played organ mostly for the sake of music, but was employed as a church organist for a while and have played some weddings and funerals, both as a church organist and freelance. I minored in music with organ as my primary instrument and won a small scholarship or two. Pagrashtak 16:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

We have more in common than I realized; I also have problems with the ideology. I'm a live-and-let-live kind of person for the most part, though, and enjoyed an excuse to play with regularity—something I hadn't done since college. No matter how you feel about it, though, you can't give up the Orgelbüchlein. I was employed in Oklahoma, and funerals were quite interesting to me, as I have played a few services in which the deceased had been born pre-statehood in Oklahoma Territory or Indian Territory. It really changes one's perspective, or at least mine. Pagrashtak 13:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Did he get rid of you or the organ altogether? My wife is also a musician (brass) and usually gets an Easter gig every year. I usually sit at the front or near the front, since the orchestra often doesn't remain on stage during the sermon and we can sit together. Last year, the front pew was suspiciously empty, but I didn't think anything of it. It wasn't until the service began that I noticed this was a "contemporary" church—slides on a big projector behind the choir, people waving, drum set, synthesizers—and I was close to a very large speaker, hence the empty pew. We were talking to a trumpetist (I think) after the service who attended the church and asked about all the equipment. It turns out it was funded primarily by selling their organ. He said it rather proudly, but I found it very sad.
I suppose you don't really have the opportunity to play for fun anymore—it almost always involves a relationship with a church. You might consider being a substitute—you'd get to play every once in a while and can always say no. A little bit of extra money wouldn't hurt either. Chapters of the American Guild of Organists sometimes have a short-list of organists to contact around here. I'm not sure if you've got something similar in Sydney. I used to edit health care and music articles, but don't so much any more. I know video game articles aren't the most important, but they tend to attract a constant stream of bad editing and consume a lot of time, along with whatever FA work I can manage. I enjoy working on them in any event. Pagrashtak 14:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FYI

Tony, can you please look at this thread as soon as you're able? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC) And this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ...

No need to support me, Tony. Whatever errors I do make, I will own up to it and take responsibility for them. I think however the main issue is that some didn't appreciate me editing their article. But I'm moving on to the next. Leranedo 01:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Political niceties

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Maralia&diff=167757852&oldid=167755814 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Malleus_Fatuarum&diff=167757936&oldid=167742704

I think I'm progressing. Happy editing. Leranedo 02:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I feel it's common for people, myself, you, or anyone for matter to be upset about things in life. What I don't understand is why you believe some are upset by edits to a FAC article. Well anyhow, I think everything is settled and placid now. Happy editing. Leranedo 08:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Nope. Completely untalented in this art of political niceties. :) Leranedo 02:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for message, though I wasn't looking for any replies. Leranedo 03:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments at Edward Low FAC

Thank you! Neil ☎ 13:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Victoria Cross for Australia

Could you possibly take another look at the Victoria Cross for Australia again and then comment on the FAC. Thanks again. Woodym555 15:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The nom has been restarted and User:Maralia has given it a thorough copyedit. Could you give an opinion on it when you get the chance? Thanks. Woodym555 20:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Belarus

Others have fixed your grammar issue, though new seemed to show up. If you wish to copy edit it, that is your call, but other than grammar, is there any other issue? Also, as I mentioned on the FAC page, I do not have a problem if you tell me the grammar is bad. However, I do have an issue when you call me a non-native speaker of English. I was born in the United States, I have been learning English since day one of my life. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 03:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The nomination was restarted for some reason; I am still trying to find out exactly what is going on. Regardless, I asked for the League of Copyeditors help again and see what happens from there. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RfC

I've deleted the RfC for being uncertified. I strongly suggest you open direct discussions with Rainwarrior (talk · contribs) and Wahoofive (talk · contribs) and consider revisiting mediation. I would be willing to act as a go-between if necessary. Best, Mackensen (talk) 10:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Poor"?

Hello, Tony. I've just read the reply I wrote to you on my talk page: I think I must have seemed pretty grumpy! I really do hope you enjoy the Gould! I listened to my favourite op. 41 no. 3 again last night: fantastic! I find the composer's pompous self-aggrandizement and condescension are peripheral after all… --RobertG ♬ talk 10:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good to see some progress

This is a message to Wahoofive, Rainwarrior, Mscuthbert, and Tony. I am pleased to see that there has been some progress on this six-four matter. I long ago withdrew from the discussion when it became clear that nothing useful was coming of it. When the page Inversion (music) is unlocked and things are back to normal, I look forward to contributing something to the discussion once more. I suppose others may want to come in then also. I'll not join the discussion till the disputes are all behind, and things are functioning normally. Meanwhile, I recommend this: have a look at Chopin's exquisitely beautiful Prelude in C# minor, Op. 45. (You can find it online here, and no doubt other places as well.) The point to consider is this: what analysis are we to give the extended "six-four" in the twelfth- and eleventh-last (and tenth-last?) bars? If the underlying harmony in these bars is V, parse these notes: the B and the A, the two Fxs, the B#, and the D#. And then parse these notes on the assumption that the underlying harmony in those bars is I. Thank you!

– Noetica♬♩ Talk 10:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: dotted-line boxes at MOS

The other one at WP:MOS#Images? I thought that was intentional. Dotted lines are the default borders for pre-formatted content, and that looks like a typical use case for pre-formatted content. --PEJL 14:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comment

I want you to know that the only reason I have not apologized for accusing you of sockpuppetry is that I don't feel that I accused you of sockpuppetry. There was a 3RR violation, and subsequent edits by an anonymous IP address that had not been prveiously involved, which I and Mscuthbert both thought were relevant to the 3RR report. It is a fact that those edits were suspicious, and as a user that is not an administrator, I do not have the tools to investigate things at the IP level. It was appropriate and reasonable to list these anonymous IP edits as part of the report.

The RfC, on the other hand, I am sorry for. If I had known that mediation proceedings were privileged, I would not have used that forum at all (I would simply have left the mediation and left it at that). The reason I started it was the same reason I had left the mediation, which was because every comment of mine had been met with an accusation of bad faith from you, and I did not feel I could continue any longer under that condition. Since then you've stopped doing this, which made it perfectly sensible to resume working out the content of the article with you. I did not know what to do with the RfC process at that point, but by now I hope you've noticed that its page was deleted, which makes it about as private as these things get around here.

If you would like to harbour a lasting bitterness toward me, that is your prerogative, but the feeling is not mutual. - Rainwarrior 10:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Reply by Tony1 at User talk:Rainwarrior#Rejoinder.
My intention was never to sabotage or delay mediation; you have misinterpereted my motives as bad faith the whole way through, and this is the reason I left the mediation, and also the reason I started the RfC. Now, okay, believe whatever you will about my motives, I don't really care, there doesn't seem to be any way to explain this to you. You violate 3RR, and you get mad when someone reasonably reports the incident. You fling personal insults and accusations of bad faith at those that disagree with you for months on end, and then scream in pain when you're accused of being uncivil. I don't really understand this behaviour. It doesn't matter; my comment above was to let you know why I have not addressed the "sockpuppet" issue, apologize for the RfC (I didn't expect you to accept the apology, but I wanted to offer it), and let you know that I do not feel bitterness toward you as you have claimed to feel toward me. Maybe you consider me an enemy, but I don't believe any good can come of that, and I want you to know that I don't consider you an enemy. That's all. That's it. Continue to be angry, if it satisfies you. - Rainwarrior 06:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Society of the Song Dynasty

I responded to your opposition on the FAC page, I don't know if you've gotten around to seeing it in the past two or three days; just giving you a heads up.--Pericles of AthensTalk 00:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Riverina: Indigenous Australian settlement?

Hi among your comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Riverina you stated: Aboriginal people 40,000 years: hotly contested figure. Can you please expand on your comment, in particular as to why the cite which is based originally on Hope, J. 1995. Aboriginal Burial Conservation in the Murray Darling Basin. Historic Environment 11:2 & 3, 57-60. is insufficient or unreliable?--Golden Wattle talk 22:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] seeking comment

Could you expand or clarify on the following from the FA Review of F1 ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Formula_One/archive1 )?

  1. Read MOS on hyphens, which are needed here after the numbers: "1.5 litre supercharged or 4.5 litre naturally aspirated engines".
  2. Hyphen used as an interruptor: read MOS on em dashes.
  3. Italic g for gravity?
  4. Sentence case for titles.


Thank you, Guroadrunner 14:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MOS merge, links in headings

Tony, need your feedback/history on this issue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Tony, following up on this after a delay. I stopped following MOS because some editors made it so unpleasant. Anyway, I frequently send people to WP:MSH for section heading changes, and that section no longer comprehensively covers all the issues. In particular, Raul's recent FAC had links in section headings, and nowhere do we clearly spell out anymore that those are a no-no. As discussed on Gimmetrow's talk, we need to get some of this text back.[4] Do you want me to raise that on talk at MOS, or can you figure out what happened there? When I link editors to WP:MSH, it's no longer complete. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I just put it all back in: see WP:MSH. I don't know if some of it ended up elsewhere, but when we send readers to the heading section (which used to be a page), we need to have it all in one place. I hope that's a faster way to help you see what's needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

My concern here is that titles are typically fixed/adjusted to conform to MOS once or maybe twice in an article's history, while headings are fixed all the time. I always have to refer people to WP:MSH, where I rarely have to refer them to article naming conventions. If the repetition is troublesome, it would be better to refer the other way around, that is, from the most frequently used to the less frequently used (in the naming section, refer to section headings, rather than other way around). If WP:MSH doesn't spell it all out, I'll be regularly sending people on a hunt when I send them to WP:MSH. On the other hand, I can't recall ever sending someone to article naming. It's just a matter of which section is most often referenced. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, if it was a big problem, I won't worry about it, but I'd rather see the top part say that everything under headings apply (rather than vica-versa) so that when I send people to WP:MSH it's all there. But I really don't care. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

That should do the trick; will see how it goes. Thanks :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tool FAC

Hey. Seeing as how you're a kind of legend when it comes to FA criterion 1(a), I figured I'd ask you for a bit of input on something. Could you take a look at the Tool article and comment on its FAC? I find the article's prose to be very substandard and uncharacteristic of a featured article—and I currently seem to be the only one who thinks so. If you could weigh in on that when you have the time, it would be immensely helpful. Grim 01:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. Grim 19:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Templates as leads

I asked at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style about this, but got no response. I am now spamming people whe participate in MOS with this request: would you look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football#NCAAFootballSingleGameHeader template usage and tell me what you think? - Peregrine Fisher 07:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Simple syntax question - use of pronoun after though in subordinate clause

I forgot about this till now but thought I'd ask. Circeus, a skilled copyeditor and native of Quebec, found this construction a bit odd and preferred an 'it' after the 'though'. I left it in as I wasn't too fussed but on the balance of things feel it runs slightly more smoothly without. He said that removing the 'it' sounded odd to him which made me wonder whether it was an australianism...

The Superb Fairy-wren is mainly insectivorous, though it does supplement its diet with seeds.

Anyway, I was intrigued and was interested to see what you thought as I tend to do it quite a bit. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

It's better with it, as Circeus suggests. Perhaps you're being sensitive to the closeness of "it" and "its", which is an issue if we're being very fusssy about elegant language. May I suggest although in formal language (Encarta Dictionary's idea, and I agree). And I wonder whether you need to mark it grammatically with the addition of "does"; probably not. There's another issue that may not matter: "although", strickly speaking, is not logical, since we've been told that the diet is mainly insects (we're expecting something else already). So maybe:
  • "The Superb Fairy-wren is mainly insectivorous, although it supplements its diet with seeds. or
  • "The Superb Fairy-wren's mainly insectivorous diet is supplemented with seeds. (A bit lumpy, although logical.)

I'll ask Hoary. Tony (talk) 12:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The pronoun dropping looks British to my eye—or at least I don't think a North American would do it. I would write "The Superb Fairy-wren is mainly insectivorous and supplements its diet with seeds." The "does" intensifier is not necessary.
(Just stopping by!) Marskell 13:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Marskell's is better, and I don't think it's a transatlantic difference. What happens if we drop the hedgehog word "insectivorous" and go very plain, for both scientists and non-experts?

"The Superb Fairy-wren mainly eats insects and supplements its diet with seeds." Tony (talk) 13:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm (just dropped back after watching Running With Scissors on DVD...), I hadn't thought of the proximity of the two it/s before. I'll take the last option and insert posthaste (can't do it with Variegated Fairy-wrens as no-one's ever seen the damn critters eat seeds....) - I am impressed by how many conjunctions we can make redundant :) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:43, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Putting aside all the other ways of saying this, and returning to the original pair of options, I'd always put in it. Though/but if but were in the place of though, I'd tend not to use it. Offhand I can't think of an explanation. -- Hoary 13:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Peer review/volunteers

A new idea to improve PR volume. If you're not swamped enough already, perhaps you'd like to join. Marskell 13:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

If I were retired, I'd do it. At the moment, I can't service FAC and FAR/C a tenth as much as I should. It's a madhouse. Tony (talk) 13:40, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
A madhouse! Marskell 13:42, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
And yes, Pound was a lunatic. The second stanze of Cino is, however, one of the most beautiful ever written. Marskell 13:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blyth, Northumberland FAC

Thanks for your support and comments. Dbam Talk/Contributions 18:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Angolan Civil War FAC

Hi, I think I addressed the concerns raised on Angolan Civil War but I'm not sure what you mean by logical punctuation. Can you be more specific? Perspicacite 01:08, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Marcus Trescothick

You are invited to comment on the above FAC at your leisure, as your comments were very helpful on the previous one. Regards, SGGH speak! 11:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Prose-check

Hello Tony. I have been shepherding John Knox and it is now at A-level thanks to a peer review by Awadewit. It has gone through a heavy copy-edit and review by Qp10qp as well. I know you are a tough stickler on prose, so I was wonder if you could take a look and tell me if there are any major issues before bringing it to FAC. Thanks in advance. --RelHistBuff 11:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Miami

Dear Tony, Thank you for your comments and attention to this article. I have addressed your comments at the Leave comments section of the FA article tag on the discussion page. Please come see my changes and reconsider your opposing vote. Thanks, NancyHeise (talk) 16:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hawkes

I would think that being quoted by both the PM and the leader of the opposition would satisfy the creative professionals element of WP:BIO? He is quoted in articles about both the current PM and the current leader of the opposition discussing education policy during the current election campaign (I wont say the articles are about howard and rudd, because they aren't: they are about the policies of the parties those people represent). What I've seen from him is regarding the politics of private education in Australia - I haven't seen anything of his published work outside of the newspapers.Garrie 20:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FAC promoting/archiving

Tony, this is proposed text to eventually be added to a page to be linked from {{FAC}} to help eliminate the inevitable questions Raul gets after closing FACs (why did a bot close my nomination?) and to encourage editors to *not* interfere with the bot by doing it manually. If you have time, can you give it a prose check? Feel free to edit it yourself, or use the associated talk page there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] South Side (Chicago)

Have you decided where you stand on South Side (Chicago)?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 18:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DIY conversion kit

I know you're busy but I've done a sortable list of common words requiring transmogrification into other English spelling variants. It covers about 80% of the variants I've encountered so far. It's here. Could you please take a look and add, delete or comment? the idea is to de-mystify EngVar conversion, as I'm sure fear of the unknown is the root cause of many disputes. Many thanks,--ROGER DAVIES talk 20:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Youngstown, Ohio

Tony, thanks again for your comments on the article. I apologize if my initial remarks in response were a bit poor. I was frustrated at the FA process more than anything, but after a solid night's sleep, I am working to incorporate your comments into the article. Once I have finished, I would appreciate you review the article again and if you feel it warrants, offer your support. Cheers, Daysleeper47 (talk) 22:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 1a

Much obliged. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] United States Senate

Tony, there are some gender issues that I don't know how to fix; I'd like to see how you address them, so I can learn. I flagged them with inline comments as needing attention, but PMA removed my inlines without fixing them. See Wikipedia:Featured article review/United States Senate. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I will be interested to see if you can achieve tidy and precise GNL here, especially since some of the sets under discussion are all-male. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merging Apostrophe?

Please make a renewed case for this tag at the talk page. Tony (talk) 00:38, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I have given my reasons already in the Talk Page. FilipeS (talk) 21:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shut up Chávez

Tony, I have no idea if this article and its quotes are punctuated correctly. There is no hurry at all, but if you have a chance, can you run through ¿Por qué no te callas?? ... um, do I add another question mark to the end of that sentence? A question about a question ... how to help needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

eeek, sorry you had to spend so much time on the top of that article; I didn't write any of that, and it is really rough. I was more concerned about how to handle the double punctuation, and was planning to rewrite a lot of that after the situation settles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:00, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

An example of my confusion over "double punctuation" is in the sentence above, where I ask you a question about a phrase that ends with a question. Does it have two question marks? When we quote a phrase with a question, does the sentence then end with a full stop? In other words, do you see any bad punctuation in the article with respect to the phrase? In the sentence above, where I ask you a question that ends with a phrase that ends with a question mark, do I add a second question mark? I think I slept through English grammar classes :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:08, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

If you want to see a really bad guideline page, in serious need of a red pen, see WP:CITE; it's a redundant wreck, and most of what it tries to present is also in WP:CITE/ES. I don't know how we get anything done 'round here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Howard

What did you call him? A little snake? Judging the news stories today, it looks like the betting trend proved correct. Marskell (talk) 09:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes, they've been booted out well and truly, and he has probably lost his seat. Sanity at last. Tony (talk) 10:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
With you on that, Tony! It's been a looooong eleven years.
– Noetica♬♩ Talk 12:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Yep, me too. For the Greens, this afternoon. And sure, let's hope things go well for Maxine. A brilliant performance; she's certainly someone to watch for the future. One way or another she'll be on the scene, of course. Howard wouldn't really want to stay on in Bennelong now, would he? And Maxine would surely win a by-election. Finally, I completely agree about the ABC.
Off to bed now. Future conversations at a more convenient location.
– Noetica♬♩ Talk 13:11, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Noetica, did you see Maxine "interviewing herself" on the ABC's The Chasers last night? I don't normally watch it, but that was a hoot. Tony (talk) 11:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Preuss School FAC

Hi. First, thanks for your input to the The Preuss School UCSD FAC. It was closed far quicker than I would have liked to, for reasons I can not explain. As such, I had discussion of the suggestions to made here. Reading your page, I understand you are busy and that you also probably understand grammar better than I do, but I don't agree with all of your suggestions and would like your further input on some of these instances:

  • "Awkward (actually, incorrect) grammar, and is "facets" the right word? "Facets of admission include the primary guardian lacking a college education and the student's family qualifying for"" - I changed this to student's primary guardian. I'm not sure how to make it correct.
  • ""Subsequently, tuition is non-existent."—Not much of a school." - I'm not sure what this means.

I also was wondering if you could recommend anyone who could copy edit the entire article. I tried the League, but they don't seem to respond very often. Cheers. SorryGuy 07:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

They're much in demand, and ration their input. Why not research the edit history pages of similar FAs and well-developed articles (and the edit summaries on those pages that identify the real copy-editors). Check their contributions pages too. Show them that you're familiar with their work. Ask nicely. Doing this may be a way of forming a team for future editing in this field.
Try "Criteria for admission include that the p g lacks a c e, and that the s f qualifies for ...". Tony (talk) 07:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I went ahead and made it "Criteria for admission include that the student's primary guardian lacks a college education and the student's family qualifies for." I hope that addition of student's does not compromise the sentence. Thanks for the suggestion on finding a copy editor, although I'm not sure there any in the school field. I will make sure I look though. It seems like a plan. Thanks for the advice and editing. SorryGuy 07:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Which / that

Over the last twelve months I've made a point of paying better attention to which / that errors and correcting them when I can. On a current arb case I found this: "Editors are encouraged to engage in frank discussion of matters affecting the project, and are encouraged to share even those facts and opinions which demonstrate the shortcomings of the project, its policies, its decision making structure, and its leaders." I noted on the talk that it should be a "that", but then reverted myself: "even those..." seems to allow for "which". What do you think? Marskell (talk) 08:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Tim, I've sent you a good attachment via email. Personally, I like Chicago on this: use "that" if there's no preceding comma, since "which" (which is optional grammatically) calls into question whether you carelessly omitted the comma. Some folk think that "which" is more elegant. Me, I have no such pretensions. After a comma, of course, "which" is the only choice. Tony (talk) 10:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Oi, Marskell, you're a sensible chap, and I'll always treasure the axe that you gave me, but there's nothing whatever wrong with "which" used for restrictive clauses. Of course, you're free to prefer "that" (or indeed to prefer "which"), but please don't go around telling people that "that" should be used. Whenever you suspect that your inner prescriptivist is about to pontificate, reread this wonderful article. Oh yes, and get yourself a copy of Jim Quinn's American Tongue and Cheek (dirt cheap from abebooks.com), even if, like me, you don't actually speak the American tongue. -- Hoary (talk) 10:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Now Hoary, you'll recall that I have slain my inner precriptivist with the axe I handed you. Of course, which / that can create a change in meaning, so sometimes it's appropriate to point it out. Our page on restrictive clauses seems to agree that either will do, but that American English tends toward "that." The comma rule of the thumb is the simplest and best, I agree, but "those which" constructions give me pause.
Whether I speak the American tongue would depend on your attitude toward the Canadian tongue. It's actually made me schizophrenic. There are certain words I'll spell either Brit or American, without consideration. Marskell (talk) 13:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
"That" is superior where there's no preceding comma. Caesar hath spoken. Phantom whichers will be flogged. Tony (talk) 14:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I got your interesting attachment Tony. Hard to pick a favourite. I liked the floating cathedral. Notre Dame de Paris? I couldn't quite tell. Marskell (talk) 15:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
The relevant section of CMOS is 5.202 Good usage versus common usage, which includes this paragraph:

that; which. These are both relative pronouns (see 5.58–62). In polished American prose, that is used restrictively to narrow a category or identify a particular item being talked about {any building that is taller must be outside the state}; which is used nonrestrictively – not to narrow a class or identify a particular item but to add something about an item already identified {alongside the officer trotted a toy poodle, which is hardly a typical police dog}. Which should be used restrictively only when it is preceded by a preposition {the situation in which we find ourselves}. Otherwise it is almost always preceded by a comma, a parenthesis, or a dash. In British English, writers and editors seldom observe the distinction between the two words.

In fact, Tony, it is not exactly that the relative pronoun which ought to be preceded by a comma (or the alternatives CMOS mentions). Usually it is, but far from always. I think CMOS overstates this, as it also overstates the supposed British failure to make the distinction. In fact, inserting a comma provides a handy test, both for restrictiveness and appropriateness of pronoun: relative which sounds and looks right with a "comma of non-restriction"; relative that does not. This applies whether or not a comma is in fact deployed. Consider this:

What should we watch? The Simpsons which Tony likes, Futurama which Sandy likes, or Duckman which Noetica likes?

Each which here works with a comma preceding it, since it is non-restrictive; but to most readers that would not work with such a comma. In the end, because three additional commas would clutter the sentence and obscure its lines, minimalists like you, Tony, prefer to omit them.
The matter is discussed at length in Fowler's, in MW's excellent Webster's Dictionary of English Usage, and in MW's more modern concise version. The history is interesting.
As for Marskell's original sentence, the relative is restrictive, as the comma test shows:

...encouraged to share even those facts and opinions, which demonstrate the shortcomings...

Who thinks this looks or sounds natural? I certainly don't – unless the intention were simply to mark out "those" intentions (somehow), and then to say something further about all of "those" intentions. That unlikely possibility aside, the comma signals a non-restrictive amplification, but either that or which following the comma fails to deliver such an amplification. In fact, a restriction follows, and most writers would therefore prefer that to which. All writers would omit the comma, even those that allow a restrictive which. (Note, finally, my restrictive that replacing who, which many stylists favour. See Fowler's and the MW works for discussion of this also.)
– Noetica♬♩ Talk 05:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
"those (people) that" really grates, and I took it as referring to the comma, even on my knee-jerk disambiguation re-read. Will digest all of this in a while. Unfortunately, I'm unable to send you the attachment referred to. :) Tony (talk) 05:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I think Noetica has trumped us all; I think CMOS has explained it well. Minor point: "being talked about" is instant fodder for my redundancy exercises. Tony (talk) 10:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I read above that something called "CMOS" tells us In polished American prose [...] Which should be used restrictively only when it is preceded by a preposition {the situation in which we find ourselves}. Well well. Pullum points out that you only have to read 1% of Moby Dick before you find a restrictive "which". I hadn't thought that Melville was a sloppy or British writer, I hadn't realized that US English would have had to invent new restrictions on the usage of function words since Melville's day, and I don't recall ever being stumped by [±RESTRICTIVE] of a "which" and wishing that the writer had elsewhere demonstrated their scrupulous avoidance of "which" for nonrestrictive applications. Meanwhile, the context suggests that "CMOS" means the Chicago Manual of Style. This would presumably be the 15th edition, degraded by the introduction of uninformed writing about "style" written by one Bryan Garner, who gets an amusing hagiography here at en:WP but seems underinformed. -- Hoary (talk) 10:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey Hoary, I agree with you about CMOS, 15th edition. Every time I cite it I find something to disagree with in its ruling. It does, nevertheless, provide a point d'appui for discussions of style and usage. The fact that it is the pre-eminent style guide for published books in the English-speaking world (sometimes through derivatives) means that it is worth citing. But please don't imagine that I endorse everything it says. Do you know the MW works that I mention above? They're a great corrective against vapid prescriptivism.
– Noetica♬♩ Talk 12:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
But Noetica, there's a confusion here between two things:
  • a style guide, as "Chicago" had always been: a handbook for solutions to knotty problems of citation, punctuation, layout, and even a degree of typography;
  • a guide to English usage.
Yes, I too have a high regard for Chicago as the former. It's actually helpful. I sometimes think that my stylistic choices are policies X and Y, but X is dreadful for instance A and Y is dreadful for instance B; Chicago usefully suggests a distinction between the two. Et cetera. As for the latter, I was very impressed by Fowler when I was thirteen or so. As my politics moved left, my language-politics moved through conservatism to retrogression and fantasy-land. I had twinges of common sense about this, but it took a reading of Quinn's American Tongue and Cheek to help me realize that these style guides run the gamut from innocuous and pointless to unintentionally ludicrous. If I'm not sure whether a certain word is used in a certain way, I look it up in a good dictionary. If I have a question about grammar, I look it up in Huddleston and Pullum's Cambridge Grammar. My copy of Fowler has a certain sentimental value as it's my grandfather's, but I've tossed all the other "usage guide" stuff. And although the pre-Garner 14th edition of Chicago says nothing about URLs and the like, nobody has yet complained about my improvised rules for their treatment, and in all other respects the book seems as good now as when I bought it. -- Hoary (talk) 12:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tweak

Tony, can you tweak this for me? Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mail

I've left my two cents over at FAC Talk. Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wal-Mart & FAC

Well, I honestly can say that I really have no idea how to address your concerns with the article. Sure, I could fix each one of your bullet point items and add nice little checkmarks after I fixed them, but it's pretty clear that that's not what you want. As far as a "thorough run-through" is concerned, the article has already had two editors from the League of Copyeditors, as well as myself, and SandyGeorgia's MOS concerns, being addressed. I'd love to see this article get promoted to FA, but I don't think I'd be the best person to give it another run-through, since I think I've already gone through it myself and it really needs another set of eyes looking on it. On the bright side, I think the article has come a long way in the past two years, and is getting closer to FA. Any suggestions? Thanks! Dr. Cash 03:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Colon question

Hi Tony: I'm wondering whether the following is an acceptable use of a colon, or if there is a better choice of punctuation.

Here are the sentences I'm replacing.

I offered to help copyedit the article—before I realized what a mammoth task it would be!  :P Thanks for your help. MeegsC | Talk 09:37, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Meegs—the colon is fine; alternatively, you could use a dash ("Connecticut – Richard" or "Connecticut—Richard"). You might consider dropping the comma after "1946", or you might retain it. I'm not sure that you need both "two" and "both". Tony (talk) 09:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your speedy reply! MeegsC | Talk 10:06, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tuck School of Business FAC

Hi -- thanks for your helpful suggestions over at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tuck School of Business. I've addressed almost all of them and just wanted you to clear a few things up before I could finish -- see my responses at the nomination page. Dylan 16:44, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Piłsudski FAC

I have replied, and I am looking forward to discuss any issues further.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 19:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Update: I think recent copyedits fixed the dash issue, too.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 23:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Why do you think so? 24 supports not counting my nom, 5 objects, including 2 obvious trollings... having written 20 FAs in the past my experience is that Raul is pretty good with detecting this kind of stuff. Which is why I am hoping to address your points, as unlike most of the previous objects you are neutral and I want to make sure you are satisfied with the article. So please, look at the article and see if recent edits have not addressed most of your points.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 16:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
It's not a vote. The opposes are serious POV issues. I can't second-guess the director's interpretation, but it doesn't look as though POV has been addressed. Tony (talk) 00:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Having written 20 FACs and seen my share of POV pushing vs serious POV issues, I can attest that the only POV issues in this case are from a minority which failed to push its undue disruption through. In any case, I am looking forward to you commenting on whether we have addressed your objections. If you think any significant POV is not represented, please tell me which POV would that be and I will do my best to address this concern.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 04:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Waiting for you to update your review.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 06:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rock Steady FAC

I've finished clarifying the prose over at Rock Steady (album). If I made any Manual of Style mistakes I hope none were too glaring, although I didn't see any problems with quotes and punctuation as you had mentioned at the FAC page. I've made additional comments directed at Drew17 about improving the article, but if you feel like striking your oppose feel free to do so.

In an unrelated matter, I would appreciate it if you could review Joy Division, an article Ceoil and I have been working on with hopes of having it attain FA status by the end of the year, at Wikipedia:Peer review/Joy Division. Particulary welcome would be comments about clarity and proper use of British English. WesleyDodds 12:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Prairie Ave FAC

How am I doing on this FAC. I could use some support.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 16:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I may have found a link that suffices. Let me know what you think.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 19:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I have done my best to respond to your latest. Can you support yet?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 18:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] United Nations Parliamentary Assembly

Would you like to review your decision at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/United Nations Parliamentary Assembly in light of recent revisions? Thanks, Sarsaparilla (talk) 22:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pauline Fowler FAC

Hiya, we've done quite a bit of work at Pauline Fowler, improving the references, and also cleaning up some punctuation things that SandyGeorgia helpfully pointed out. If you have a moment, could you please take another look? Sorry if I seem impatient... The nom at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pauline Fowler has been running for about two months now, so I'm seeing what I can do to "cat herd" and get the nom moving forward.  :) Thanks for your help, Elonka 06:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Belfast

Funny note for you about my old eyes :-)) Have a look at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Belfast; I've been holding because I couldn't see your tiny final italic comment, that got stuck on to the end of someone else's sig. I thought you had a ce object, and was going to ask you to revisit the FAC.  :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

No, there's no need for you to revisit at all; I only wanted you to feel sorry for my eyesight, and notice how hard it was for me to find that comment :-) I left the poor FAC hanging several weeks, thinking you had important ce concerns even though you hadn't opposed. I'm finding sometimes I have to step back through diffs to determine if some opposes are struck and so on. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anne Frank

How do you feel about the prose on this one? If you have issues, I'll try to fix them. It would be a nice one to keep. Marskell (talk) 09:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Date preferences

Thanks for weighing in on the date preferences discussion. The best to resolve the dispute might be to actually get some changes to the MediaWiki software, I'm a software developer by trade, so I'm pondering trying to take the initial work done by Rob Church and see if I could run with it to get it implemented.

On a completely unrelated topic: I'm getting quite close to nominating Vasa (ship) to FAC, and I'm wondering if you would fancy a look at the prose if you have time? The two primary authors are both non-native speakers, so I'm a bit worried about prose and since you're a 1-a legend, I thought it might not hurt to ask :-) henrik•talk 17:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MOS review tutorial

This and this provide samples of just about one of everything. Let's work on a tutorial about the basics as soon as you're done with advanced editing exercises. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

ah, I hadn't focused on the notion that you were covering some MOS items in your editing tutorial. I have a separate concern, that articles come up with not just a few, trivial MOS issues, but massive, glaring MOS items that don't get reviewed or mentioned, when they are so easy to spot and shouldn't be hard to fix. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aha! A so-called vital article at FAC

Tony I was wondering what you thought of this one as a few of us have given it a massage - there is one bit here - namely 2nd para commencing with 'Plumage' where the word is mentioned some 8 times (!) in the early part of the para, however I am stumped as to how to reduce repetition without introducing ambiguity here. Thought you may see this as an interesting challenge ;). Anyway my mental fatigue may have more to do with the fact it's past 1am and stinkingly humid here at present. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes indeedy...dammit I must turn this computer off....need..to..be...up..early...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
And then who'd a thought one would need a jumper 2 nights later..in December... (freezing) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyedit request

Hi, I was wondering whether you could copyedit the article Holden, which has failed all three of its featured article nominations. The remaining concerns are to do with the prose, and if you could take a look, it would be greatly appreciated. OSX (talk • contributions) 05:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How to satisfy 1a

I've linked to your page to save myself the trouble of writing a longer entry on redundant words. I hope you don't mind. RedRabbit (talk) 15:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I am very tired and don't like exercises. On cursory inspection, it seems fine. A few small suggestions:
(Somerset) The wrong lexical item->The wrong words (latter is clearer to most readers)
(SR Merchant Navy classes) The second occurrence of "construction/constructed" is avoided by substituting it with fabrication".
is->can be; substituting it with->substituting
(Jane Zhang) Insufficient commas (three could be added).
Clearer as 'Missing commas'; could be->ought to be (it is more than a matter of what's possible)

[edit] Bold synonyms in the lead

WP:MOSBOLD explains that synonyms are bolded in the lead, but I don't think WP:LEAD makes that clear, so they seem out of sync. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Appreciation

I wanted to tell you that I really appreciate your participation in FAC.--Keerllston 12:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gift

The Content Review Medal of Merit  
I, Woody, do hereby award Tony1 the Content Review Medal due to the sheer number of reviews that he undertakes. Tony1 strives to uphold quality prose throughout wikipedia. Your activity at WP:FAC and WP:FAR is truly appreciated. Thankyou. Woody (talk) 20:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
No problem, it is truly deserved. Whilst I may not agree with some of the WP:MOS updates, as is highlighted by my recent discussion at MOSNUM, your work here at wikipedia is truly invaluable. Your reviews at FA and FAR are always detailed and useful. Thanks for all the work you do. Woody (talk) 00:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Metallica

Hello Tony, i was hoping when you get some spare time you could look at Metallica, which i re-wrote from this. It's been through a peer review, another user has copyedited it, and i did the best applying your guides to it shown here. I was hoping you could give it a "pre-FAC" review to see what quality the writing is at the moment. If you're busy i understand fully as you receive many requests, thanks for your time. M3tal H3ad (talk) 11:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mainpage

We both worked on South Australian general election, 2006 a year ago, but it has deteriorated, and it goes on the mainpage on December 15. Can you do anything? I left a talk page note that the table really needs to move out of the lead; it wasn't there when it passed FAC, and on my browser, it's quite unsightly, and I see a lot of issues with the numbers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, I received a bit of a short answer on the talk page, so maybe best to leave it alone, but that is not the article that passed FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shapinsay FAC

The Shapinsay article has now had an extensive copyedit, so i'm hoping you will feel able to change your vote. If you go to the article, you should find that it has been much improved. Lurker (said · done) 16:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The article has been further spruced. Will you now be able to reconsider your vote? Please take a look at the article when you get a chance. Lurker (said · done) 10:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Melodifestivalen FAC

I'm about to leave a request at WP:LoCE, as soon as I figure out whether it's a simple proofread or a full-on copyedit I need. Anyway, I've gone through the article with a fine-toothed comb myself and I think the article is improved quite a bit. When you've got the time, I would appreciate if you came back to the nomination and revisited your oppose. Thanks. Chwech 15:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quick copy-editing question: names of British pubs

Should the name of a British pub be italicized? Quotationed? Neither?
The "Pig and Whistle" was esablished in 1876...
The Pig and Whistle was established in 1876..."
Couldn't find mention in the MoS. Thanks, Unimaginative Username (talk) 05:37, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hindu-German Conspiracy FAC

Hi, please look at the responses to your suggestion in the FAC.Rueben lys (talk) 12:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Somerset FAC

Thanks for your comments on the Somerset FAC which I believe have now been addressed. It would be great if you could reassess the article & put any further comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Somerset.— Rod talk 20:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Durn

This was not even close to ready for primetime, but now it's been mentioned at FAC, so if you have a free moment (HA!) ... User:SandyGeorgia/Article review ... edit as you like. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, I db-authored it because it really wasn't ready. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:51, 16 December 2007 (UTC)