User talk:Tony1/Archive 8

Potential FAC Prose Check

Hi Tony1. You may or may not remember an FAC submitted by myself and Ottava Rima: The Author's Farce. I'm considering re-submitting this for FAC again and I'm wondering if you can take another look at it. Thanks. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR _{talk // contribs} 01:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

WIkiProject Mac

Hello Tony1,

There hasn't been much activity at WikiProject Mac lately, and I saw your name on the list of active participants. If you are willing to jump in again, please consider helping to revive the project!

• Put {{WikiProject Macintosh}} on the talk pages of articles involving Macintosh and Apple. This helps to categorize articles!
• Write, cleanup, or expand an article about Macintosh/Apple
• Source a Biography of a living person living in, born in, or otherwise affiliated with Macintosh/Apple
• Help spread the word about the project
• Update the project page or the portal
• Watchlist or check the project talk page for updates

If you know anyone who might be interested in Macintosh/Apple , please pass this message along to them! If you are still interested in the project but aren't currently active, please add yourself to the list of inactive participants at the bottom of this list. Thanks!

On behalf of the project, iBen 21:32, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Love your username! Too stressed with RL work till early March. Tony (talk) 02:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 February 2010

• News and notes: New Georgia Encyclopedia, BLPs, Ombudsmen, and more

• In the news: Labor squeeze revisited, journalist consultations, philosophy bungles, and more

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Singapore

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 13:49, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Mary Rose at FAC

Since you have been an active commentator, reviewer or editor of the article Mary Rose, I'd like to announce that it's been nominated for featured article status. The nomination can be found at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mary Rose/archive1. I would very much appreciate your comments, suggestions for improvement or support of the nomination.

Peter ^Isotalo 23:37, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Inauguration of Barack Obama FAC4

A couple weeks ago, you left some comments at the (FAC) for Inauguration of Barack Obama, but you have not come back. I think my co-author has addressed your concerns.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Lindburgh or Lindbergh?!

Re: Um ... why should "fame" be linked? Can you please read WP:OVERLINK. The Lindburgh article is spattered with so much blue, it will ensure that hardly anyone clicks on a useful link. Why are Garden City" AND "Manhatten" AND "New York City" all linked? Why would a reader want to go directly to the general ones rather than through the most specific (the first)?

Integral to the story has nothing to do with whether a link should be created. "The" is integral to the story, too. Tony (talk) 07:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Not to be pedantic, but the article is relatively stable, but deals with a series of contentious issues revolving around the Lindbergh mystique including the fleeting nature of fame, of which Lindbergh was one of the world's most visible victims after being cast into the public arena. The inclusion of locales such as Garden City, Manhatten and New York City were obviously linked because there was much confusion between where Lindbergh took off, where he was toasted as a hero and the city in which he later worked, and lived. I have no compunction to have common words remain as links but the article that is in question was very carefully written and researched by a Lindbergh scholar and he has been vociferous to the point of being pointy about the reasoning behind his development of the article. ...and please don't lecture as you did above, it is demeaning especially to someone like yourself (I am using "the water on the duck's back" precept here) who as a long-time Wiki editor should treat others with respect. FWiW, when there are major challenges to the direction of an article, it sometimes comes back to the WP:BRD construct, which is being invoked. I look forward to a lively discourse if you choose. Bzuk (talk) 09:08, 17 February 2010 (UTC).

(1) The stability of an article has nothing to do with whether it should be improved and, indeed, brought into line with modern wiki-practice as set out in the guidelines. (2) The contentiousness seems to be irrelevant to whether the wikilinking should be diluted with low-value links (I hadn't picked up the contentiousness, such was the narrowness of my pass over ... the broader content is not of close relevance to my goal, which is to improve the linking practice and in turn make it more likely that readers will hit links at all). (3) Could you explain how the fame article is useful, focused, and relevant to an understanding of the topic here? Why not link "public arena" and most other items in the article, to turn the issue upside-down? Could you explain how the New York City article is helpful/relevant to the "confusion" about where L. took off from? What exactly in the article is helpful to the reader? Who would hit that link, diverting from the run of the text? Why do all three locations need to be blued, close to each other, when the reader can't possibly click all at once, and it is most straightforward to access the others through the most specific Garden City? (4) I went straight from a very quick reading of the Signpost article to this one, and was unaware that someone's ego is tied up in it to the extent that other editors are not allowed to come in and copy-edit or tailor the text and formatting to the requirements of WP's guidelines and policy. If there's a bad dose of WP:OWNERSHIP going on, it needs to be nipped in the bud now, I'm afraid. What is your role in supporting this person's possible ownership issue? (5) Is unlinking a few common terms a "major challenge to the direction" of the article"? (6) Why is my text you quote at the top "lecturing" and "demeaning"? Tony (talk) 12:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Good morrow, Tony! I have no aversion to unlinking many of the overly wrought items in the aforementioned article. In fact, I essentially agree with you that the article does need a review or revision and as is wont, there are many other blue links that should be addressed. What I considered was a "drive-by" approach that did not shout out careful consideration. When I looked at the lede passages, and noted that Lindbergh had originally been linked to a number of important elements of his character and achievements and then looked at what was left after your changes, it appeared that the edits were not well-considered. As to Bruce's aversion to changes to the article, that's merely a remnant of his considerable work and effort and I have had many duels about phraseology, formatting and the like on articles in which he took a particular interest. Labeling his commitment to quality research as ownership is a bit harsh, as is the tone and tenor of the initial comment that you expressed about my concerns, e.g. "Can you please read..." which to my sensibilities, appears demeaning. Knowing that you are Frank as well as Tony (in the sense of the arcane definition of "marked by an elegant or exclusive manner or quality..."), I appreciate that you saw need to make changes and in retrospect, other wikilinks such as "Gallons, gasoline, hangar" should be consigned to the dustbin. Nevertheless, before reverting your first "pass", I did a count and assessment of the wikilinks and found that locations were predominantly linked, with names of individuals next in line. The number and instances of commonplace words were few, and that the repeating of links was also limited. I did see Medal of Honor linked three times, which should be reduced but the first instance of a wikilink appearing in the infobox and followed by a link in the body is not excessive. Where San Diego should appear rather than San Diego, California is probably another example where change can occur. As to some of the other links, fuselage seemed iffy but when the context of the passage referred to souvenir hunters tearing the fabric material off the Spirit of St. Louis then identifying the aircraft section may be necessary. The article is on my watchlist because it is a continual troll magnet in which vandals take relish in dumping on Lindbergh. Not to say that our "hero" is overly pristine but the amount of historical revisionism attempted led to many challenges and the use of protection shields. The article has withstood many attacks and over the last while, become more "stable" in that most of the questionable facets of the Lindbergh saga have been resolved. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:27, 17 February 2010 (UTC).

"Please read X" is demeaning? Nooooo. I'll return to do the job properly when I get a chance. Tony (talk) 21:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Footnotes

Tony, can you explain to me what is going on at WP:FN. There seem to be a small number of entrenched editors there who manoeuvre as a group to outflank any outside attempts at input, carefully avoiding any rational engagement. Has this group honed these stratagems over time? The latest offering from one of them is a vote to support their position on the grounds that it is "consistent with the existing consensus at the relevant guideline, as the MOS guidance on this matter ought to be." Am I missing something? That's pure gibberish, isn't it? It leaves a nasty taste, finding this level of disingenuousness operating in the heart of MOS. --Epipelagic (talk) 04:33, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

FARs

Well I could leave them to tan in the sun for another two weeks YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 05:33, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Your comments

I've left a response at WT:MOS. Please reconsider.User:LeadSongDog come howl 14:33, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Keeping it professional

Tony, you may or may not have noticed my comments at WT:Linking by now. (Hopefully, you're reading this first.) I just wanted to state that in respect of our past differences, I've made a concerted effort to keep the comments focused on the linking issue, and not to make it something that you might feel is directed solely against you. I have only two requests of you, the first being the hope that you can do the same and keep your comments on that page directed at the points I've raised, without any personal asides. The second involves an honest desire to keep the comments on WT:Linking from drifting into the personal, as they've done so many times in the past between us. I was serious about this before, when I posted notes to that effect on your talk page. I'd like to ask again that if you feel any personal slights from my posts, that we keep them as personal discussions between us. I'll leave it up to you to choose whether you want a discussion here, on my talk page, or split between them. Should you choose to post your concerns in such a manner, I'll also make a concerted effort to prioritize responding to them so that we can keep this in check. I hope you'll take this as the honest-to-God olive branch it is intended to be. Cheers. --Ckatz^chat_spy 09:05, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I am pleased to receive an overt "olive branch", but you persist with the personal accusations. The very title here is an accusation. I have asked repeatedly for substantive contributions from you, but have never seen a single one: it's all politicised. I have very little time to devote to WP until 3 March. Tony (talk) 11:37, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Where, exactly, are these "personal accusations", Tony? Claiming they exist doesn't make them real. As I've had to ask you on numerous occasions in the past, please provide proof if you're going to make such claims. I've posted here in good faith to try and keep our bickering from polluting the linking discussions, and I would appreciate it if you could participate in a similar manner. --Ckatz^chat_spy 23:01, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Now that there is a concrete debate on what should and should not be linked at WT:Linking, it may be time to bury the above stuff, which quite frankly, seems to develop rapidly into acrimony each time it is brought up here. Tony will be busy for another week, so why don't we see you at WT:Linking#Three classes of desired links. Look forward to hearing your views. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:37, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Ohconfucius, this is between Tony and me. It is not specifically related to linking; it needs to be resolved. --Ckatz^chat_spy 07:44, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

History of logic

After some years of gestation, the material of this article is now finished. I am thinking of taking it to FA but would like some thoughts from you at first, as I have heard such bad things about this process. It should go there one day, the history of logic is one of the top 50 articles that should be in an encyclopedia. I welcome your thoughts.HistorianofLogic (talk) 20:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Institute for Scientific Information highly-cited researcher

Since you are a science editor as well as a grammar and MOS expert here, could you help with renaming that article to something that's commonly used as well as grammatical. The same goes for its associated category. Thanks, Pcap ping 08:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi, unsure it should be a separate article from the main ISI one. If it's to be retained, "Institute of Scientific Information: highly cited researchers" might be better. MoS says no hyphen after -ly adverbs, BTW. Tony (talk) 09:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 February 2010

• News and notes: $2 Million donation, cybersquatting, comScore statistics and more

• In the news: Macmillan's Wiki-textbooks and more

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Mammals

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 12:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Re your comment on AE

Hey Tony, I'm wondering if you will reconsider your comments after giving the Al-Durrah talk page & history a thurough read. To be frank, I'd agree when you say "believe SV conducted her role as nominator with cooperation, responsiveness to criticism, politeness, and attention to fine detail. I was pleased to endorse the nomination: it is a good read". The majority of the article is reasonably well written, and SV clearly put allot of effort getting it up to FA status.

That isn't in question here however. The problem is that several editors came by object to just two sentences in the lede, and SV has resorted to edit warring and baseless allegations to prevent any changes. Can this be fair? NickCT (talk) 16:46, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

note to self: script

remember to reinstate protection for 911 and 999 after doing current series of articles. Tony (talk) 08:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

List of state leaders

Hi, I noticed you have removed a lot of links from a series of List of state leaders pages such as List of state leaders in 1 BC. I am confused as to why you have have removed the link from "Events of 1 BC" to 1 BC as this seems to be a clear case where "relevant connections to the subject of another article that will help readers to understand the current article more fully" (as per the linking guideline) - the events of the year are often an easy way for the reader to understand the changes in leaders of that year and indeed I have used that link myself. It is also used in the most recent and frequently used pages such as List of state leaders in 2010 (where many of the other links you have removed are not there) and as on that example is the only link to the year itself from the list.

Also without the link, the words "Events of 1 BC" make no sense to be on the page at all, so if you think the link should not be there I am not sure why you have left the words there? Davewild (talk) 18:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• Hmm, seems that the script used removes year links too broadly... Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:57, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• I see, thanks. I've fixed it. Tony (talk) 02:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Nominations for the March 2010 Military history Project Coordinator elections now open!

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 8 March 2010! More information on coordinatorship may be found on the coordinator academy course and in the responsibilities section on the coordinator page.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 March 2010

• Reference desk: Wikipedia Reference Desk quality analyzed

• News and notes: Usability, 15M articles, Vandalism research award, and more

• In the news: Idealizing the Star Spangled Banner, Curious Announcement, and more

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Severe Weather

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

vocabulary

I don't understand your use of 'piped' or 'unpiped' so I think that needs a link. --Ring Cinema (talk) 01:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Link added (see WP:PIPE). Dabomb87 (talk) 02:24, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Achtung!

Hi Tony. A grammar question for you – there may be no hard and fast rule, but rather a question of preference. With regards to the lead of Achtung Baby, which of the following to do recommend?

• The album and the subsequent multimedia-intensive Zoo TV Tour were central to the group's 1990s reinvention…
• The album and the subsequent multimedia-intensive Zoo TV Tour were central in the group's 1990s reinvention…

I prefer the former – and google hits also seem to prefer this. Could you suggest either way? If you want to suggest a re-write to that sentence, please do so too.

In fact, if you want to get stuck and give a fresh set of eyes to the whole article’s prose, this would be most appreciated. I know you like music articles – although this one does have drums in it – indeed, they were central to/in it.

Cheers --Merbabu (talk) 04:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Merbabu. Thinking on my feet, the "to" has a slight tinge of being central to the whole reinvention; the "in" has a slight tinge of being a central part of the reinvention (a component rather than the whole deal). They're so close that either would do. Let's see what Hoary says. Tony (talk) 05:20, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - grammatical questions aside for a moment, your descriptions of the alternatives say to me that the former is more accurate in the case at hand - indeed, the album and tour were pretty much the reinvention, rather than components of the reinvention. (But, now as for whether "central" is the right word in the first place...). And, while I the lead is not bad it could do with a bit of expansion, so I might run it past you too later - it seems silly perhaps to get hung up on a 2-letter word, but leads are very important - i bet it is all most people really read. cheers --Merbabu (talk) 06:04, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Central, critical, crucial ... then down a peg, significant, important ... Tony (talk) 07:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh yes, I agree with Tony. On the other hand, my acceptability judgements are probably worth nothing, as some kind of aphasia may result from my authoritatively diagnosed neurological disorder. -- Hoary (talk) 15:10, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Removal of gratuitous links

Regarding this edit of yours, comment "rem gratuitous links", I've seen several editors do these lately. For example, this edit by Ohconfucius. Is there some script or central list of overlinked phrases that you are all working off of?

I can live with most of the removals, but your elimination of links to news publications in main text concerns me (which also happened in the Kennedy edit). That Springsteen appeared on the cover of both Time and Newsweek in 1975 is a central event of his biography. A non-U.S. reader may well have no idea of what those magazines are, and thus of the significance of those appearances. (Trust me, most American readers have no idea what the most important news magazines are in France or Germany.) Having no link to Rolling Stone may puzzle older readers or non-music fans as well as non-U.S. readers. Almost by definition, USA Today is likely unknown outside the USA. And so forth. Is there a central place where I can make the case that these links should survive the purges? Thanks ... Wasted Time R (talk) 13:07, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. I've reinstated those links (Rolling Stones mag was already linked). I'll contact Ohconfucius about this too. Tony (talk) 01:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

First of all, I think I may have used the term 'gratuitous links' once, with an article where this was obviously the case. In the Ted Kennedy article, the New York Times, CNN, and Time are all linked five, six, seven times, so I thought a cleanup was in order. I suppose I got tired of removing these one by one, so I did a S&R in Notepad. It is usual that there is one link left, but as the subject is so thoroughly American, and the sources delinked are internationally known American media, I didn't reinstate at least one appearance. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:31, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd make an additional observation: for popular music articles, Billboard and Rolling Stone, being the major publications in the US, are almost universally heavily overlinked. Billboard in particular is a big problem. There is usually NEVER a need to link to it because there are always more specific links downstream in the article, such as Billboard Hot 100 and Billboard 200. As ever, Rolling Stone would ever only need to be linked once, though it never is. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:56, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Grammar question

Hi Tony, I wonder whether I might badger you with a grammar question. Which of the following is correct:

• Either a one-time disruption or naturally occurring mutations has led to a reduction in observed triglyceride synthesis levels.
• Either a one-time disruption or naturally occurring mutations have led to a reduction in observed triglyceride synthesis levels.

I seem to recall learning that the "or" causes "disruption" to be the subject of the verb (as opposed to, say, "a targeted disruption and naturally occurring mutations" which would cause the verb to conjugate for the plural), but I've no idea where I obtained this notion or whether it's correct. Any thoughts (other than that the sentence isn't optimally written either way)? Эlcobbola _talk 15:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I had to try it with a simple example to work this out: "Either blue or mauve is the optimal colour for the wall.". I'm pretty sure it's the first option, elcobbola. Tony (talk) 23:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Is this helpful here? Blue and mauve are both singular. Rather, it's analogous to "Either a cat or mice has/have pissed on my newspaper." To my (perhaps damaged) mind, either is horrible; you have to recast the sentence. E.g. "A reduction in observed triglyceride synthesis levels has resulted from either a one-time disruption or naturally occurring mutations." -- Mister Kibitzer 00:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

You are perfectly right: I'd neglected the singular/plural clash. Thanks, Hoary. Tony (talk) 00:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The sentence is indeed poorly written, but recasting it circumvents the question. What would the answer be for "Either a cat or mice has/have pissed on my newspaper"? (I'm reminded of Jeder für sich und Gott gegen alle when Kaspar is tasked with the riddle of finding a single question to determine from which of two villages a wanderer comes: one of only truth tellers or one of only liars. He "cheats" by answering "I'd ask them whether they were a tree frog", thus circumventing the exercise in logic). Эlcobbola _talk 01:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Circumventing, "Either a cat has pissed on my newspaper, or mice are responsible"? And what about "The/a reduction in observed triglyceride synthesis levels has been caused by either ...", if you can bear the passive. Tony (talk) 01:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

So is the "real" answer that I shouldn't realistically expect to encounter such a construction? There isn't a clear rule governing which noun in a list containing singular and plural nouns is the object of the verb? Эlcobbola _talk 01:32, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

True: it's a conundrum. I wonder how other languages deal with it. Tony (talk) 01:35, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I can answer for German. The verb would conjugate to the closest noun. Entweder Hans oder meine Brüder werden mir helfen (Either Hans or my brothers will help me), but entweder meine Brüder oder Hans wird mir helfen (Either my brothers or Hans will help me). Usually, though, the verb is singular when the nouns are linked by a disjunctive conjunction (probably where I got the notion this was the case in English, as it's also a West Germanic language). Эlcobbola _talk 01:57, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe that is also the English language solution. The reason is that "mutations has" (or "a ... disruption have") sound wrong because of the juxtaposition of singular and plural forms. But the choice can be avoided, e.g.:

*Either a one-time disruption or naturally occurring mutations can reduce observed triglyceride synthesis levels. By the way, are the words "observed" and "levels" necessary?

*Either a one-time disruption or naturally occurring mutation has led to a reduction in observed triglyceride synthesis levels.

—Finell 03:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVIII (February 2010)

The February 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Your recent comments

Tony, I have to say that your most recent comments were very disappointing, especially given the repeated requests for us to keep our personal disputes in user space. I've made several attempts to open discussion regarding our differences, as evidenced by my posts to your talk page. I've also asked you on numerous occasions to please stop publicly misrepresenting my positions when our opinions differ. Unfortunately, you have ignored these requests. Worst of all, though, you persist in the pattern that I feel has led to the most discord between us, that being a tendency to make misleading statements about people who disagree with you. Your most recent posts ("I have to reveal that it is Ckatz's clear agenda to retain as many links as possible in WP text", "you have been conducting your own personal vendetta") are outright fabrications, as you well know, and serve as additional examples of this problem. It is deeply regrettable that you persist in acting in such a confrontational manner, as I had hoped you would ultimately work with me to find some form of resolution. While I would be very happy to be proven wrong, the evidence to date indicates that those hopes were apparently misguided and naive. --Ckatz^chat_spy 21:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Why beat yourself about: you're not naive. Now you want to maximise the density of linked items; I want a highly selective approach. Unless we can resolve that, there's no point in hoping for a love-in. Tony (talk) 23:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Again, why make up stuff? While we certainly have different opinions about links, I've never advocated a need to (as you put it) "maximise the density of linked items", and my contribution history easily demonstrates that. This isn't simply about differences of opinion with regard to linking, or any other particular subject; it is about how the discussions proceed. I have no illusions about changing your mind, but I do expect that you treat me as you'd want to be treated yourself. After all, I doubt you'd be happy if I claimed that you hate the very concept of linking, and were secretly aiming to do away with every single one of them. I'm pretty certain that you would quickly dismiss that as a complete misrepresentation of your position, call me out for such actions, and probably even suggest that it warranted an AN/I post or that it was a "breach of WP:CIVIL". A "love-in" might not be in the cards, but treating each other with civility would be beneficial to us and to the project. --Ckatz^chat_spy 00:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I notice no breach of WP:CIVIL by you or by me. My comments about your attitudes are reasonable given your trenchant opposition to moves to encourage WPians to use the wikilinking system with greater discrimination, in fields where there are major problems with overlinking. Just yesterday, I unlinked blue from the Avatar 3D article. That is ridiculous. So why are you fighting against the addition of just a few lines of advice on the matter when it is such a problem?

You may believe you are misrepresented because you never engage in substantive debate about the issue: one can only draw inferences from your behaviour in reverting multiple times and railing against such additions to style guides (which are perfectly in line with WP:LINK). If you want to change WP:LINK, please go to the talk page and suggest it. Tony (talk) 00:57, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not that I "believe" I'm misrepresented - it is that you are misrepresenting me. (And before you suggest it, this isn't simply a "me versus you" matter; you do this a lot on Wikipedia, but I can only speak for myself.) Do I really need to list all of the silly "Ckatz wants to see a sea of blue" comments, the "agenda" nonsense, and so on? Tony, you are very quick to condemn others when you feel slighted, calling for AN/I investigations and complaining of WP:CIVIL breaches, but you seem to overlook such matters when you are promoting your own causes. I have never advocated unlimited linking, I've told you that repeatedly, and I've made it clear that my objections lie with the careless mass unlinking that appears guided by an "I don't want the link, so no-one else should have it" mentality. If you need an example, please explain why you deemed "Antarctica" to be unworthy of a link in the article Economy of Antarctica. Please explain why the terms you've decided are "common" should be used as a guide for all of Wikipedia, and why that list is not presented in a manner that is conducive to discussion? If there were more transparency, if there were some - any - semblance of accountability or consultation, it might be more acceptable. As it is, however, I constantly find myself wondering where, exactly, you plan on stopping. --Ckatz^chat_spy 02:23, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• If you engaged in substantive, specific discussions, we could move forward. Now, I did immediately accept your point about "Antarctica", didn't I? A little unfair to use that one, I think: it demonstrates flexibility and willingness to engage, doesn't it, rather than the bulldozer you seem to think I am. Thus far, there is little to suggest that this comment, when you were last taken to ANI over your tactics, is not broadly true: "Ckatz repeatedly reverts while insisting that others discuss the matter (yet she herself refuses to do so".

  But all this time, I wonder why common ground can't be reached with such a talented writer as you. It's a point I've made before, but which needs to be repeated: you're a mystery to me. And just as an aside, we'd love to have you as a reviewer at FAC/FLC/FAR. Feel like dropping in occasionally? Tony (talk) 03:11, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Tony, I'm not sure I need to say much here, as you are making my point for me. You are aware that the individuals involved in pushing that thread - which was, by the way, directed at several editors and not just me, and was dismissed as groundless by a good number of admins - were people with long histories of abusing Wikipedia? That one of them was a long-term problem user with a history of attacks and disruptive behaviour who finally wore out his welcome and was banned? That another was a single-purpose sock of a blocked vanity spammer, and a third was an IP with a grudge because his politically motivated text was rejected? Not really the best people to side with, one would think. That is exactly the kind of statement I take issue with; yet another unsubstantiated claim that does not hold up under closer examination. If you would just stop doing that, we could agree to continue disagreeing (only n a much more amicable manner). --Ckatz^chat_spy 04:48, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Say, Ckatz. I find your debate tactics to be classic, politically correct Wikipedia-style posturing where, after your arguments don’t gain traction with the others, you try to hide behind the apron strings of “civility” and go on the attack against your principle adversary and exhibit keen interest in arguing until the heat death of the universe. Your “Gosh golly gee whiz, I’ve asked you to not characterize my objectives in an unflattering (but true) light and allow the presumption that my intentions have been washed in unicorn tears”-tactic is common and is as transparent as it is tiresome. Tony’s observations about your editing behavior as of late are spot-on and fair. It’s clear that the Wikipedian community has a new, developing awareness of how poorly we’ve been linking. Your views (which can be summarized as “link early and link often”) are now looked upon with disfavor. I suggest you drop it and try to find more common ground with Tony rather than dwell on a lost cause. Greg L (talk) 03:45, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh Ckatz, this is really quite tedious! I do wish you would come clean on where you stand regarding the linking issue... So far, despite several requests on my part, and innumerable requests from Tony for you to give substantive arguments, there has been zilch from you. Yet you keep on insisting there is this 'personal issue' between Tony and you which needs to be solved. Perhaps you are afraid of revealing that you are indeed very liberal on linking? Pray, tell - I promise I won't laugh, and will engage in substantive discussion. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, gee, look who dropped by to say hello. Bit later than usual, but always welcome I suppose. Well, as much fun as your tag-team grade-school antics are, it really is time to, as they say, "put up or shut up". If you've got proof that substantiates your outlandish claims ("link early and link often", really?) please either bring it to the table or go home. I've no time for random unsupported accusations. --Ckatz^chat_spy 04:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, I just couldn't resist coming by. You know how much I love chatting with you about linking matters! ;-) Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 05:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Funnily enough, I tripped over this gem at ANI last October: "Ckatz & Ruslik are tag-team reverting my corrections to this article, which I've cited sources for. They clearly have no idea of the subject material, having never contributed creatively to the subject, but that doesn't stop them repeatedly reverting my corrections." Tony (talk) 09:36, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Tony, did you read the last note, about who started that thread? Did you read through the actual thread? The guy whose post you're referencing was finally indef-blocked (not by me) for disruptive behaviour. Assessments of his actions in that particular thread you've referenced include:

"You've been trying to edit war an underreferenced section into an article for two months, which is much harder to read than the existing version, you haven't gone to talk once, and you insist it's the other editors' problem?" (SarekofVulcan)

"[username] has proved in the past that (1) he is not a team player, and (2) his claims of having expert knowledge that trumps the consensus of everybody else are out of proportion to the little sense and knowledge that he may possess. " (Hans Adler) and

"[username], you need to read carefully WP:AGF. You have violated this very important policy repeatedly on this page by assuming the basest of motivations of people." (AuntieE.)

His block log includes comments such as "disruptive editing: persistent reverting against consensus", "using ArbCom elections as personal agenda platform", and "systematic pattern of disruption, personal attacks, incivility, not here to build an encyclopedia". I've no problem reviewing the thread with you if you like, but you really need to ask yourself if that guy is someone you want on your side... --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:09, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Quoting you: “…tag-team grade-school antics…”. Oh, good-gosh-golly, me! Greg L (talk) 01:14, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

You don't get to pass 'GO' with that redirected accusation. You can go on pretending Tony, and now me, from tarring your image whereas you are not stated anywhere in black and white where you stand. I've got better things to do than to comb through your edit history. Having said that, I've seen it enough times to have a reasonable stab at what you stand for. You really need to nail this one (and not me), or on your own head be it. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:21, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• • Yep, some of the accusations by Ckatz are on or over the boundary of WP:CIVIL. But again, s/he is the kind of editor I'd really like to collaborate with. Ckatz's text is usually pretty much perfect (apart from the hyphen–dash issue, hehe). That is why we need this editor at FAC, FLC and the like. It is a waste that s/he engages in this kind of stuff. BTW, are you male or female? It would be nice to know which pronoun to use. Tony (talk) 12:29, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Extreme change at WP:MOSDASH

It might seem trivial, but the change that three editors have had three goes at trying to force through would render in breach just about all biographical articles, plus many article names and main text on other topics.

Apparently, we are going to be forced to jam together the innermost elements in ranges and other disjunctive uses of the en dash:

31 December 1910–11 January 1972 (Is there a one-year range stuck in the middle?)

New York–Boston route (a new one from York in the UK to Boston?)

The style guide and widespread practice have been stable on this matter for years.

The norms are:

31 December 1910 – 11 January 1972

New York – Boston route

While practice out there varies (or is in a mess, even within publishing houses), there is utterly no reason WP should change its practice on the basis of the personal whims of a few editors.

RfC here. (talk) 00:01, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The Author's Farce

Hi. It seems I'm a bit late to the party, but you mentioned that you'd be free after March to check The Author's Farce. Got a chance to take a look now? ɳOCTURNEɳOIR _{talk // contribs} 05:21, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Dashes for maths

Tony, it occurred to me that a solution to the dash disagreement might be to specify that articles about certain academic disciplines (maths seems to be one) which have consistently used a different style in their publications should also use that style here, with the exception of date ranges and perhaps other cases where a Wikipedia reader would benefit from a consistent house style. E.g. if "Birch–Swinnerton-Dyer" is standard, that's OK. This could be accomplished by a WP:MATHMOS, if such a thing exists. Since you've thought about this more than I have, I wanted to ask if you see a problem with this approach. Mike Christie (talk) 12:59, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The trouble is that even maths texts don't use a consistent line. I believe the exception for Seiffert–van Kampf was the reasonable compromise, although I believe the text should say "may" rather than "is" (without consulting it to see the exact wording). Try Google books to see the mess out there. Tony (talk) 04:17, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Overlay formatting

Hi Tony,
What I see is little horizontal boxes at the top, then Star, ToC, Babel more or less level below that. No overlap.
I don't claim to be an expert on formatting that stuff.
Is there a way to draw an imaginary line below the little boxes that isolates them from what follows?
I may have misunderstood where you were seeing the issue.
Thanks, Varlaam (talk) 08:32, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm dreadful at that kind of stuff, but I'll ask dabomb87, who kindly fixed my mess of a page. Tony (talk) 08:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Is that definitely a good idea?

I have asked people to look at problems for me in the past. They ignore the actual problem, and start nitpicking things that aren't broken, and I think, J*sus, why did I even ask?

Varlaam (talk) 09:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, backing off ... sorry to suggest. Tony (talk) 09:46, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

SILLIWILI results

Judging the entries is taking me more than I had thought, and, despite Cartwright's assurances, posting the results won't take place for another day or two. Apart from their number (I believe we have 120 nominations for two months), last week was enrolment week and I was busy running around for the new semester's schedule; I was supposed to have judged the January entries in advance, but, rather surprisingly, I am starting to have a social life. In any case, I am nearly finished, and seeing that the previous announcement was on 10 January, I am thinking that it might not be a bad idea to say that such announcements will take place within the first ten days of odd-numbered months. It would ease the pressure on both me and the anxious nominators.

On a relevant point, I am starting to wonder whether it would be a good idea to limit the number of nominated links to five per article, with exceptions for groups of links (e.g. thematic links close together, or every word in a sentence linked). I'm still unsure about how to handle such groups, but I'd like to hear your opinion on the proposal. I do realise that some nominators will not be pleased to see instructions creep into the contest, but if we keep it simple it should do only good. Bad linking is as often as not the result of a specific editor's actions, and so an article may be choc-a-bloc with useless links; rather than nominate a dozen of them, or every one in a paragraph, nominators would have to pick their submissions more carefully were a limit to be put in place. After all, the standards rise with the total number of entries, and a merely crazy link stands no chance after a certain point. Our nominators should also remember that the contest rewards links, not articles, so it is not necessarily constructive to show how many bad links an article has.

PS: Are we supposed to remove ineligible candidates from the tables? Ohconfucius has nominated a link from a template, and I really think we ought to limit the contest's scope to articles (non-disambiguation mainspace pages). Waltham, The Duke of 01:39, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• I have great sympathy for His Grace's concerns above. From experience, I would agree that an article with one silly link is likely to have others. As a nominator, it is often difficult to find any one to nominate, so more than one nominations is made out of expediency; there are also examples of two or more links where one would do (for example: Martin Lawrence). The rate of nominations seems to be healthy, and forcing nominators to limit our choice to, say, two/three per article would appear to be reasonable. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:02, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree with His Grace's points. I didn't think a duke would have anything to do with an "enrolment week"; I wonder what it means. Perhaps Cartwright is enrolling in a university course. Tony (talk) 02:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
    • You have read correctly, Tony; I've lost a wager with a professor at White's and now I must regularly attend lectures at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine for an entire semester. Awkward, to be sure, but I hope to get something out of it, even if only in terms of knowledge and interesting stories.
    • Two things about any rule changes: One, I find that it would be preferable to announce them along with (and before) the results, to ensure that they will be noticed. After the announcement they would be placed at the contest page. Two, after this happens, then entries not fulfilling the basic criteria (from articles, internal links and not inter-wiki or external links, etc.) would be removed. Nominators submitting more links than appropriate for an article, however, would be contacted to fix this themselves (i.e. cut out a few links). If they would not do this by that month's Judgement Day, the offending entries would be removed from the nominations tables and not compete.
    • About the rule itself, I think a limit of four links would be good, with the understanding that clearly defined (and marked) groups of links could be entered and count towards the limit as one link. If I choose such a group, I'll officially reward a representative link, as I have done with "head"; indeed, I take note of a link's surroundings even if only the link itself has been nominated, and so I can reward it as part of a group even if it has been entered into the contest alone (or the group's links have been entered separately). I think it is a fair treatment, and in the spirit of the contest. Waltham, The Duke of 13:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Four is fine; but why not simply disregard any links after the third for an article? (And say so in your comments, if need be.) The rule is clearly stated at the top of the nominations section, and it would be nicer not to make it a serious procedure. Tony (talk) 13:32, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I wanted to give nominators the opportunity to correct their submissions, but you have a point about keeping it simple. (I suppose you mean "after the fourth", though.) And I still think we should count sets as individual examples of bad linking, which is what they are. Waltham, The Duke of 19:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Your comments

Thanks for leaving comments, I responded. Best Hekerui (talk) 22:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Wording

Hello Tony, how are you? I have a little problem with one article, Give It 2 Me. There is a line there ""Give It 2 Me" was written by Madonna and Pharrell Williams as a self-empowerment song. Ingrid Sischy from Interview magazine asked Madonna, whether the song had the ability to become a party anthem in Ibiza. Madonna responded that she liked the idea of everybody dancing to "Give It 2 Me", by treating it as a party anthem." However, I feel that the wording can be a little better, could you suggest an alternate structuring? --Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:54, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

• It's a bit repetitive. How about ""Give It 2 Me" was written by Madonna and Pharrell Williams as a self-empowerment song. Asked by Ingrid Sischy from Interview magazine whether the song had the ability to become a party anthem in Ibiza, Madonna said that she liked the idea." 'The idea' would then imply people partying to it. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Unsure of the exact meaning; can the word "by" be removed? That would make it easier for me, if that's the intended meaning. Tony (talk) 05:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Ram Narayan

Just a note to say thank you for lobbing in at this article's FAC. It needed eyes, and yours look to have been helpful, as always. Cheers, hamiltonstone (talk) 05:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Editing using scripts

When using a script to make edits to an article, such as here and here, please take some time ensure that no obvious errors were introduced by the script, as was the case with the two edits mentioned.[1][2] It only takes a few seconds and would be appreciated by the editors who have to correct such obvious mistakes.[3][4] Thank you. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks: that was a stupid mistake on my part (wrong button, wrong format anyway). But I noticed you introduced a mistake in your fix (hyphen used instead of a dash for a range); I've fixed it. Far less of an error than mine, though. Tony (talk) 12:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

That wasn't a mistake, I don't have a hyphen key on my keyboard. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

You inserted a hyphen: "Director of NCIS seasons 3-5." It's 3–5, that is, a dash, since it's a range. If you have no dash key (on a full Windows keyboard, it's cntrl plus top right (minus sign), then just use the edit tools underneath the edit box. I know of no keyboard on the planet that lacks a hyphen key. WP:MOSDASH Tony (talk) 12:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant I don't have a dash key. And I really can't be bothered remembering additional keyboard sequences. If Wikipedia wants people to use dashes, it should issue every editor a special Wikipedia keyboard. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:45, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't apologise to me; just to the others who have to bother correcting what you write. Don't bother to write well, either. Tony (talk) 13:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

So I'm to blame for people screwing up images, just because Wikipedia uses a character that requires an obscure keyboard sequence rather than a key that everyone has on their keyboard? --AussieLegend (talk) 13:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• What? Tony (talk) 13:42, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Aussie, you don't need to memorize special key sequences to produce dashes; use HTML code: – for en dashes, and — for em dashes. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:35, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

On a related note, could you please exercise more discretion with the use of your delinking script? Your recent edits to dozens of television series articles have stripped out links to various television networks, links which are certainly relevant in articles about series produced by and for those networks. I could understand removing duplicate links, but removing them entirely is not beneficial to our readers. Please undo that portion of your changes; thank you in advance. --Ckatz^chat_spy 19:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes; technical change to make diff come up immediately. Tony (talk) 03:21, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Tony, your stated intention to address the problem of removing valid links is greatly appreciated. Unfortunately, whatever technical change you were planning to implement appears not to have registered with the system, and as such the script-based edits that occurred subsequently introduced the same problem into even more articles. As a courtesy, I have reverted the erroneous edits until such time as you are able to apply the repair to the script. (After all, I am certain that you would not want your efforts to inadvertently introduce problems in the dozens and dozens of articles that were affected by this matter.) While this does unfortunately undo the conversion of dashes, the reality is that the dash correction can be quickly redone by the script, whereas the correction of the introduced errors has to be done manually. In that light, one would obviously not wish to impose such a burden on one's fellow editors by requiring them to manually correct the script's errors. As a suggestion, perhaps it might be more efficient to run the script with the delinking option disabled until such time as you can correct the problem with regard to the removal of valid, useful links? Please let me know if I can assist with this matter. Thank you in advance. --Ckatz^chat_spy 05:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I can only presume it is the TV network names that are at issue. Thus, I am undoing your reversions and adding the network names. Tony (talk) 06:09, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the network names are useful; I've already had another editor make that comment tonight. In addition, you should probably run your ideas by the Television project before stripping out other, useful links to genres and the like. Finally, please exercise caution in avoiding the tendency to automatically strip out what you've called "common terms" such as certain major cities. While you may feel they are not of use in general-purpose articles, the fact is that readers may well appreciate the links when they are presented (a in many series articles) in the context of the setting for the series. --Ckatz^chat_spy 06:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Go raise this at WT:LINK, then. Los Angeles and New York City are clearly known to everyone who speaks English and has an IQ of more than 10. Please do not revert useful edits because you disagree with the consensus at the style guide; rather, raise the matter there. Tony (talk) 06:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Tony, why do you expect others to have to clean up after you? You know full well that the problem lies in the deletion of useful links, such as to network articles and to genres. At the very least, you should tak ethe time to ask at the Television project to see if there is consensus for your sweeping deletions. The onus is not on others to clean up after you, but for you to ensure that your automated deletions are not disruptive. All I've asked is that you check this out first; is that really an onerous request? --Ckatz^chat_spy 06:39, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I would also add that it is rather misleading to label your reverts with incorrect (and provocative) summaries such as "No specification of what was wrong: please take personal WP:IDONTLIKEITS to WT:LINK)" when you are actually not simply reverting, but instead incorporating changes based on the concerns I noted on your page. Why not simply note that fact, rather than doing what can only be interpreted as a deliberate attempt to embarrass a fellow editor? --Ckatz^chat_spy 06:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Tony, contrary to your claim on my talk page, I did mention the network links issue to you. It is several comments above this one, where I stated:

"your recent edits to dozens of television series articles have stripped out links to various television networks, links which are certainly relevant in articles about series produced by and for those networks."

Unfortunately, despite your reply ("Yes; technical change to make diff come up immediately.") you resumed use of the script without addressing the problems and have yet to correct the previous batch. Please note that the articles are certainly not going to suffer from a temporary delay in processing, whereas it is unrealistic to expect other editors to have to check over every article to clean up introduced problems. --Ckatz^chat_spy 06:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Tony, I've just posted a friendly reminder on Katz' talk page to be more collegial; I think you two should cool it a bit. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 07:13, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

OC, your post was neither friendly nor warranted; you've made claims that just do not hold up when examined against any form of reality. I'm glad that you've proposed "cooling it" a bit, but it is important to note that you are well aware I have been asking Tony1 to do that for quite some time now, and that I have made honest and sincere efforts to open a line of dialogue with him to resolve this matter. Those efforts have been ignored, as clearly demonstrated by his talk page history, and I'd also point out that Tony1 persists in placing false and defamatory posts about me (such as this one). Honestly, I'd like nothing more than to resolve this matter, but I also feel that my sincere efforts to do so have been repeatedly rejected and that the root problem with regard to misrepresentation persists. --Ckatz^chat_spy 08:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC) --Ckatz^chat_spy 08:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Your repeated posts are starting to look like harrassment. Tony (talk) 08:22, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Tony, I've been quite clear in expressing a desire to talk about this with you in an honest effort to resolve the matter so that we don't bump heads so frequently. Can you please give me a convincing explanation as to how that entails "harassment" when you obviously consider posts such as the claims you made here to be acceptable? If I'm missing something, lease let me know. --Ckatz^chat_spy 08:33, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd add to this that if you are for some reason uncomfortable with discussing this simply between the two of us, I would be more than willing to consider some form of Wikipedia-based dispute resolution or mediation. Simply put, this has gone on for too long; inaction is not a viable option. --Ckatz^chat_spy 08:41, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Explanation: you have been running such a campaign; yes, I do consider that post to be "acceptable". Now, if you have problems with improving the wikilinking system, please raise them at WP:LINKING as I've asked before, rather than personalising them on my talk page. Stalking and harassment are the unacceptable bit. I am tiring of having to respond to your posts here. Tony (talk) 08:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

This is not specifically about linking, as you well know, but about resolving the way in which we continually end up in conflict. I'm not making up claims of "harassment", even though I feel your misrepresentations are certainly more in line with that concept then anything I've ever said about you. Look, it is clear that we're going to continue to cross paths on the site; I just want to find some form of resolution to the personal disputes so that we can avoid them spilling over into the project. --Ckatz^chat_spy 09:11, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oh deary me. I have no personal issue with you, although my private theory is that it does entirely concern linking. Please take the linking stuff to WP:LINKING, where it belongs. If you want to collaborate on editing or reviewing, I'd be delighted; I've made that clear before. However, this continual dialoguing is not productive. Can it stop? I need a rest from it. Tony (talk) 09:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Template for deletion

Friendly heads-up {{Imagemap}} is deprecated and nominated for deletion. It has been superceded by changes to the File namespace and I wanted to let you know, since you have a transclusion on your userpage or user talk. If you need to respond to this message, please do so on my talk. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I've fixed this, Tony. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:07, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Dabomb. Tony (talk) 03:19, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 March 2010

• News and notes: Financial statements, discussions, milestones

• In the news: Pentagon shooter used Wikipedia, soon iPhone OS will too

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Java

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:50, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Silliest wikilink of the month awards for January and February 2010

Evidence has recently surfaced confirming that the Moon really is made of cheese.

His Grace the Duke of Waltham has announced the winners for the past two months. There were so many nominations (82 in January), that His Grace made two Honourable Mentions.

Congratulations to the winners: User:Robofish and User:Belovedfreak. Honourable Mentions went to User:SuperFlash101 and User:Majorly.

The full announcement is at WP:LINKING, here.

Nominations are open for March, here. Tony (talk) 06:29, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Alt text

The problem is that the alt text in Australia was substituted for the normal text, so it didn't appear to normal readers and so AussieLegend reverted it.--Grahame (talk) 07:57, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Not the alt text I added (which was for Port Arthur). "alt" was added in error to another pic. Tony (talk) 08:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

The quote essay link

Hi Tony, don't get the wrong idea here, my level of caring about this is really minuscule, but your edit sumamry comment got me curious. What do you mean by "Not yet ready?" The document itself has been in existence since 2006, after all... I'd agree about it being "not ready" if we were talking about making it policy (which, incidentally, I did oppose just today on the talk page), but we're talking about a link here. If there's a better place to link to an essay, I'd be hard pressed to think of it.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 23:58, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip

At the history of logic FAC, where you wrote how Mac users can easily get an endash (–: it works). Is there a similarly simple way to get an emdash? Ucucha 00:43, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes: option-shift-hyphen. Easy as pie. Tony (talk) 00:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

It is—and it works again. Thanks! I had read somewhere before that there was an easy way to get dashes on a Mac, but never figured out what it actually is. Ucucha 00:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

wp:quote

Hi,

Friendly question: I know that you were editing the essay, and that you still have stuff to do?

I've noticed you moved on to other work. Do you have any plans to work on it? I ask because there are modifications to your version I would like to make.

Also, is the state of the essay preventing from supporting the upgrade?174.3.107.176 (talk) 10:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I inserted a number of inline suggestions. I think they need to be dealt with, and other users' opinions sought. Tony (talk) 12:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Ok, I will make some of the changes I planned.:-)174.3.107.176 (talk) 10:39, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Your dash-replacement bot

You may want to reconsider the wisdom of your dash-replacement bot, as replacing HTML character entities with the actual character they represent could potentially cause problems with web browsers that don't handle character encodings properly. The character entities are guaranteed to work, and having them in the text does no harm; removing them could cause problems. I'm not sure what productive purpose is served by removing them. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!: 16-0 and Super Bowl XLIV Champions) 21:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

It's a script, not a bot. I've passed on your issue to the scripter, Greg U. I must say that the issue of HTML entities came up at WT:MOS a while ago, and there was no sense that they are undesirable. They do clutter the edit boxes and make it hard for newbies to make sense of the text. User_talk:GregU#Your_dash-replacement_bot. Tony (talk) 23:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Naming practices

Hi, Tony. Regarding Canadian federal election, 1957,as I pointed out on the FAC page, that seems to be the naming practice for such elections. Consider United Kingdom general election, 2001 California's 12th congressional district election, 1946, United States Senate election in California, 1998, United States presidential election, 2004 and so on.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:44, 15 March 2010 (UTC) '

I suppose we're stuck with it, then. Tony (talk) 23:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Explanation

[5]

I don't think we need to include the sentence about quotations as a skill. It if becomes a guideline, I don't think it will be relevant.

The headings are unnecessary. Also confusing. They are also not names of these sentences. We would need citations if these were the names of these sentences.

Please reconsider your revert.174.3.107.176 (talk) 11:36, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I will reconsider, sure. But maybe such changes should wait until the discussion evolves more on the talk page.

Would it be possible for you to register as a user? It takes three minutes. Tony (talk) 13:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I'm fine with leaving it as it is, as long as you reconsider. Also, since this isn't a guideline (yet (of course)), I won't bite this bone with you.174.3.107.176 (talk) 14:15, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, my user is 100110100.174.3.107.176 (talk) 14:15, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

There no more discussion on the talk. Do you think you can reconsider now? I will have to revert those phrases even if you don't agree with me because you don't have consensus for those additions.174.3.101.191 (talk) 16:57, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Little Butte Creek (Rogue River)

Thanks for your suggestions and support for Little Butte Creek (Rogue River)... it was promoted today! Sincerely, LittleMountain5 23:47, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I wanted to thank you for leaving comments on FA candidates also, they certainly let to improvements. Best Hekerui (talk) 13:43, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Smedley Butler

Thanks for your review of the Smedley Butler article. I think I have addressed most of your concerns but could you please stop by when you have the time and double check. --Kumioko (talk) 19:02, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Not sure if you saw this before but I was hoping you could take another pass at the article. I would like to wrap this one up. --Kumioko (talk) 19:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello again, Just a friendly reminder about your comments from this article. This article has been on the FA review list for a while and I want to try and wrap it up so if you could possibly stop back by and let me know if I dealt with all your comments (and of course if you have more by all means leave those too and I'll take care of them as well) it would be greatly appreciated. --Kumioko (talk) 13:31, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Dashes in infoboxes

Hi there. The edit was from January and maybe you've already addressed this, but replacing a hyphen with a dash inside {{Infobox SCOTUS case}} breaks the display of Supreme Court justices (see here). Best, Mackensen (talk) 11:12, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Mackensen, I can see no hyphens or dashes in the infobox. Can you point to exactly where the damage was done? Tony (talk) 14:19, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The hyphen is not actually displayed, it's used to reference a list that shows the sitting court members. The ranges in the reference names use hyphens, so replacing with a dash breaks this call (similar to if an image name contained a hyphen and it was replaced in article source with a dash...the image would not display correctly). (e.g. compare the court membership session in [6] vs. [7]) Christopher Parham (talk) 15:50, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Name Change Issue

Hi, Tony1. Bishonen recommended I contact you. I'm losing my temper a little over a name change dispute. A user -- who is not a regular editor on this or related articles - is pushing a name change with great glee! I have no real vested interest -- but over the years have been one of just a couple of editors who have responded to this naming controversy on the article talk page. If a change is made -- and I acknowledge that the proposed name is still in wide use -- more politically correct objections will be heard. And of course, this user, will not be around to answer them. If you would be interested in expressing an opinion, I would appreciate it. See Talk:Ancient Pueblo Peoples. WBardwin (talk) 21:40, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 March 2010

• News and notes: A Wikiversity controversy, Wikimedian-in-Residence, image donation, editing contest, WMF jobs

• In the news: Studies on collaboration and student usage, Main Page drives traffic to Time.com

• Dispatches: GA Sweeps end

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Ireland

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 22:19, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I have an English / French questions

Would you mind looking at a thread I started at the medicine portal at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Are_these_terms_synonymous.3F? I would love your feedback there, if you have time? ---kilbad (talk) 16:01, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know the answer. You may wish to ask User talk:Ohconfucius, who is fluent in French. Tony (talk) 23:47, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Done. Thanks! ---kilbad (talk) 01:57, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Coordinator elections have opened!

Voting for the Military history WikiProject coordinator elections has opened; all users are encouraged to participate in the elections. Voting will conclude 23:59 (UTC) on 28 March 2010.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:26, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

FAR

Hi Tony, could you check the prose of some of these FARs that seem to be possibly heading for a keep? Thanks YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 01:10, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

1. Wikipedia:Featured article review/Biman Bangladesh Airlines/archive1
2. Wikipedia:Featured article review/Killer whale/archive1
3. Wikipedia:Featured article review/Sydney Newman/archive1
4. Wikipedia:Featured article review/€2 commemorative coins/archive1

Creati1 (talk · contribs)

See my comments at User_talk:Ckatz. Cheers! - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 13:01, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:RJL

How is there no consensus? --Rschen7754 02:30, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Can you point to it? Tony (talk) 02:32, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Tony, Re [8] There's over 200k of discussion (most just archived today) what do you mean by no consensus? Dave (talk) 02:33, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (road junction lists)/Archive 6 - the controversy is whether the UK should be included, and this version leaves it out. --Rschen7754 02:34, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

All done suddenly, in the past 24 hours? Was it advertised widely in the category (and other relevant categories)? Martinvi is apparently upset at the US-centric flavour of the page. This makes it more important that not only the prose on the page be cleaned up, but the issue of scope be clarified. We had another unfortunate "promotion" recently: the cities MoS, which is avowedly US-focused. This should be part of the title if the bias is to be retained; the bolded wording in the lead needs to be explained, too. As it is, the reader is left wondering a number of things: where do I go for the UK version? What about other anglophone countries? Why is it not all in the same guideline, in sections? Tony (talk) 02:40, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

ELG, the previous MoS dates back to 2007. This was revised and renamed in the last week or so. Text was updated to reflect some changes discused last fall as well. Imzadi1979 (talk) 02:43, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

In more than the past 24 hours - we've been talking about this for quite a few days now. Martinvl is a UK editor and he was upset that the UK was being included in the original version. It is not in this version. ELG has been part of the MOS since 2007. --Rschen7754 02:45, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Tony, this is several months of work, that mostly culminated in a heated debate for the past week or so. However, the guideline is not now, It's been part of the MOS since 2007, under the shortcut WP:ELG, the change in name was part of the effort to de-americanize it. Despite what you were told, it's much less US-centric than before. Dave (talk) 02:46, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

(e.c.) When I see such sections as "Stop this poll" and an animated discussion, all yesterday, I really wonder whether this page is ready. Was the proposal to promote this page mentioned at the WP:WikiProject Manual of Style? I don't see it. When structural matters are at issue, they need to be sorted out with wider MoS community consensus. Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(road_junction_lists)/Archive_6. Tony (talk) 02:49, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

(od) nothing was promoted. THis guideline has existed since 2007. Dave (talk) 02:51, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

We did solicit input on an issue from WT:MOS even. They knew we were working on this. Also, this is a revision to an existing MOS guideline, not a new MOS guideline. --Rschen7754 02:52, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, Re the US verses UK thing. I have read Martin's account of this series of events, and I disagree. There are two sides to every story. It's nothing personal, and both sides made mistakes, but I disagree with his take. Dave (talk) 02:54, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

• It's confusing, then, that it came up on the MoS page, via bot. Can you explain why the UK hasn't been included? And what about other countries? Should it not be renamed MOS United States RJLs"? At MoS (and WP:WikiProject MoS), and more broadly at WP, there is great concern at the number of MoSes—this fragmentation effect. Would it not be better to have one style guide for all countries? Tony (talk) 02:59, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
  • That's the ideal, yes! And that's what we were trying to achieve. However, there came up some issues, so we decided to sacrifice the UK part of the guideline in order to save the rest of the proposal. So this applies to every country of the world but the UK. And when you move any part of the MOS, the bot triggers. If you look at the page you notice that Wikipedia:Manual of Style (exit lists) got removed from the Manual of Style - because the page got moved. --Rschen7754 03:05, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
    • [9] --Rschen7754 03:07, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
      • And this proves that we were working on this a few days ago, when this accidentally happened: [10] --Rschen7754 03:09, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
        • Well, moving the page triggers interest in improving and rationalising. This is the long-term goal of the WikiProject MoS. I really must ask why it is acceptable to exclude the UK from the page. What needs to be done to avoid such fragmentation? The readers and editors will think it's at best a nuisance and at worst plain silly. Tony (talk) 03:12, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
          • It's a question I'm asking myself. This wasn't my first choice. --Rschen7754 03:16, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

The main point of contention was the location of the junction column in the UK's format. Some of us wanted it to be consistent with other countries' lists and appear next to the distance column. They wanted it in another place, "because it's always been that way." Otherwise, excluding that difference, the UKRD format follows RJL. Imzadi1979 (talk) 03:18, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Naming convention

Can you advise me on what would be the correct title for Portrait of a Woman c. 1460. The actual title is obviously very generic, and there is a raft of them from the period. And in the body text, is it best to shorten Rogier van der Weyden to "Rogier", "van der Weyden", or just "Weyden". The sources use all three options. Thanks, if you get a chance to look. Ceoil (talk) 00:26, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

"Portrait of a woman (van der Weyden)"?

I'd go for "van der Weyden" in the main text. Tony (talk) 04:01, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Link

Why did you remove the link to "Saturday morning" here, it's meaning is not obvious to non-Americans. 192.84.154.119 (talk) 14:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oh, I see what the problem was - silly easter egg. There are certainly better ways of linking to Saturday morning cartoon. I shall remove the redirect from Saturday morning. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 15:15, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Question re page move

I have suggested moving Intersexuality to Intersex (reasons explained on talk page). banjiboi suggested I speak to you about the best way of doing that. Mish (talk) 15:30, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Quick grammatical query

Hey Tony, I had a question about a line in one of my FAs. It's talking about a game mechanic where there's a limit of some sort, but players can purchase upgrades that change the population limit from, say, 100 to 200. Problem is people have been constantly reverting and changing around this sentence to where it now reads the rather-unclear and redundant "The number of units a player can deploy is limited, but certain upgrades 'lessen' this limit." My question is whether the word should be "lessen", as is currently, or "increase", as some editors have been changing it to; I admit I can see it both ways and am confused now :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:36, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

"soften"? "reduce the severity of"? Tony (talk) 23:58, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

"ease"? (Sorry, just happened to be in the neighborhood.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:10, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

"Soften" and its synonyms don't sound quite right to me; the limit may be greater but it is enforced just as strictly. From my days of playing Age of Empires II, I vaguely recall something about "expanding" the population limit, but I'm not really sure. Of the two options you mention, "lessen" is definitely wrong, and a Google search also shows "increase" to be the one in general use, so I'd go with that. Waltham, The Duke of 09:11, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I like "ease" better. Tony (talk) 09:13, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, since "increase" is causing all sorts of problems, I guess I'll go with "ease". Many thanks Tony and TPS! :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:22, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

McCormick Tribune Plaza & Ice Rink FAC

Although you just made a minor edit at McCormick Tribune Plaza & Ice Rink‎ and made a short comment in the FAC, I thought you might want to comment further at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/McCormick Tribune Plaza & Ice Rink/archive1‎, which is the oldest unresolved FAC in the queue.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:11, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

FAR (again)

Hi Tony! Thank you so much for all of your recent reviews at FAR - as a delegate it really helps to know that someone looked over them with a close eye on MOS and prose. There are a couple of reviews on the board (the two oldest actually) that you have commented on previously. It would be great if you could look at them again, as they have been hanging around for quite a while. I know that they were the two examples you used in your recent post on the FAR talk page and so you are most likely well aware of them, but if you wouldn't mind looking at them again it would be much appreciated. The review pages are:

• Wikipedia:Featured article review/Canada/archive1
• Wikipedia:Featured article review/Manila Light Rail Transit System/archive1

Thanks in advance for any comments you may have, and please, please keep up the reviewing at FAR! Dana boomer (talk) 20:38, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Thought X 2

Merely a mote. I'm greatly enjoying reading your tremendous tutorials, but am struck by how very much I have to learn so as to clear the logs from my own writing. Wikipedia seems a good place to do so! --Simon the Likable (talk) 11:12, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Copy editors

Hi Tony. Thanks very much for the Aiphanes review. I did a bit of a copyedit myself, but I was wondering if you had any suggestions as to how to find an independent editors to give the article a shot. Not something I've really given much thought to in the past. Guettarda (talk) 13:44, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmm...missed that little set of links at the top of the page... :) Guettarda (talk) 18:07, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Brad Pitt

Thanks for your time at Pitt's FAC. I think between ThinkBlue and myself, we've addressed the majority of your concerns. I just wonder if you have any suggestions on one of the points or any other concerns. If you wouldn't mind revisiting the FAC at some point, I'd be much obliged. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:43, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Quick question

Hi Tony. Quick question. As to this AfD, would you suggest that a sysop be invited in to close it (and if so, how would you suggest I do that), or that it be left up to run its course? Many thanks. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:23, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it would be best to get an admin to close it. I guess I'd hunt for other admins who've similarly been asked to come in as WP:UNINVOLVED admins in this situation. Tony (talk) 02:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it unlikely an admin will want to close it. It's by no means clear cut WP:SNOW, because it is not demonstrably a bad faith nom; there are delete votes, and the nom has not withdrawn the nomination. So I think it will unfortunately need to be allowed drag on for another couple of days (until the end of the designated 7 days). [Yawn] Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Good; thanks to Ohconfucius. I'm not experienced in AfDs. Tony (talk) 11:42, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 March 2010

• Wikipedia-Books: Wikipedia-Books: Proposed deletion process extended, cleanup efforts

• News and notes: Explicit image featured on Wikipedia's main page

• In the news: Campaign for video, costs of crowdsourcing, iPhone app, brief headlines

• WikiProject report: Percy Jackson Task Force

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 19:42, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Little boxes made of clay

Hi. I was just wondering if you'd found any of my comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers/Infoboxes RfC#What I loathe about infoboxes to be useful in any way?

(fwiw, I agree with you on some points, and I can understand not wanting to give an inch, but if you find my attempts to describe aspects of the other perspectives to be useful, I'll continue trying to [quietly] participate in the dialogue about all this... Getting everyone to agree on the issues would be impossible, but spreading a better understanding of all the various perspectives that editors hold, seems like a worthy and achievable goal.) Much thanks :) -- Quiddity (talk) 20:23, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Apostrophes with italics and links...

Tony, do you have an opinion, or even better still does wikipedia have a convention, for how to deal with apostrophe's with italic text?

• Abbey Road's first track...or Abbey Road's first track...

and as per above but with links:

• Abbey Road's first track or Abbey Road's first track

Personally, I prefer the latter of the two bullet points - ie, with the 's in italics but I've had this quoted to me explaining why 's should not be in italics - but I'm not convinced. Sorry if this is already in the MOS or somewhere else - if so, could you please point it out? many thanks --Merbabu (talk) 22:34, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Temple Sinai (Oakland, California)/archive1

Hey Tony1,

Thanks for your thorough review of Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Temple Sinai (Oakland, California)/archive1. I've updated the article based on your comments. I wonder if you might take a look when you have a chance? Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:23, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

"Say Say Say"

Hey, I would just like to notify you that your comments on "Say Say Say" have been addressed at the articles FA candidate page. Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 10:39, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

FAR again!

Hi Tony! There are a couple of FARs where your statements have been responded to, and I was wondering if you would mind checking back to see if your concerns have been resolved:

• Wikipedia:Featured article review/€2 commemorative coins/archive1
• Wikipedia:Featured article review/Biman Bangladesh Airlines/archive1

Thanks in advance! Dana boomer (talk) 16:04, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry

I misrepresented you in my counter-arguments. I had meant to say that your statement could be misread in that manner but instead implied that you personally were those each of things. I have attempted to refactor the sentence but could remove it altogether if it is still inapropriate as it now stands. It is pretty much an aside to my main argument, anyway, as is much of the paragraph containing that sentence, in fact. BTW, I don't care one jot either way for 'boxes, I just felt that someone had to counter your arguments. As it happens another editor has also now countered them and has done a better job than me, IMO --Jubilee♫clipman 12:30, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Apology gladly accepted. Tony (talk) 14:11, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! One thing that comes from all this, I think, is that the guidelines on infoboxes and the advice on when to use them, etc, all really need to be massively tightened up. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (infoboxes) goes nowhere near far enough to address the objections raised in the RfC. That's why I suggested you air your objections somewhere less hidden than the Composers projects' rather obscure RfC and the widely unread WT:Disinfoboxes. In fact, very little objection to the spread and misuse/misapplication of infoboxes has been made, as far as I can tell, except in the Classical Music projects' little corner of WP and in that essay. I don't for one second believe that it is only the CM project members and the few who have contributed to that essay who object to infoboxes. Where can these objections be taken for the widest possible audience to see them? --Jubilee♫clipman 20:35, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Paul C. Doherty

As you suggested, I removed all unnecessary links except those which either have a Wiki article (and then only left link once) or those which directly relate to quotes of people (in Review section). Mugginsx (talk) 09:52, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Delinking

Just noticed a few in my watch-list, good idea. But cld you please leave the first occurance of country/town of origin linked? Thanx. Misarxist (talk) 13:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. Though it might be useful to leave one of the links ie [11] & [12]. I think that's what's usually done. Otherwise agree about the ovelinking thing. Misarxist (talk) 09:16, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Thanx for the explanation. I'll bear that in mind as a lot of my edits are bios where that is applicable. The font is Trebuchet MS, I just used <div class="plainlinks" style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;"> at the top of the page. Misarxist (talk) 10:07, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks: I've applied the font. It seems to work! Tony (talk) 10:27, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Manual of Style discussion

I've moved the MOS structure discussion to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Structure.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 21:24, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, and I've just added to the main talk page discussion. I'll go back and relocate it if necessary. Tony (talk) 10:27, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

MoS audit

Yes, I'd be happy to participate. As you suggest, a massive task and a crucial one. Lead on. Best, Dan.—DCGeist (talk) 11:04, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 29 March 2010

• News and notes: Usability rollout, downtime, admin phishing, Wikimania scholarships and more

• In the news: Overdue correction, Critical Point of View conference, brief headlines

• Sister projects: A handful of happenings

• WikiProject report: The WikiProject Bulletin: news roundup and WikiProject Chicago feature

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 19:21, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Spurious Wiki links on Ed Roberts (computer engineer)

Tony, I wrote a biography on Ed Roberts, the guy who selected the Intel 8080 microprocessor and hired Bill Gates and Paul Allen to write software for his new computer in 1975. Dr Roberts passed away on April 1 and his article is getting a lot of edits. Could you stop by in a few days and remove all of the spurious Wiki links. I don't want to get into an ownership dispute. Thanks -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 15:38, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the cleanup. However a few have returned. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 03:50, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't know much about the British newspaper the Telegraph but they appear to have nicked the Wikipedia article on Ed Roberts and translated it from American to British.[13] Maybe you could find some examples for the MOS. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 04:53, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Shameful the way lazy journalists plunder WP. Examples of what for the MoS? Tony (talk) 06:07, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Tony, I left a note on User_talk:Whywhenwhohow asking him to stop reinstating his edits. Thanks for your efforts here. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 17:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough

[14] - I did misinterpret it. Sorry about that. Cheers --Jubilee♫clipman 00:39, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

FARs

Hi Tony! There are a few FARs hanging around that could use your attention, if you wish to bestow it:

• Wikipedia:Featured article review/Mendip Hills/archive1 - Still has some referencing work that is being addressed, but could use an outside eye on the prose.
• Wikipedia:Featured article review/Israel/archive1 - Seems fairly close to keeping and nomination concerns have been addressed, but could use a closer eye.
• Wikipedia:Featured article review/Manila Light Rail Transit System/archive1 - You voted delist on this near the beginning of the FARC process, but it has had quite a bit of work done since then, so could use another look.

Your work at FAR is really appreciated. If you would rather that I don't keep bugging you about articles, please just let me know - it's just really nice to have someone to go to when the prose needs a final going-over! Thanks again, Dana boomer (talk) 22:40, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Words to Watch

Slim and I are ready to take it live, pending any tweaks you want to make.

It strikes me there are two basic ways to bring it online:

• Directly replacing the text of the existing Words to avoid page, followed after !brief discussion by a retitling to Words to watch.
• As Words to watch, arguing from there that it should supplant Words to avoid.

The latter would be more politic; the former is certainly more efficient. Thoughts?—DCGeist (talk) 03:43, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Nice work, both of you. I'll look through it now. I suggest announcing it at the talk page, "unless cogent reasons are put forward by UTC blah, April 8", we intend to rationalise .... (?)

That would at least forestall any reversions.

I'm keen that all of those pages be rationalised down to this single one. Tony (talk) 07:23, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 April 2010

• News and notes: New board member, rights elections, April 1st activities, videos

• In the news: Wikipedia influences drug terminology, brief headlines

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Baseball and news roundup

• Features and admins: This week in approvals

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:44, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIX (March 2010)

The March 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:45, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Music audit update and wikibreak

WT:MOS#Group: Music contains links to my appraisals of the main Music MoS's (Update 3). If you get a chance, could you review them? Have posted to Slim, also. As I said in my email, I am going to be on Wikibreak for a few days: could you also make sure the othersu are aware. Thanks --Jubilee♫clipman 01:03, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Tony1. You have new messages at Tim1357's talk page.
Message added 21:55, 11 April 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I responded. Tim1357 (talk) 21:55, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

MOS audit

Hi Tony. I don't know if anybody else has volunteered yet, but I'm willing to help in getting the List related pages up to scratch. (Responding here because I didn't know where else to say it!). Hope all is well with you on a personal level. Best, Matthewedwards :  Chat  04:11, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely, Matthew: that would be excellent. I think the main personnel at WT:MOS and elsewhere are taken up with the "Words to watch" draft, which should enable four pages to be conflated into one. Unfortunately, there has been resistance at the local level—but I think that's just too bad; people need to be encouraged to think of the big picture. I wonder whether any of the list styleguides can be conflated: that would certainly make it easier for editors who want guidance, and for us to coordinate the guidance.

I think it's worth explicitly volunteering and asking for others to do so at WT:FLC and any related pages. I haven't returned there since my post last week about this.

I guess an initial survey of the state of the pages and their interrelationships may be the way to go. Tony (talk) 06:34, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Featured article reviews

Hi Tony! There are a couple of articles at FARC that could use your opinion, if you'd like to give it:

• Wikipedia:Featured article review/Moon/archive1
• Wikipedia:Featured article review/Harry S. Truman/archive1

Thanks in advance! Dana boomer (talk) 00:52, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey, Tony, I hurt my back badly moving heavy boxes, bored as an oyster on my back in bed, so came over to see what you're up to ... FAR is really lagging and needs help. I'd dig in, but I'm not sure I should with pain meds on board. How 'bout it? Poor Dana is trying to do her best, but she was one of the most solid reviewers there ... and not having her as a reviewer is a problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:46, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Draft review

The Signpost hasn't in the past used non-free cover images in book reviews, but I think it's something that ought to be allowed as an exception to the policy. You could draft the review on a Signpost subpage (e.g., Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Wikipedia: A New Community of Practice?), I'll do my best to argue the case that a book cover shouldn't be deleted.--ragesoss (talk) 12:03, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Book cover O'Sullivan.jpg

I removed the rationale on this image because it was a rationale for Wikipedia space, which is impossible to be valid due to WP:NFCC #9. I've also marked the image as missing a rationale, and also orphaned, not being used in any articles. I also removed it from Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Wikipedia: A New Community of Practice?, again per WP:NFCC #9. The image may be deleted within a few days if it is not used in an article and does not have a rationale. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:39, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

No, it's the "common sense" provision at the top of the NFC policy page that is at issue. Tony (talk) 12:08, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

• The phrase "common sense" doesn't exist on the WP:NFCC policy page. You are referring to the guideline page WP:NFC which transcludes the policy as a portion of it. Regardless, I'll avoid re-removing the invalid fair use claim you added to the book cover page, and also avoid re-tagging it as orphaned for the time being. Nevertheless, the book cover will be retagged as orphaned eventually unless it gets used in an actual article. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:33, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 April 2010

• Sanger allegations: Larry Sanger accuses Wikimedia of hosting illegal images

• News and notes: Studying German flagged revisions, French library agreement, German court case

• In the news: SCOTUS hopeful edited bio, criticism from article subject

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Motorcycling

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:54, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Cheap shots

Tony, if everything you say is really "thought through", then you should strongly consider re-reading it a few times before hitting "save". "Please calm down", "engagement in mild combat", "Here's your chance to justify in concrete terms, something Ckatz will never do", the omnipresent "blue" jibes, not to mention the tiresome "CIVIL" mantra - cheap shots one and all that whether intentionally or not serve only to poison the atmosphere on the talk page. If you can't keep from getting personal, thenm please just don't post to me. --Ckatz^chat_spy 09:28, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Please calm down. And I really meant the compliments I made to you in the same post ("excellent writer and editor"). I wish you were more disposed to collegiality. Tony (talk) 09:37, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Book cover O'Sullivan.jpg

⚠

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

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 04:51, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

A re-think is required

I suggest you revisit the undertakings you made when you became an admin, and carefully read WP:ADMIN and the associated policy pages.

It may be better if you have time off from admin duties. I refer to your involved admin actionhere. It is unacceptable. If you came before ArbCom, there would be serious repercussions.Tony (talk) 02:28, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your comments. Since my efforts to encourage others to begin a user conduct RFC on me are a failure, and since I do not want to have this discussion spill over on to the talk page of the article (which should be reserved for discussing changes to article content), I have posted a short reply to the user's talk page. I suppose that will be the venue for this discussion, so please feel free to chime in there. Alternatively, if you believe (as I do) that a user conduct RFC would be a better idea, then I will be happy to certify it for you. Thanks, --causa sui (talk) 06:21, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

National Anthem of Russia

I am still trying to find copyeditors for this article, but I wish to ask you if the new picture in the infobox is better than the last one. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:13, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

AN/I: Abuse of sysop tools, and failure to follow consensus – Causa sui

Hello. This is to let you know that there is now a discussion at AN/I regarding an issue that you commented on here.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:10, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 April 2010

• News and notes: Berlin WikiConference, Brooklyn Museum & Google.org collaborations, review backlog removed, 1 billion edits

• In the news: Study of featured article quality, Facebook's integration of Wikipedia, and more!

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Environment

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 13:07, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

ANI

Wrong section?[15] I'd move it, but I don't know which part of that discussion it belongs in. —DoRD (talk) 02:27, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

FYI

You might want to weigh in here. --causa sui (talk) 15:46, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

• Why? it's not as if you have anything new to say... Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 16:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

  Are you following me? :\ --causa sui (talk) 16:28, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

  This page is on my watchlist. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 16:54, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Royal National College for the Blind

Hi Tony. Thanks for taking a look at the article. Have replied on the article's FAC page. Cheers Paul Largo (talk) 13:19, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Macintosh Revival

Hello, Tony1! You've listed yourself as an active member of WikiProject Macintosh, which is currently seeing very little activity. We are trying to revive the project and your help would be appreciated. To see who is active and who is not, we will be listing all active members under "status pending" in the project's participant list. Please move your name to either the "former members" section or "active" section. Hope to see you in the "active" column! For more information on how to help the project, visit the How to help section at our project page! · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:36, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 April 2010

• From the team: Introducing Signpost Sidebars

• Museums conference: Wikimedians meet with museum leaders

• News and notes: Wikimedia announcements, Wikipedia advertising, and more!

• In the news: Making sausage, Jimmy Wales on TV, and more!

• Sister projects: Milestones, Openings, and Wikinews contest

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Gastropods

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 13:31, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Tony

How have you been? I've been bogged down with school and the RPG Maker program, so I haven't been around often. How goes the battle? — Deckiller 20:41, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article review/OpenBSD/archive1

Hi Tony. Can you check this FAR please? YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 07:08, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your support

Hi Tony. Just to tell you that I will be without internet for an indeterminate period. Could you look over my audit reports and see what you think. I'll be around until early morning (UTC) so I'll be able to respond until then. Thanks again --Jubilee♫clipman 22:11, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

More FARs

Hi Tony, there are a couple more FARs that could use your attention, if you so wish:

• Wikipedia:Featured article review/Degrassi: The Next Generation/archive1
• Wikipedia:Featured article review/Moon/archive1

Your input is much appreciated! Dana boomer (talk) 01:04, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Clarification request

Hello - I have made this request for clarification related to your recent AE request.  Sandstein  07:16, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Wording

Would you look at a sentence I am working on at Talk:List_of_cutaneous_conditions#Incomplete_information.3F? Any feedback you have would be greatly appreciated. ---kilbad (talk) 13:35, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

User talk:CalendarWatcher

With regards to your question on that page, the history of User talk:CalendarWatcher was moved to User:CalenderWatcher/Talk Archive 4. NW (Talk) 13:56, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, NW. I really am a puter dummy. Tony (talk) 16:21, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

User talk pages

You seem to have an unhealthy and immediate knowledge of my user-talk-page history combined with an inability to actually read its plain language. It had two entries when you came somehow across it; I leave it to you to figure out which edit is the relevant one and why. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 11:01, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I watchlist your talk page. Is that unhealthy? Tony (talk) 11:21, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I'd suggest that you take your lack of understanding, lack of reading abilities, unsubstantiated and unwarranted paranoia and use them to go stalk someone else, please. I've reviewed your talk page archives, and my, you do seem to have some problems of your own involving obsessive behaviour in addition to your inability to read a simple edit log. In particular, what did you think:

(Move log); 07:52 . . CalendarWatcher (talk | contribs) moved User talk:CalendarWatcher to User:CalendarWatcher/Talk Archive 4 (archiving)

meant, anyways? All the helpful clues are right there in one line. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 14:06, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, Arthur: we know it's you. Please don't get upset, and as an admin you are expected to be a good example of civility. The continual use of Twinkle to deliver edit summaries accusing people (some of them newbies) of "vandalism" are a real problem. Users become very upset, not surprisingly. I'm disappointed that this hasn't stopped, especially given that you have been banned from using Twinkle. Tony (talk) 16:19, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

CalendarWatcher you have consistently avoided explaining which other WP accounts are operated by the same person as yours is. Why is that? It is inconceivable that you started as a brand new user. Please be honest and let the entire community know what is really going on.  HWV258.  09:40, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Macintosh Role Call

Hello, Tony1! You've listed yourself as an active member of WikiProject Macintosh, which is currently being revived. Your help would be appreciated! To see who is active and who is not, we will be listing all active members under "status pending" in the project's participant list. Please move your name to either the "former members" section or "active" section. The role call will end May 31; please move your name now if you are still interested. For more information on how to help the project, visit the How to help section at our project page! &middot MonoBot04:20, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

[I suppose that it is easy to misspell roll call. -- Wavelength (talk) 04:41, 2 May 2010 (UTC)]

Half broken link?

Near "In 2007, I succeeded in introducing" there is a link to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Gender-neutral_language

Should it be the following?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Gender-neutral_language.5BR.5D

--Mortense (talk) 15:00, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know. Where is this link? Tony (talk) 15:23, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

It is on the main page, User:Tony1, near "In 2007, I succeeded in introducing ". --Mortense (talk) 15:42, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Mortense, I've added an {{anchor}} so that the link still works. Thanks for pointing this out. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:07, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Author's Farce/archive2

Hi, you've looked at The Author's Farce probably two or three times now but it's at FAC again. Awadewit brought up prose concerns which I believe I've addressed, but would you mind taking a second look just to make sure? Thanks. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR _{talk // contribs} 20:00, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

re:Hi

Sadly, RPG Maker is just a hobby of mine. I'm approaching the end of my junior year of college; I'm majoring in management — Deckiller 20:44, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 3 May 2010

• Book review: Review of The World and Wikipedia

• News and notes: iPhone app update, Vector rollout for May 13, brief news

• In the news: Government promotes Tamil Wikipedia, and more

• WikiProject report: WikiProject U.S. Roads

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 15:50, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

FAR

Hi Tony - SandyGeorgia suggested that you might be interested in working on the FAR of Olivier Messiaen (see review at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Olivier Messiaen/archive1). Ceoil has been doing some work on it, but if it's in your field of interest, then the more the merrier! Thanks in advance, Dana boomer (talk) 22:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Gratuitous?

Linking animal in a taxobox may seem "gratuitous" to you, but that link is required for the automatic formatting of the taxobox. (This edit caused the article to appear in a cleanup category due to the broken taxobox.) I would argue that it is also of key importance to what is effectively a navigation template along the taxonomic hierarchy, but that's a separate matter. If you wish to argue for de-linking of the kingdom in taxoboxes, I would think either Template talk:Taxobox or WT:TOL would be the best places. --Stemonitis (talk) 13:38, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm so sorry; I normally check and think about these things. Clearly not on this occasion. Checking to see that you reverted. Tony (talk) 14:30, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

FAC ping

Could use some help over there! User:Deckiller/FAC urgents. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:42, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Mutual cooperation

How can I refuse so fair-seeming an offer?

Surely someone who valued my efforts would abandon attempts to have me blocked; as I have now said several places, I would not have pursued the question at all had I realized this was an actual MOS page.

If you want to restore respect for MOS, we can discuss that further. Gnevin's efforts to force a merge over loud and repeated objections (and I do not count my own), while - by his own admission - not understanding how to merge pages seem to me object lessons in how not to do things. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:23, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

But you are clearly busy, and possibly exhausted. Get back to me any time; unless you want to comment on usage in Talk:Austria–Hungary. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:36, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

CW

Tony, I've mentioned this to you guys before, but if you feel your concerns over CW's status are valid, you should really ask for an independent assessment of the matter. Simply put, you guys are repeatedly accusing CW (and Arthur) of sockpuppetry without any formal proof of the matter. This course of action will only serve to increase tensions all around, as seen in recent events. On the other hand, if you turn the matter over for a review by neutral parties, you get an answer without appearing to be continually badgering the accounts in question. (Please note that this is an advisory message; it is not intended to condone CW's post, or to pass any judgement whatsoever as to the validity of the accusations of sockpuppetry.) --Ckatz^chat_spy 17:54, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : L (April 2010)

The April 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:08, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

conflict of interest

You wrote on ANI "The protection and other actions should be performed only by non-UK uninvolved admins. There is no other way to ensure even-handedness. Tony (talk) 13:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)"

There is too many conflicts of interest on Wikipedia. Everyone should refrain from conflicts of interest and disclose any possible conflicts on the article talk page. Even I should start doing so. My username gives a hint but article talk pages should have a running list. Are you willing to help start this? One user cannot usually change Wikipedia for the better but maybe several might.

We could have a sticky, a section at the top of each article talk page like this

Potential conflict of interest disclosures

1. I do not work for XYZ Oil Company but I work in the petroleum service industry. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:42, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

or

1. I am a registered member of the Dictatorship and Spinach Party. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:42, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Overlinking?

[16] Bishonen | talk 21:04, 8 May 2010 (UTC).

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Iravan/archive1

Thanks for your "Tentative" Support and comments. You had said that the article needs a prose run-through. Finetooth has proofread the article. Please check. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 08:58, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 10 May 2010

• From the editor: Reviewers and reporters wanted

• Commons deletions: Porn madness

• Book review: Dan O'Sullivan's Wikipedia: a new community of practice?

• Wikipedia books launched: Wikipedia books launched worldwide

• News and notes: Public Policy and Books for All

• In the news: Commons pornography purge, and more

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Birds

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 13:33, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Would you mind?

The wording/grammar/format on the following derm task force page is not great. Would you consider helping us clean up the page, and make it look more professional? See Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Dermatology task force/Missing articles. Regardless, thank you for all your help in the past. For not being a member of the task force, you have still helped so much! ---kilbad (talk) 16:29, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Nathan Drake (character)/archive2

I have responded to the comments you made, but need further clarification on some of them. Would you stop by there and comment again? Thank you. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 01:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Please? かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 02:29, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Never mind then; it's closed now. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 17:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

review desk copyedit

Looks great, thanks! And thanks again for an excellent review.--ragesoss (talk) 13:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

FAR ping

I see from your scale at the top of the page that you are rather busy in RL, but if you have the time and inclination, there are a few articles at FAR that could use your attention:

• Wikipedia:Featured article review/Degrassi: The Next Generation/archive1 - You commented on this once before, but the editor working on the review responded with some questions.
• Wikipedia:Featured article review/History of the Yosemite area/archive1
• Wikipedia:Featured article review/History of the Australian Capital Territory/archive1

Thanks in advance, Dana boomer (talk) 14:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Iravan

Hi Tony. I'm helping the nominator clear up the last remaining issues over at the Iravan FAC, but I'm struggling with one minor prose point. The article currently states:

Aravan is typically considered "the symbol of the price war exacts, a representative of countless innocent youth who their mothers reluctantly send to the battlefield to be consumed by the insatiable Goddess of War."

As you can see, the quote doesn't quite scan as a properly grammatical sentence, but for the life of me I can't come up with a partial paraphrase that doesn't hew too close to the source text (e.g. "Aravan is typically considered a 'symbol of the price war exacts'; he evokes the 'countless innocent' youths sent by their mothers 'to be consumed by the insatiable Goddess of War.'") Can you suggest a solution? Oh, and thanks for your comments at the Revolution FAC; your input is always appreciated, especially when you support. :-) Best, Steve ^T • C 09:44, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I first read it as though it referred to a supermarket price-war. This is translated, I presume, so the English can be improved in good faith even though within quotes. "of the price exacted by war—representative of the countless youths their mothers send to the battlefield, to be ...". Comma necessary unless their mothers really want the deaths, I think. I don't like "countless", but I suppose it's in the original. Unsure about G and W. Do we have access to the original? Tony (talk) 10:13, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

The source is English, unfortunately, so we don't get that translation leeway. Maybe if we lose the imagery? "Aravan is considered a representation of the cost of war; he evokes the 'countless innocent' reluctantly sent by their mothers to die." Steve ^T • C 10:55, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Turning directly quoted text into better English is a very good reason to paraphrase. I'd further restrict the ambit of the quote-marks. Your solution looks good; I'd add "to be" before "a". Tony (talk) 11:14, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Excellent; thanks for the input. Best, Steve ^T • C 11:40, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the support for nomination and helping out on this issue - nominator of Iravan. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 11:55, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

MOS-conscious editor in trouble

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#HoundsOfSpring.2C_again. Maybe you can suggest some compromise, I'm sure you've seen a fair share of this type of issue. Pcap ping 12:34, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Royal Prerogative in the United Kingdom

• Royal Prerogative in the United Kingdom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi Tony. I understand that you are a go-to guy for all things relating to the featured article process. If you have a moment, would you mind taking a look at this article for me? It has been the subject of an improvement drive by User:Ironholds and myself, and it does seem to be looking much, much better than it used to. But I'm wondering if the prose is "compelling, even brilliant" or not :). Even a quick look-over would be appreciated. Best, AGK 12:42, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for your comments Tony. I'll get on fixing the points you raised shortly. Please have this as a thank you:

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		The Copyeditor's Barnstar is awarded to those who show excellence in copyediting Wikipedia articles. For kindly giving Royal Prerogative in the United Kingdom your attention, you get one for yourself. AGK 13:25, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

You are too kind! My first essay in law school (from which I dropped out) concerned the reserve powers of the Australian Governor-General. I got a C-minus. Tony (talk) 13:27, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Responded to your query at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/July 2009 Ürümqi riots/archive3. Thanks for the copyedits, rʨanaɢ (talk) 23:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Off the mark

Okay, it's your text, and I realize that you're a native speaker. I'm not, but I'm pretty sure that I remember my English lessons correctly, and this idiom can be found in dictionaries as well. Anyway, have a nice day. Stefan64 (talk) 13:14, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I get 145 million hits on google of "Wide of the mark", versus 23 million for "wide off the mark", which I do not believe is idiomatic. "Way off the mark" is idiomatic, though. Tony (talk) 15:21, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Re St. Paul's College, Sydney

FYI, I've asked User:Alan Thomas Atkinson to let us know his sources for the changes to the St Paul's article in a message on his talk page. Donama (talk) 01:56, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Parthian Empire

Hah! I recently stumbled upon your page User:Tony1/How to improve your writing. It's extremely helpful and I'm already utilizing it for copy-editing Parthian Empire. User:Scapler has already copy-edited the article, but I suppose his work fails to impress you! It's a shame you couldn't get past the lead section; the rich detail about exciting, epic conflicts are found in the body. You'll just have to grit your teeth and bear the fact that, in order to enjoy that aspect of the article, you'll have to condition yourself to reading and memorizing funky Iranian names! That can't possibly be too difficult, can it?--Pericles of Athens^Talk 01:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

If I could, I would Anglicisize everyone in the article as "King John Smith" and "Queen Judy Jones" to make things easier on the eyes, but alas, that would be pointless and bat-shit insane, let alone insulting to people of different cultures.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 01:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 17 May 2010

• News and notes: Backstage at the British Museum

• In the news: In the news

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Essays

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 19:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Guinea-pig

Hi Tony,

would you like to be a guinea-pig for a script I've just written? It is meant to convert words from American spelling to British. Let me know how you get along. Thanks, Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 09:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

OK ... but can you give me an idea of categories, types of article, where engvar is likely to be handled poorly? I must say, I'm lazy about checking through for engvar when I gnome, but I presume there will be a diff. Tony (talk) 09:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Moon FAR

Many thanks for your review comments and Support. The article has been kept! Iridia (talk) 01:49, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Jerusalem

Hello, Tony. Thanks first of all for the link to BWV 104. I am listening as I write, but it is too supernal to be background music. Thanks also for your sharp-eyed copy-editing skills. They are much needed on WP.

The implication of my edit summary, safeguarding the existing wording & structure, was very much intentional. A delicate equilibrium was established through prolonged and repeated discussions on the talk page, some possibly still visible there, most preserved in the special archive devoted to Jerusalem as capital (linked to above the TOC). The lead—especially in regard to the capital status—is constantly under threat, and it is essential to be able to cite the existing consensus to avoid repeats of the previous edit wars. I would like to believe that if you propose reasonable and relatively minor changes first on the talk page, support (or at least, lack of opposition) will be forthcoming, though perhaps not immediately. I could be wrong; sometimes discussions over the "smallest" of points have erupted that went on for weeks or months.

As for your proposed removal of the first source, Erlanger is a bureau chief and not just a travel editor, so the citation possibly carries more weight on that account. I do not find the "huge raft of sources" excessive, and therefore don't see a need for pruning it. Hertz1888 (talk) 18:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

HMAS Australia at FAC

Thanks for the comments so far at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/HMAS Australia (1911)/archive1. I think all of your observations have been addressed in some form, so can you swing by and confirm that this is so? -- saberwyn 02:46, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

FAR ping

Hi Tony - There are a few articles that could use your attention at FAR, if you wish to give it:

• Wikipedia:Featured article review/History of the Australian Capital Territory/archive1 could use another look
• Wikipedia:Featured article review/Australia/archive1 - I know you've been involved with this, but it could use a final look-through as it looks to be getting close to the end of its FARC
• Wikipedia:Featured article review/History of the Yosemite area/archive1 could use another look
• Wikipedia:Featured article review/Gliding/archive1 could use a look to see if it can be kept without a FARC

Thanks in advance, Dana boomer (talk) 17:14, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Request for peer review on article about Emperor Pedro II of Brazil.

Hello, Tony! I've noticed that you are a quite successful and experienced. If you have interest and time, could you take a look at Pedro II of Brazil and share some thoughts on what it is lacking to be nominated to Featured article? It is about the Brazilian Emperor who reigned for 58 years. I know it is not the subject you are most interested in, but give it a try. I am quite sure you are going to enjoy reading the article. Here is the the peer review page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review/Pedro II of Brazil. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 18:49, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Re: Transwiki-ing

Hi Tony, I imported this edit from the Nostalgia Wikipedia, a copy of the Wikipedia database from 20 December 2001. It didn't appear in the article's history before my import because in the UseModWiki software that Wikipedia used before late January 2002, newer edits sometimes overwrote old ones; there are several edits from January 2002 in the page history of the Patrick White article. Graham87 08:51, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I found it on the Australian Wikipedians' notice board. The effort sounds like a good idea, but I'd never heard of him until I read your message. I love classical music; I was just listening to the BWV 104 recording you pointed to on this page. That pastorale is just *bursting* with energy, and I adore the counterpoint in the third movement. Did you go to the ACO concert featuring Bach's works last month? Graham87 09:16, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 24 May 2010

• News and notes: New puzzle globe, feature for admins, Israel's "Wikipedia Bill", unsourced bios declining

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Saints

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 04:42, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Filters

Hi Tony, you made a comment at the FAC for Distributed element filter that you thought the nomination might have been premature. This article has a sister article, Mechanical filter which I also wish to put up for FA. Do you think you could take a look and see whether you think this one is premature also. Its peer review is here. Thanks. SpinningSpark 18:18, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Bronwyn Bancroft

Hi there - the above article, about an Indigenous Australian artist, is tomorrow's TFA. With your eye for detail, esp. on linking, would you be willing to give it a check-over? Thanks. hamiltonstone (talk) 07:17, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I may have a look later tonight. Tony (talk) 07:56, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

New Zealand

In case it was a mistake in your script, I'm just letting you know that your edits to New Zealand introduced a typo (environmemtal). Kahuroa (talk) 20:24, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Oops, as I replied to Kahuroa, it was my clumsy typing. Tony (talk) 09:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Tony1. You have new messages at TreasuryTag's talk page.
Message added 14:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 14:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Please could you clarify what your complaint referred to? I can't remember ever having interacted with you before? ╟─TreasuryTag►UK EYES ONLY─╢ 14:40, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I was being a hot-head. All based on a misunderstanding of the status of the text in question. Sorry. Tony (talk) 14:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Dashes

I noticed a grave error at Taiyuan that resulted from your scripted changing of dash signs. Apparently the climate chart template does not allow the type of dash that you coded in, resulting in a display failure. such errors may be on more pages, so could you alter your script to weave around climate charts, or at least tread more carefully? Thanks ---华钢琴49 (TALK) 03:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Nope, manually keyed in minus signs, which they're supposed to be. It's a problem that the table refuses them, and needs to be addressed. Tony (talk) 03:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

ok. how about bringing the issue up on the climate chart and the MOS page? I honestly don't understand the difference... lols, and what I care about for now is that embarrassing errors like that aren't visible. ---华钢琴49 (TALK) 03:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

well, to clarify. I could not see the difference in the code, but it becomes much clearer after viewing the article itself. and I read your subpage on 'how to use hyphens and dashes', which was helpful. ---华钢琴49 (TALK) 03:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Gratuitous?

I refer your attention to this edit, and this previous discussion. --Stemonitis (talk) 09:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

All except for the unfortunate "animalia". Oh dear, I was sure I'd removed that one. Sorry. Tony (talk) 11:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

|link=off in {{Dts}}

In your edits you add |link=off to {{Dts}}, this parameter should not be used anymore as linking is always off, see Dts#Linking: "The template formerly linked dates automatically. To turn linking off the parameter link=off was used. In accordance with current guidelines linking is no longer supported. Please do not use this parameter. Please remove it from existing transclusions." Thanks. _Xeworlebi ^(t•c) 11:26, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah, thank you Xeworlebi. I will try to pass it on to others editing in the same way, too. Tony (talk) 11:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 31 May 2010

• Photography: Making money with free photos

• News and notes: Wikimedians at Maker Faire, brief news

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Zoo

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 22:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Gay allegations etc

Tony, I've just noticed this edit of yours (since deleted; I wouldn't support that deletion, but you're free to deal with that as you see fit).

Apart from Sculthorpe and Murphy, where else has this sentence been inserted? Btw, my response to your question of 31 May is on my talk page. Cheers. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 13:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

And I have replied on Jack's page. Tony (talk) 15:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

... for your note. Hopefully rectified now. If you notice anything in future that strikes you the same, please feel free and let me know :) Appreciated! FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:55, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Petra

Appreciate the removal of a lot of the unnecessary linkage on the Petra page, which I'm (slowly) attempting to rewrite. I'm fairly new to the page editing and didn't feel comfortable removing them in case that was some sort of Wikipedia standard. Good to know. Question: You changed the hyphens between dates (e.g. 1981-84) to longer dashes. Any particular reason? Paa00a (talk) 18:10, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LI (May 2010)

The May 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:46, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

The Thai version of The Signpost

Thai Wikipedia's signpost (สารวิกิพีเดีย [sarn-wikipedia] = The wikipedia journal) has just established in May 2010 from the community agreement to have a newspost in order to publish some new important changes or community conclusions. The user who take responsibility to build this page and update is user th:ผู้ใช้:Horus, or you can contact by using Thai wikipedia embassy for foreigner's questions. · Dr.Garden · Talk! · 00:43, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Links, yet again. And edit warring

Two points -

Dubai: I'm not going to revert this edit, since it's not worth edit warring over, even though I think it is wrong, and there is no basis for saying "American and European should not be linked" (who says?). I would though have taken this further if you had also reverted my restoration of the link for the Indian population - which you bizarrely took out originally, while leaving one for Pakistan. It is an infobox, about a state whose population is majority expatriate, and whose economic growth depends to a large exent on a South Asian workforce. The original version, which I restored, with minor changes to improve a couple of the links, provided links to details about where those expats are from. As ever, I fail to see what benefit is to be found by removing them, let alone edit warring over it, as you have started to do.

Australian TV: I also notice a whole series of edits to vast number of pages on obscure Australian TV series yesterday. I quickly looked at some of these, and noticed that many of them have removed links to items in the "Categories" and "See also" sections, which also of course has messed up the formatting. Now I know you think removing any link to Australia and TV programme descriptions from articles about Australian TV programmes, and also removing links to Sydney - while retaining those to Melbourne and Brisbane for example, on some arbitrary basis - is an improvement for readers. This appears to be a genuinely held belief, if a slightly odd one and one not endorsed by the actual wording of WP:OVERLINK, but surely you didn't actually mean to take out those other details as well. Or is this what you meant when you said that you often run the scripts, and then take out "more"? The fact that you are encouraging others to take on and use these scripts, which in their effects often amount to (presumably unintentional) vandalism, is somewhat worrying. Also interesting is that a day later, no one has come in to correct most of the obvious errors on those pages, which kind of suggests that silence from other editors cannot be taken to always equal consent to such changes.

I also see some disputes over Canadian names today, where, as with Dubai, you are also edit warring to remove direct links to the main Canada article, while citing "breaches" of wp:link, where it is not clear there are any such clear breaches. --N-HH talk/edits 14:54, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 7 June 2010

• From the team: Changes to the Signpost

• News and notes: "Pending changes" trial, Chief hires, British Museum prizes, Interwiki debate, and more

• In the news: Cancer coverage, cognitive surplus, Wikipedia monarchy, and more

• Free Travel-Shirts: "Free Travel-Shirts" signed by Jimmy Wales and others purchasable

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Comedy

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 12:40, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Citation headache

Hi Tony, would you mind having a look at the citation formatting on Chester Cathedral for me? For some reason in the notes, clicking the blue linked 'Nuttal', 'Home' and 'Clifton-Taylor' correctly zoom you down to the relevant section in the Bibliography; but that doesn't seem to be working for the other references. Any idea why - I've been slowly losing my sanity looking at the code and can find no differences between the two to suggest and explanation. I'm probably to close to it. I'd be very grateful if you'd cast your eyes over it. --Joopercoopers (talk) 12:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I found "Starkey" works too, the first I tried as it happened. But you're right, the others don't seem to. I think it doesn't work when you insert text such as =p142 after "ref name" and before the double curly brackets. Tony (talk) 13:12, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: Help page

Heh, I came this close to messaging you expressly to say that yes, I had seen it. Don't worry about overwriting my changes, they only took about 30 seconds. I shall have to go back and properly comment on your draft once Rob's checked it for factual accuracy or something. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 16:56, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Ta. I'll wait. I'm the acid test, coz I'm thick about computers and such processes. I'm rather demanding about explanatory text—my insecurity ... Tony (talk) 17:06, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Grab some glory, and a barnstar

Hi, I'd like to invite you to participate in the Guild of Copy Editors July 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive. In May, about 30 editors helped remove the {{copyedit}} tag from 1175 articles. The backlog is still over 7500 articles, and extends back to the beginning of 2008! We really need your help to reduce it. Copyediting just a couple articles can qualify you for a barnstar. Serious copyeditors can win prestigious and exclusive rewards. See the event page for more information. And thanks for your consideration. monosock 04:59, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

For all you do

		The Modest Barnstar
		The Modest Barnstar is an award suitable for an editor who makes small improvements which are immensely valuable, but often go unnoticed. Thank you for taking the time to copy edit the Signpost's articles before publication, including my articles in the WikiProject Report for the past couple weeks. We need copy editors like you and it saddens me that some careless words have made you feel unappreciated. It is easy for writers to take copy editors for granted, but your work is important and deserves some praise. I hope you and phoebe patch things up because the Signpost certainly needs you. -Mabeenot (talk) 08:51, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to second that, Tony, for your work there and everywhere else on WP. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 09:10, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

re: signpost

Hi Tony, I left you a reply on the talk page, as follows:

I missed your book review, I'm sorry. Sage is right: I really didn't mean any offense; I also really appreciate your copyediting. What I *did* mean is that it's really hard to get people to contribute articles on a regular basis, which is what the Signpost now and has always really needed the most help with. I want you to *have* something to copyedit! And I *want* you to add yourself to the newsroom table! I think you've got my intention all wrong: I'd love to see you as a regular contributor. I'd love to see everyone focused on writing articles (that goes for everyone who has been talking about Signpost reform lately, btw, including me), and after we've managed to put out a few issues successfully sit down and talk about how best to do so in the future (rather than the other way around). This has seemed to be the most productive method of attacking the problem to date. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 18:05, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

And, I might just add, I think this is probably a case of us both (at least me, for sure) being a bit irritable and hearing things the wrong way: you've focused on me saying you've not been helping, when in fact you've spent hours helping -- understandably irritating and a source of frustration, and not the impression *I* want to give: I really value everyone who does anything for the Signpost. On the other hand, what I've focused on is your calls for better writing and better management of the Signpost -- with the implication, of course, that the older stuff in the Signpost is not well written and not well managed, which kind of cuts to the quick for me since I've spent the last year and a half writing diligently every week for the 'post (so presumably a lot of the bad writing is mine). You see our mutual problem? I would love to have you as part of the signpost, I really would. Please write that research article you were talking about. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 18:34, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

GOCE .js

Hey Tony, I would like to try these scripts

• The date-format harmoniser
• unlink-common-terms script

Thanks; Mlpearc pull my chain 'Tribs 01:33, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you very much for (tentatively) signing up for the July Backlog Elimination Drive! The copyedit backlog stretches back two and a half years, all the way back to the beginning of 2008! We're really going to need all the help we can muster to get it down to a manageable number. We've ambitiously set a goal of clearing all of 2008 from the backlog this month. In order to do that, we're going to need more participants. Is there anyone that you can invite or ask to participate with you? If so, we're offering an award to the person who brings in the most referrals. Just notify ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! or Diannaa ^TALK of who your referrals are. Once again, thanks for your support! Diannaa ^TALK 14:54, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

A reward? I do like sipping brandy occasionally. And hampers of beautiful food! Tony (talk) 15:21, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I liked your copy edits of the WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors subpage! Very apt.  :) --Jubilee♫clipman 19:43, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. N-HH talk/edits 16:36, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

How many articles have you made this kind of poor edit on? Please stop indiscriminately removing valid wikilinks and breaking formatting. Fences&Windows 17:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Every one of the ones I just checked had similar issues. Please don't do this again until you've established that your scripts actually work, ok? I'm going to go revert most of your recent script changes. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

And frankly it shouldn't be someone else that's wasting their time fixing these errors. Script assisted fixing of overlinking is fine and dandy, but when you're doing anything script-assisted you need to check the results to make sure it's not breaking anything. Please do so next time, Tony. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:35, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea why this is happening. Please do not revert them—I'll go through and fix this as soon as possible. Tony (talk) 02:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Tony1. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/St. Michael's Cathedral, Qingdao/archive3.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

If you could strike things that have been addressed to your satisfaction, that would be spiffy. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 17:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 June 2010

• News and notes: Pending changes goes live, first state-funded Wikipedia project concludes, brief news

• In the news: Hoaxes in France and at university, Wikipedia used in Indian court, Is Wikipedia a cult?, and more

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 21:32, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Slashdot WP:FA?

The article recently passed GA review, and seems to be in good shape. I usually fail miserably with bringing articles to WP:FAC, though (I unsuccessfully tried to nominate Fark earlier this year). Since you're somewhat of an expert over there, would you mind taking a look at this article and letting me know if it has a shot? Thanks! WTF? (talk) 04:52, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I ran through the top bit.

Is it "user-submitted and -evaluated", or without the second hyphen?

"rant" is kind of a normal word: I unlinked it replaced with quotation marks to suggest unusual usage. Is that right? But geek might be better as an unlinked "enthusiasts", since "geek" is a little pejorative. Please don't link "Wikipedia"!  :-)

I removed "various", but still: "to ask questions to the Slashdot community on a variety of topics". Do the last five words add anything?

US dollars just require the sign alone, and please, don't link it.

Where's your boundary for spelling out numbers. Normally, it's nine/10.

"Rounding out the ten most active articles include an article announcing the"—I don't understand the first two words.

Some US writers wouldn't use as many hyphens as I've added, although some would.

Include "also" only if it's really necessary.

Kept "Valentine's Day" linked, but non-US readers shouldn't have to divert to find out the date. (Put in parentheses after it?)

"where they pay to read the good articles"—"good" is a little strange—I guess someone there is making a value judgement. Why not "selected"?

"certain joke achievements"?

I didn't catch all of the minus signs.

"operating system"—I think if the reader clicks on "Linux", they'll find that out, so I unlinked to save bunching.

My personal pref. is for no dots in US, and all but one of yours was such. Up to you.

OK, now I see it's certain science topics. Unsure whether it's worth characterising what type at the top; the word "certain" is too vague.

It's on track as far as the language goes, I think. Tony (talk) 11:06, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment

I didn't think that comment was particularly "narky"? I'd have left pretty much the same message for any editor that was doing the same (and to be honest, it was more a reply to Sarek saying that it should be up to the original editor to fix any errors. Apologies if you took it as such. Black Kite (t) (c) 14:31, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Conciliatory reply on BK's page. It was not easy to discern his meaning. Tony (talk) 10:40, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Style

I was searching for "and/or" and came across a comment you made on the Manual of Style "I don't agree with a proscription. "And/or" is sometimes useful, and occasionally necessary." Considering you work on improving wikipedia's prose, I found this troubling. You can read my comment at the bottom of the section for why. Redsxfenway (talk) 06:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I understand your concern, but by definition, or is inclusive (choose as many as you'd like). If the phrase is preceded by "either" than it becomes exclusive (choose only one). And/or is simply redundant. There is of course the unfortunate balance we must strike between correctness and understandability. Since "or" is understood as exclusive by most it is easy to be misunderstood. A good example of this is the word peruse, which means to read very carefully. On a related note, I can't seem to find where to get started on the manual of style. Redsxfenway (talk) 18:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand your point about "peruse"; can you explain? WRT getting started on the MoS, do you mean you intend to go through it, copy-editing, raising queries? Perhaps roll through from the start? Raise anything contentious at the talk page before (or maybe after, if it seems no big deal). Tony (talk) 10:13, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

St. Michael's Cathedral

Hi, thanks so much for your review of St. Michael's Cathedral, Qingdao. I was wondering if you could go back to the article review page here, strikethrough any objections that have been resolved to your satisfaction, and then add your support vote, if you think it warrants one. Thanks! ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 06:20, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I thought I did support. I'll check. Tony (talk) 07:52, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Script errors, yet again

Tony, there continue to be significant problems with your delinking edits. This time, the script-based edit to [[Wales] ] has removed several instances of linked languages (English, Wels, Italian) without replacing the unlinked text. The result left several mangled sentences in the article that had to be cleaned up by myself and another editor. --Ckatz^chat_spy 17:06, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

June 2010

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for continuing to make faulty script-assisted edits as seen here. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:20, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Any admin can unblock without consulting me if Tony convinces them that he will properly review his script-assisted edits going forward.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:21, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Tony, I've undone this block after a discussion on AN/I. It would be better not to use the script again until the malfunction has been fixed, just in case it happens again. The other admins who commented on AN/I agreed it would be better to disable the script than to see your block continue. I don't know how to disable it myself, but someone else might go ahead and do that until whoever wrote it can iron out the bugs. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:33, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Just to let you know that Xeno has disabled it, but apparently it could still be run locally, though it would not be a good idea to do that. I wonder if Malleus would know how to fix this. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:04, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

This is a pretty sorry state of affairs! how exactly is infeffing anyone, let alone a respected long standing editor, who is clearly "upset" supposed to assist a situation. Master SarekOfVulcan seems to be occurring on my watchlist a litle too often of late. You have my sympathy Tony!  Giacomo  21:13, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

SarekOfVulcan needs to be reined in. He's the sort of administrator who gives administrators a bad name, and he ought to be blocked himself to prevent any further disruption. Malleus Fatuorum 22:37, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree with the above. How does an indeffing someone as valuable and respected as Tony help the project? Well, I don't think it does. Seems as if SarekOfVulcan is trying to make a bit of name for himself. Aaroncrick ^TALK 22:43, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I go away for a two and a half days and an involved Admin indef's a long standing editor, Indef'ing someone for making error's is a no no (we have otherways in dealing with it such as helping them to fix the error or failing that taking to someone who is uninvolved) IMO. Bidgee (talk) 10:43, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

←Adding my voice to those believing the Indef to be utterly ridiculous. It was like caging the swan because the cygnets ate the chickfeed. Even though the swan had already sincerely promised to check the cygnets' behaviour. There may well have been one or two slip-ups (e.g. "Founder" to "dounder" and few other strange things here) since making that promise but an indef was totally over the top. A bit more good faith and less finger pointing might not go amiss around here. In my experience, Tony is a thoughtful and highly respected editor: this recent issue with the script is a very rare error on his part and should have been treated that way i.e. with a knuckle-rapping rather than a hanging --Jubilee♫clipman 23:38, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

FYI, the indef was applied by Sarek following an incident this morning where the script was applied to the article Wales. It malfunctioned, but was not repaired by Tony. This was after the AN/I discussions of the past few days, and after his assurances regarding checking the output. Per Sarek's posts on the matter, it was never cast as a permanent block. --Ckatz^chat_spy 23:44, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

But Ckatz, how was the block going to help anyone? What's the point of blocking someone for a short while? NO point at all, just causes disruption. Aaroncrick ^TALK 01:18, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Ckatz is just upset that Tony is using a script at all, and this is just a continuation of that campaign to prevent him undoing the endemic overlinking 'ratchet' here on WP. There is nothing inherently wrong with using a script to assist his editing, as Tony is doing, except that as a script newbie, I can sympathise that an apparently innocent tweak to code can have unintended consequences. In any event, it seems not to be the same problem at all which went to ANI, AFAICT. I feel this block is a blundering knee-jerk, an over-reaction. You may criticise his scripting skills, but this block is just soooo aggressive, and not at all a suitable solution to the apparent problem. Tony just needs to take care to review his edits before pushing the 'save' button until he is sure there are no bugs in his script. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:48, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Ohconfucius and much of the other sentiment expressed here. A block was not necessary at all. A stern warning and disabling of Tony's script would have probably done the trick. Instead, this block will serve only to increase tensions. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:55, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

It was an "FYI" post, Ohconfucius. Nothing more, nothing less. Using it as an opportunity for yet another jibe about this fantasy "link it all campaign" rubbish is not helpful in the least. --Ckatz^chat_spy 01:58, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

fantasy "link it all campaign"? Please desist from misrepresentation, and your point-scoring against Tony at any opportunity. Your insinuations are a far cry from what I said: "a continuation of that campaign to prevent him undoing the endemic overlinking 'ratchet'" Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:04, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

"Campaign", "point-scoring", etc are all symptomatic of the way in which anyone who complains about your (you in the group sense, not just you personally) delinking is trivialized and their concerns ignored. --Ckatz^chat_spy 03:23, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

←There goes the rhetoric, again... 'Trivialising'? we argue our case forcefully, yes, but it seems that you just keep paying lip service to sensible linking while doing not a great deal to reduce its incidence. can we not just agree to disagree??? Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:32, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I also agree with the suggestion of an alternate account for delinking and that Tony needs some sort of "script mentor" to sort out all of the errors. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:55, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes Ohconfucius, unfortunately there's too many power-tripping/non-thinking admins out there. A thoughtless indef block is likely to lose an editor, as it's happened on far too many occasions before. Aaroncrick ^TALK 01:56, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Quite. An admin acting in the spirit of AGF would block for what? 24hrs? A week? Really whatever time was realistic to sort out the problems with the script. Indef is such a "feck off we'd rather you weren't here", it's hardly sending the right message. Chin up Tony, but sort the fecking script out man.--Joopercoopers (talk) 01:29, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Where is the malfunction? The script was a TINY part of the edit. It took 30 minutes of manual work to copy-edit, unlink things like "railway"? This is hard to believe. Tony (talk) 02:04, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah, it's really quite hard to detect. I will not use the script again until it is proven by a third party to work faultlessly. Tony (talk) 02:06, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Tony your searching for reason in the wrong places. Process obviously trumps over any broader context. Rules, guides, specifics. See Ivan Pavlov. Ceoil (talk) 06:55, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

• Or Stanford prison experiment? Tony (talk) 07:09, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

That too. Not thinking for yourself. These people are like lower-level minor civil servants. Amusing in their own way, but make my teeth ache. Ceoil (talk) 07:26, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Tony, I've posted your promise to ANI; hopefully this mess is done and over with. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:14, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

No thanks: I've done that myself. Tony (talk) 02:18, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

• Now that your common terms script has been disabled, I have taken the liberty of copying it over to my userspace, to allow others to use it if they wish (please refer to my comments at ANI). Please do not hesitate to let me have suggestions for improving it. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 07:14, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

• Just for the record, I've no dog in this fight - I only disabled the script on a request from another admin. I think the issues with the script should be worked out before it is re-enabled, since other users of the script may not know it has errors. –xeno^talk 14:41, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the clarification. I have made a tweak to correct a glitch I spotted, and will go through the code section by section next week. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 15:54, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Tony1. You have new messages at Nilotpal42's talk page.
Message added 04:50, 21 June 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Sorry for the late response. This is definitely much better.--^Nilotpal42 12:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Excellent editor

Through our experiences together, I have found you to be one of the most helpful editors on Wikipedia. Please keep up the great work, and let me know if I can ever be of any assistance! ---kilbad (talk) 22:51, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I always enjoy seeing your views on MoS and linking issues, and I was sorry to see your block. Glad to see you were unblocked, and I know you'll fix whatever glitch in your script got you blocked. You have my full support, whatever that is worth. --John (talk) 07:07, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Me too - your contribution to the quality of the project is invaluable. Kahuroa (talk) 01:40, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

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

Gnevin (talk) 16:43, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

FAR

Hi Tony - If you're interested in a few checks at FAR, there are some articles that could use your attention:

• Wikipedia:Featured article review/Fundamental Rights, Directive Principles and Fundamental Duties of India/archive1
• Wikipedia:Featured article review/Canberra/archive1
• Wikipedia:Featured article review/Roy of the Rovers/archive1 - This is still at FAR, but looks like there could be a good chance of a close before FARC

Thanks in advance if you have the time and interest, and thank you for the interest that you have been showing on some of the other articles there (Australia and Messiaen especially). Dana boomer (talk) 01:34, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Heads-up: Common terms

As you know, I have copied you script over to my userspace for testing after it was disabled. I have tested the script on over 30 different articles so far, including all of those where problems have been reported previously. I did come across one false positive; I made a tweak to the script and it now seems fixed. I will continue to run tests on a similar number of articles in the next few days, following which I will report back to you again. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 09:51, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

• This is to let you know that I have run tests on another 30 articles on all subjects, but mainly arts related articles, with no apparent false positives. This gives me great confidence in saying that the script appears to be free of serious bugs. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 07:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Ta, OC, and sorry not to respond before. It's just that using the script involves hard work, since it's normally combined with a painstaking sifting through article text to remove ridiculous links that can't possibly be on the script, as you know. So I'm not in a great rush to use it over the next week or two, given my other commitments on- and off-wiki. Thanks for your work; I learn from it. Tony (talk) 07:51, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 June 2010

• Sister projects: Picture of the Year results declared on Wikimedia Commons

• News and notes: Collaboration with the British Museum and in Serbia, Interaction with researchers, and more

• In the news: Wikipedia better than Britannica, Pending changes as a victory of tradition, and more

• WikiProject report: WikiProject U2

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 19:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article review/History of the Yosemite area/archive1

Hi Tony - I attempted to fix the specific issues you brought up and used those as examples to find and fix similar issues. Another editor has has copyedited the article. I would appreciate any feedback you may have about the article. Thanks. --mav (reviews needed) 01:52, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

MoS document history

In past discussions in at the MoS talk page, you've expressed concern about the way pages can be added to the MoS at the drop of a hat. A recent conversation began an initiative to do something about it, but is in danger of fizzling out. This may be simply because folks are busy on other things. Your comments in the discussion would be welcome, to help us come to a clear conclusion about whether to go with this or drop it. PL290 (talk) 04:33, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Ships interview

The images look to be a tad large and sandwich the text... just my 2 cents —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 02:26, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks from WP:SHIPS

		WikiProject Ships Barnstar
		On behalf of WP:SHIPS and The Ancient Order of the Deep, I award you this Barnstar for your smashing work to publicize the project and its efforts at the Wikipedia Signpost. HausTalk 19:55, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Gillard linking

Hi, you've just relinked "Australian". The MoS says that commonly known words are not generally linked. Any reason for linking it? Tony (talk) 13:34, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Force of habit, I suppose - I hadn't managed to get that far into the MoS. This place can get a bit confusing with all of the laws, rules, guidelines, essays and the like. Hack (talk) 13:54, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

You removed a lot of capital letters and useful links and even introduced grammatical errors to the article Julia Gillard. Is this meant to be serious or are you just being a nuisance? Removing capital letters from headings is certainly not an improvement to the article. (This change). (Huey45 (talk) 03:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC))

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 June 2010

• Objectionable material: Board resolution on offensive content

• News and notes: 2010–15 plan, Smithsonian outreach, Teaching Wikipedia, brief news

• In the news: Wikipedia controlled by pedophiles, left-wing trolls, Islamofascists and Communist commandos?

• Public Policy Initiative: Introducing the Public Policy Initiative

• WikiProject report: Talking with WikiProject Ships

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 22:21, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Backlog Elimination Drive Has Begun

Hello, I just wanted to take a moment and announce that the July 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive has started, and will run for a month. Thanks for signing up. There's a special prize for most edits on the first day, in case you've got high ambitions. Enjoy! ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 04:06, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Shoemaker's Holiday

Hi. I saw that you sent a message to this user. I don't believe he has been monitoring Wikipedia for many months. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:39, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. No problem. Tony (talk) 16:43, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

italics vs quotation marks...?

Okay, here's a challenge -the article Confirmation bias mentions many terms within it which are sometimes italicized and sometimes in quotation marks. Some of the ones in quotation marks I am thinking might be more apt as italics, but the rules are somewhat equivocal on this and can seemingly be interpreted in more than one way. I am having a discussion with the author about it. Scan down to out exchange on the Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Confirmation bias/archive1 and let us know what you think. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:06, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Damn, it's already been archived. But it's a fascinating article, which I'll read tomorrow. Thanks for drawing my attention to it. Tony (talk) 16:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 July 2010

• News and notes: WMF expansion, community hires, award for MediaWiki, admin recall

• In the news: Accidentally anonymized donation, democratized learning and more

• Wikimania preview: Gearing up for Wikimania in Gdańsk

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Children's Literature

• Features and admins: This week's highlights

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 16:41, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I was just chuckling over "an aircraft engine with 'a rather interesting history'". "Rather interesting" is not the most unequivocal praise I've ever heard, but so typical of wiki evaluation processes. - BanyanTree 04:03, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LII (June 2010)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LII (June 2010) Front page Project news Articles Members Editorial

Project news Catch up with our project's activities over the last month, including the new Recruitment working group and Strategy think tank	Articles Milhist's newest featured and A-Class content
Members June's contest results plus the latest awards to our members	Editorial LeonidasSpartan shares his thoughts on how, as individual editors, we can deal with frustration and disappointment in our group endeavour
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.

This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

MS

Was wondering if you could take a look at Microsoft and comment here. It's optional as I know you are busy and generally stick to FACs and not established FAs, even a general overview would be helpful. I just came back from 3 years of inactivity for the most part and kind of massively changed the article to try to keep it up to current standards and cleaned up various vandalism.

Also, random comment about the manual of style - I found the current guidelines regarding currency confusing and almost contradictory; I just stuck with linking the first instance of the currency symbol - but the MOS seems to indicate spelling it out in it's full name, like "80 United States Dollars" or similar on first instance, or even "US$80".

Thanks as always, even if you don't have time review it :). RN 05:09, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll try within a day. I've already raised what I think is a most unfortunate bit of the MoS, at MoS talk. Tony (talk) 16:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for the discussion leading to updating the MOS regarding currencies, it makes a lot more sense now! (Note: The "main page" with the longer explanation still seems to have the old confusing and contradicting guidelines, but it's not a big deal to me at least) RN 18:24, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome! Tony (talk) 04:41, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Nightwish discography

Hi, can you vote here please? Thank you. DreamNight (talk) 13:32, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I left critical comments; but it's not a vote, of course. Tony (talk) 13:50, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Your sugestions had been added.DreamNight (talk) 17:22, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: FTs vs. GTs

The logs for those would be at Template:Featured topic log. Featured topics would be at the goings-on page as well, though the log is the only place the GTs are recorded. I separated the two in the FT log to make it clearer, since it was confusing as it was currently shown. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 21:03, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, and sorry for the omission this week. Tony (talk) 03:46, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

No problem; yeah, I took over since the guy who's been doing FTs for the past year or so suddenly stopped editing, so there weren't any FTs in June save for a couple I promoted at the end. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:15, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Reminder

Hi! This message is just a friendly reminder that you signed up to participate in the GOCE Backlog Elimination Drive. I noticed that you haven't logged a single copy edit yet. We'd love to see you participate! The drive runs three more weeks so there's still plenty of time to earn barnstars. Thanks! --Diannaa ^(Talk) 22:21, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Astonish

Saw this, thought of you, no biggie, just I think we should strive to astonish our readers; thought this pic might come in handy for you; can't be arsed to punctuate properly; is all.  Chzz  ►  04:51, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Re:PING

Replied. I'd be happy to do this in the future, and should usually be about, if you need anyone :) J Milburn (talk) 09:33, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I replied to your email? Did you not get it? J Milburn (talk) 09:41, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Review

Well, i hope you can change your idea about Nightwish discography 'cause all the troubles were solved.DreamNight (talk) 13:18, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

This is at FLC? Can it wait for 12 hours? I'm full up doing emergency stuff at the moment. Tony (talk)

I fixed the tables, erasing some extra titles. I hope you like it. DreamNight (talk) 13:21, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Islam FAR

Hi can you look at the Islam FAR at your leisure please? YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 03:03, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

MGA

There is no official inherent time limit that I know of. -- Avi (talk) 17:09, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 July 2010

• UK COI edits: British politicians accused of WP cover-ups

• News and notes: Board changes, Wikimania, Public Policy Initiative

• In the news: Foundation plans, David Barton, dangerous occasional glitches

• Discussion report: Article ownership, WikiProjects vs. Manual of Style, Unverifiable village

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Apple Inc.

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 21:43, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Lightbot 4

I agree with your comment. I just want to state I would defend anyone else as I have defended Lightmouse. I have no problem with any request so long as it is reasonable and in good faith. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 07:14, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Strine question

Hi Tony. I'm at a loss regarding what might be an Australian usage and you came immediately to mind. In the fragments "prominent Indigenous artist" and "Indigenous Australian painting" the capital 'I' looks out of place to me. Can you advise? Thanks. Haus^Talk 10:54, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Out of place—yes, I know. It's standard to use the upper case: I've been corrected before on this matter. I guess in the context it distinguishes the term from the generic. Tony (talk) 12:28, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Mystery solved! Thanks for the help. Haus^Talk 12:42, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

F and A

To be honest, I wasn't aware of this new feature until now, since I usually spend more time reading other sections of the Signpost. I would be more than happy to contribute some thoughts on a great list every now and then, time permitting, and I have no pressing matters that would prevent me from doing so in the next few days. Please note that I don't have e-mail activated on my account for privacy reasons, in case you were planning on sending me the list that way. If this is a problem, you can always use my talk page, or I can make a user subpage for you. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 20:54, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I see the schedule apparently got moved up a bit. Give me a few minutes and I'll have something written down. May need a copy-editor, though, if you can find one. :-) Giants2008 (27 and counting) 17:06, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

All right, first draft is all set for copy-editing, which I'm sure it needs. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 17:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 July 2010

• News and notes: Politician defends editing own article, Google translation, Row about a small Wikipedia

• In the news: Wikimania, Former Wikimedia employee looks back, Editing controversial articles

• Vandalism: Vandalism edits fool media and a government, become object of bets

• WikiProject report: Up close with WikiProject Animals

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: ArbCom to appoint CU/OS positions after dumping election results

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 16:58, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: Technology report

Well, I am slightly inclined to oppose on two grounds:

• Firstly, it's an in-joke, and in-jokes are important in building up good-feeling in a publication;
• Secondly, techies tend to know they're techies and want to read the Tech report.

However, if we could retain BRION on the report, and have a more descriptive subtitle on the summary, then I would support that change. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 19:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

In my understanding the headline on the issue page (e.g. Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-07-19‎) should match the top one on the section page (e.g. Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-07-19/Technology report). Also, it almost always appears either near the generic title ("Technology report") or the actual report itself, so there isn't a great need to convey that it is about technology. And I like the Brion pun too. However, I agree about the benefits of a custom-made headline for each issue that is descriptive of the actual content of that week's tech report.

Tony, will you share more results of your page visits analysis? That would be interesting. (I have also often consulted stats.grok.se about Signpost reader behavior in recent months, but haven't done any systematic overviews yet.)

Regards, HaeB (talk) 22:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Wording

I want to add the following sentence to the end of the lead of the list of cutaneous conditions. I wanted to know what you thought about the wording...

"However, often a skin biopsy is required to aid in the diagnosis of a various conditions, a procedure which yields histologic information that is then correlated with the clinical presentation and any laboratory data."

What do you think? ---kilbad (talk) 23:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe: ""The diagnosis of a some conditions often requires a skin biopsy[1][2] to yield histologic information that can be correlated with the clinical presentation and any laboratory data.[3][4]" Unsure whether "also" is needed before "requires". Tony (talk) 01:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I added it with the "also". Thanks! ---kilbad (talk) 11:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Recent Changes Camp Canberra Aug 11, 2010

I saw your edits on the University of Canberra WP entry, and thought, by chance, you might like to come to this:

RecentChangesCamp, Canberra is being held at the University of Canberra, Building 7, Room 7XC37 on 11 August 2010.
ABOUT | REGISTRATION | SCHEDULE

Hope we'll see you and friends there. Leighblackall (talk) 00:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: Query

Hi Tony, yes this should always be done when imbedding pictures in lists, like you did at the Signpost article. The reason is that, when parsing HTML lists, MediaWiki interprets any line that doesn't contain a "*" for unordered lists as the end of a list. Screen readers, which try to determine the number of items in each list, read out the information incorrectly. This is best illustrated by the example from my edit to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-07-19/Features and admins: before my edit, a screen reader would say: "Wikipedia has 15 new featured articles: list of 11 items ... list end, image, list of 4 items ... list end". As you can probably gather, this sounds rather strange. After my edit, it now says "Wikipedia has 15 new featured articles: list of 15 items ... list end", which makes far more sense. Graham87 01:02, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Graham. I've posted your advice on the SP's talk page. Tony (talk) 01:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Graham87 01:15, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Tony1. You have new messages at Talk:Australian federal election, 2010#Two-party preferred, with the hyphen please.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

  -- Lear's Fool _sock 03:05, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Percentage points

Why is it that you seem to cause me trouble wherever you go? Your edits are always very odd and against the general grain. Points? Please. Disputed, pls form con, thanks. Timeshift (talk) 00:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Or you are causing me trouble. Next time you want to go back to an earlier version, please check that you don't destroy subsequent fixes. And you need to bone up on "percentage point" versus "percentage" if you're going to express changes in percentage. I've altered your aggressive title here. Tony (talk) 01:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Royal National College for the Blind

Hi. I've been asked to submit the article Royal National College for the Blind for FAC by PaulLargo, who is currently away for personal reasons and therefore unable to do it himself. I notice the last review was concluded with a request to submit the article again, but to notify those who had contributed to the discussion to determine whether they had any major objections to it being put forward again. Since the last FAC I've done some minor work on expanding it and, along with another user, have added more images. I feel it's probably ready for submission again, but wanted to run it past those who reviewed it last time before completing the nomination. If there are no objections by Monday 26 July I'll assume everything is ok and submit the FAC and wait for comments. Cheers TheRetroGuy (talk) 14:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Rudd Picture

Hi thanks for your comment I thought it was a better picture as it was when he won the election and it is licensed on Flickr as free. Can we use it somewhere else in the article, that really did not warrant speedy deletion, how can I contest that? E.3 (talk) 14:21, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Simple english question

Is "the company did not want to delay the construction [of the road/bridge] any further" active voice?

Not 100% sure on this one. I read the wikipedia articles on the subject (there's one on passive, but not active [it's mentioned, but not much], and it's a heck of lot easier to write in passive), my cambridge grammar dictionary, and also some memories from an english teacher from two decades ago who drilled into my head that passive voice was an improper, lazy way of writing. According to my dictionary, active is where the thing that performs the action is the subject of the clause - and the seems to be the case here. (this is RN by the way, finally got my username changed after 5 years; yay for overdue advances in mediawiki technology) Ryan Norton 07:23, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks active to me. "The company" is what functional grammar calls the actor (the action is "not wanting to"). It's also the subject, and the object is "the construction of the road/bridge" (what the company didn't want to delay). Depending on the context, the wording could be changed to achieve greater smoothness. But active it would still be.

Passive isn't lazy: it's harder to write and to read. It's just a little cumbersome and indirect, usually. It has its place, but only where you think it's an improvement on the active. Tony (talk) 07:41, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a ton once again. Passive voice was always something I found easier writing in (on purpose, but passive is odd there - I've always found it easier to write in passive voice - seems easier on the reader) and it seems like most contributions use it, almost like an addiction. Ryan Norton 21:36, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Signpost: FA choice of the week

As my English bed-time approaches, the cupboard is bare; Sandy hasn't promoted anything since my own Tosca last Sunday. I will check again after my final nightcap in an hour or two. If nothing then, I'll check again Sunday morning in case she promotes a slew of articles while England sleeps. Otherwise, I suppose I can stand by for duty next week. Whatever you say. Brianboulton (talk) 21:07, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

No promotions, no action. Please advise if you want me to do it next week. Brianboulton (talk) 07:48, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Brian, I'm so sorry to have taken hours to respond. Indeed, not a sausage this week, and 55 FACs in the list. The Delegates are very busy people, of course! Yes, it would be perfect if you did the honours next week instead (2 August). I'll advise Dana boomer, FAR Delegate, of the one-week postponement; I'm sure she will be happy to judge for the 9 August edition. Tony (talk) 08:09, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Singpost

I'd left/right the images simply to avoid the misconception that Jimmy is involved with the Guardian in anyway. Personal pref would be Guardian logo on the left and Jimmy on the right. But as far as NFC is concerned, there are no issues with those images. --MASEM (t) 14:22, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Masem, you're right. They may remove the logo, anyway, but I tried your left/right suggestion. Tony (talk) 14:30, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Google images for signpost

It's not going to work. There's issues with google crawling non-article space infrequently, and then they're algorithm is doing odd stuff too. Sorry. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 16:23, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

GOCE Newsletter

GOCE July 2010 backlog elimination drive chart Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors Backlog Elimination Drive! We have now passed the halfway point, so here's an update. Progress Report - Progress toward the targets has been good. 751 articles out of the approximately 1,600 we would like to get completed by the end of the month were done by July 15, so we will be very close to meeting the target for volume. However, we would like to clear all of the 2008 articles from the backlog, and there are still 892 left to do. Please consider choosing one of these older articles when looking for something to copy edit. If we focus our firepower we can completely wipe out 2008 from the queue. Participation Report - 95 people signed up for the July drive. This is a great result compared to May, when we had 36. However, in May only one person that signed up didn't do any copy edits, and in July only 59 of the 95 have posted any copy edits on the big board. The task may seem insurmountable but please remember that if all 95 participants copy edit just one article a day from now until the end of the month, we will eliminate 1,300 more articles from the backlog. So please consider participating at whatever level you can! All contributions are appreciated. This newsletter was prepared for the GOCE by Diannaa (Talk), S Masters (talk), and The Raptor Let's talk. 01:04, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Saddening news

Hi, thanks for your message. Very sorry to hear that things are tense on Signpost. From time to time I consider contributing, especially when I see a call for participation in an edition. However, my time (like everybody else's) is limited and I feel I have to prioritise other Wikipedia tasks. So all I can do at the moment is wish Signpost well and hope that peace, tranquillity and productivity are restored very soon. If you drop me a link to where the biggest bust-up is taking place I could drop in and see if I can be a calming influence. --bodnotbod (talk) 17:45, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 July 2010

• News and notes: New interwiki project improves biographies, and other news

• In the news: Wikipedia leads in customer satisfaction, Google Translate and India, Citizendium transition, Jimbo's media accolade

• WikiProject report: These Are the Voyages of WikiProject Star Trek

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Discussion report: Controversial e-mail proposal, Invalid AfD

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 04:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Recent featured picture promotion

The original—a tramp depicted in an 1899 US poster

Restored by Wikipedia

The kind of work they do over at featured pictures to bring us great images: recropped for better composition; the colours treated to approach the likely original, unfaded version, plus many other subtle improvements. Nominated by J Milburn, restoration by Adam Cuerden. Just promoted. Tony (talk) 09:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Rudd dismissal

Hi Tony, as you are a regular editor of Rudd's article, I was hoping you could help me find some more sources to back up this opinion piece as to what some of the background reasons why Kevin Rudd was toppled. I think the article needs more evidence that Rudd was not a member of any of the Labor party factions, that he was a centralist leader unlike other Labor party leaders, chose his ministers himself, and basically his shutting out of the caucus other than the "gang of 4". Actually I need a bit of guidance, is going into any of this biased if I can back it up with multiple sources and attribute them, as it isn't really public knowledge?

My edit: [[17]] My source: [[18]] E.3 (talk) 15:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I haven't looked at your diffs yet. Just a concern, though, that WP articles can't contain original research. The boundary is often hard to define, but you're safest if someone outside has said it in a "reliable source". Tony (talk) 16:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Signpost

Just to let you know I've posted my bit on this week's best FAC. I don't think there'll be any more promotions before Sunday, and I may be busy elsewhere this weekend, so I thought I'd better do it. Brianboulton (talk) 23:10, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

By the way Tony, what you contacted me about, it's not a problem and I didn't even think of you.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:12, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you. Brian, the window we survey is now settled on Saturday–Friday, so all is fine. Tony (talk) 02:44, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Quick second-opinion-needed

As you're generally one of our two guardians of spelling-and-grammar (I'm also asking Malleus the same question), can I get your opinion on this mess? (In a nutshell, someone demanding we use the American spelling "jail" even in British-English, to avoid confusing American-English speakers to whom "gaol" will be unfamiliar.) Someone is obviously being unreasonable, but I'm not 100% certain which of us it is. – iridescent 16:13, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

why can't they just add a footnote? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:28, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I did. He doesn't like that either. The problem is that it's not simply an "alternative spelling of jail"; as far as British officialdom is concerned, "gaol" is the only correct spelling, so that's what they're all called. (That is, Lambert ran Leicester Gaol, not Leicester Jail, so "gaol keeper" was by definition his job.) – iridescent 16:37, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

(adding) Hopefully, this modified version of the footnote should satisfy everyone. I am very reluctant to use "jail" in the body text; aside from the "official use" problem outlined above, a 19th century gaol (the equivalent of a US city jail) isn't equivalent to a modern British jail (the equivalent of a US state penitentiary). There's a longer discussion on the matter here, from when someone tried to change it to "prison"; the basic problem is that Wikipedia has woefully bad coverage of the history of law enforcement outside of the US, so the terms aren't clearly explained anywhere. – iridescent 16:42, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

That's interesting background, and I would be pleased to read it in a footnote. If you don't mind, I'll visit later and see what you've done. Tony (talk) 16:51, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

editing Paedophilia article

Hi there, I see you've knocked out some of the very brief book summaries. One you removed was very bloated, but I think that the one/two liners are very helpful and have been used in the list for years. The references are often to Library of Congress classifications which say nothing about the book's subject so descriptions like the one for the Marc Talbert book are not redundant. Please can it be restored? regards, Matthew 08:41, 30 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MatthewOsborne (talk • contribs)

Why are the "summaries" necessary at all if there is a link to the article? I am not sure that the red links without refs to Library of Congress should be retained at all, particularly where the article has been deleted. Tony (talk) 09:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

In fact, I wonder what the purpose of this "list" is. It seems unsatisfactory in several respects. Is there any objection to an RfD? Tony (talk) 09:12, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

If there's a Wiki article on a listed book then you wouldn't need a summary. There has been lots of discussion on removing references without citations and that's got to be OK, but if there's a citation (not just LofC), but no article, then I think a summary is good. RfD was tried some time ago and the decision was keep. I think it's a valid article as long as the works listed have references/citations. A lot don't. 13:26, 1 August 2010 (UTC) Tony —Preceding unsigned comment added by MatthewOsborne (talk • contribs)

I'm afraid I'd be on the "delete" side. I see little educational or informational value in that list, and I believe there are wider issues that suggest it should be binned. Sorry. Tony (talk) 13:32, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Raeky's info on multi-image settings

This is so I can stare at it and work it out.

"The formula is at Template:multiple image and is as follows — raekyT 17:07, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

• For non-square images, use these figures to construct an expression for the |widthn= parameters, of the form:
  • {{#expr: (dh * ow / oh) round 0}}
• where
  • dh is the desired height in pixels (100)
  • ow is the original width in pixels (750 or 300)
  • oh is the original height in pixels (536 or 300)" Tony (talk) 17:44, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I recognise that formula: I worked it out! Any questions? --Redrose64 (talk) 19:49, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Kent, Ohio FAC

Hi. I was wondering if you ever were able to look over the remainder of the article Kent, Ohio for the FAC. I ask because the FAC has been closed since it apparently was taking too long and I was never fully able to address your concerns because the remainder of them were never brought up. Now, after enduring a 6-WEEK FAC review and jumping through every editor's hoops I get to submit it again and endure it all over. I would very much appreciate your feedback when you get the chance (the sooner the better) so I can fix the problems and move on. Many of the problems you have been pointing out are pretty advanced in terms of writing style (since no other editor has even brought them up before, even in their thorough reviews for FAC), so you are going to have to be a bit more specific as to what exactly you feel is best. --JonRidinger (talk) 18:01, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I have a comment on it:

The temperature table has integer Fahrenheit values but non-integer Celsius. This seems wrong to me. I see it's a problem with the Infobox weather template. Can it be changed? Lightmouse (talk) 20:02, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: Page view counter

You'd have to go back to the linked announcement - maybe I misread it? - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 16:24, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

A request

I've been hesitating to ask, because I've seen your talk page light up lately over some less than pleasant drama. I have an article over at WP:PR that I recently rewrote on the Capitol Loop. It's already been through the project A-Class Review, so I posted a request on the project talk page to get some feedback. I'm sure it could use some polishing after the re-researching and expansion. If you're too busy or otherwise committed elsewhere, I would appreciate a suggestion on who else I might ask for some help. Content wise, I believe it's FAC-ready, but it never hurts to get some polish. Imzadi 1979 → 10:45, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Please see my comments on your talk page. Tony (talk) 04:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 2 August 2010

• News and notes: Canadian political edits, Swedish royal wedding, Italian "right of reply" bill, Chapter reports

• In the news: Gardner and Sanger on why people edit Wikipedia, Fancy and frugal reading devices, Medical article assessed

• WikiProject report: Always Expanding: WikiProject Images and Media

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: Tricky and Lengthy Dispute Resolution

• Technology report: Major MediaWiki release, password security, vulnerable MediaWiki installations, and more

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:17, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Kevin Rudd - pic talk

Your input is requested, thanks. Timeshift (talk) 02:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Image placement vs. text-size and window-width settings

Are we all looking at radically different layouts on WP pages? It's come to my attention that at least a few users have their windows reach across their whole monitor (say, a 22-inch one), with fairly small-sized text. This changes the whole relationship between the images and the text, potentially causing large areas of white space and images that drop through more than one section. I'd be pleased to hear what settings people tend to use for WP displays. My window width is about 21–24 cm (8.25–9.5 in), with about 17–20 words across the full column, without images. Is this unusual? My res is set on the max of 2560 × 1440. Mac OS. Tony (talk) 17:39, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

When formatting articles, I always look at how it appears as zoomed-out as I can make it, and how it appears at about 700–800px screen width. While it's impossible to cater for everyone (there will always be people viewing articles on enormous plasma screens, and reading on two-inch phone displays), I work on the assumption that this range will cover most users, and provided an article displays correctly in those cases it will display correctly for the vast majority. – iridescent 17:49, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

The answer is "yes, we do see different things" and we need to think of large screens and small screens. It's becoming increasingly common to view web pages on small screens. Some aesthetic features that are nice-to-have on large screens make pages more difficult on small screens. For example:

• The boxes that people sometimes put on their talk page (such as this one) use up space. It is trivial on a large screen but not a small screen. A page on a small screen may only be 5 words wide and losing the equivalent of a word in width is a high price to pay for a box. It also requires more vertical scrolling.
• Cumulative indenting. On a small screen, each indent is about a word wide. If you only have 5 words, then the second contribution is squeezed into a column 4 words wide, the next 3 words wide. On some pages, the cumalive indenting causes a contribution to become a column of single characters. In such cases, alternating indenting is better. When you've got an indent of more than three colons ':::', spare a thought for the small screen user. It also requires more vertical scrolling.
• Wide tables. Self-evident
• Large images. Self-evident
• Fixed rather than relative formatting.

I mention issues relating to talk pages because I encounter them all the time on Wikipedia. However, there are many issues relating to screen size in article space too. Screen size is mentioned in the widely used web accessibility guidelines and I'm glad you're thinking about it. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 19:56, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Iridescent: sounds good. Lightmouse, I have to admit that I don't think we can really cater for tiny screens without significantly compromising the formatting of the pages. I guess, since I work at home, I'm not really a mobile electronics user. I just think that people should be prepared to wait until they arrive at home or office rather than look up WP on a mobile phone while they're on the street or a ski chairlift. Or they could buy an iPad, which is bigger, isn't it? PS There's a "skip down" button at the top of this page.

I do, however, think it's worth thinking about advice that could be given (even at the MoS or IUP) about avoiding the worst effects of varying window sizes (and text sizes, let's remember, which have a major effect in combination with window size). I suggest advising users that:

1. if there's a choice, place an image high rather than low in a section, to minimise the risk it will spill over into the next section; and
2. the syntax for more than one image in a section is usually safer if jammed together, rather than, say, spread over separate paragraphs. Joining the syntaxes stops the ugly spillage and squashing of text between the images that is inevitable when windows/text sizes are set to a certain size. We can't control those settings; only visitors can. Try it and see, by gradually widening a window for an article section that has multiple, but disconnected, images. Tony (talk) 14:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and on the indentation, I would be very happy to see a guidelines urging users to go back to left margin (with the arrow sign from the edit-tools below) after about five colons. I've seen ridiculous examples, even on a wide screen.

I understand that you are not a personal user of a small screen but you can be sympathetic to those that are. Accessibility often costs very little when considered strategically. I think we should document some voluntary guidance on going back to the left margin. Lightmouse (talk) 16:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)