User talk:Tony1/Archive05

Patrick White Image

Though borderline I believe that the use of this image doesnt breech the fair use guidelines in that the page refers both to the Book, the picture and the subject of the image. I suggest that posting message here instead of just removing the image from the user page with clear reason as to why giving the user opportunity to reply and justify the use. I note that there is a need for a fairuse rationale for each use of the image not just that of this page to be added to the image page. Gnangarra 15:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Straight out of WP:FU:

9. "Fair use images should be used only in the article namespace. Used outside article space, they are often enough not covered under the fair use doctrine. They should never be used on templates (including stub templates and navigation boxes) or on user pages." Sorry, the image gotta go. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.72.78.139 (talk • contribs) unsigned added by Gnangarra, please login and sign your entries

Cambodia, Jaguar

Cambodia has been hanging about close to six weeks now on FAR and there's no obvious consensus. I've made some tweaks myself, including to the points you identified. Maybe you could take another look. I do understand that it can be viewed as too short, but at the same time I don't think it a bad thing if the pendulum swings back a little bit toward 30-40k rather than 60 odd. There's nothing in reading it that I think is absent.

I've tried to rework your issues in the intro to jaguar. Thanks for looking at it, and any further comments would be great. Unfortunately, I'm miles from a good research library and the request for print sources from a couple of reviewers is going to be hard to fulfil. I also disagree with Peta to some extent about secondary/primary. Good secondary sources that synthesize primary sources and provide a comprehensive bibliography are superior to primary sources themselves, IMV. That doesn't mean we should use bad secondary sources, and I've been trying to eliminate some of those today. Cheers, Marskell 15:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Busy?

If you get a chance, I'd appreciate your input on Frank Macfarlane Burnet. I'm still writing the last three sections, and have lots of red links to fill in so there is no great hurry. Thanks --Peta 02:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I found the grammar-off absurdly humourous, but I won't mention it again. :) --Peta 00:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Jaguar

I just gave jaguar a copyedit; have a look and see if that's brought it up to snuff. --Robth^Talk 03:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Ziad Jarrah

Greetings. You voted to demote Ziad Jarrah from being a featured article. The reason you gave was "Not much has been done. Still problems in the writing." Since then, I have improved the writing, added inline citations, and reorganized parts. I'd be much obliged if you gave it a second look. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 19:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

FAC

Fundamental Rights, Directive Principles and Fundamental Duties of India is on FAC. Please give your comments on the article. This is not soliciting your vote, but considering the fact that you had voted in the previous FAC. Thanks. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 04:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

If my reply appears rude, let me assure you I have no such intention. However I have clarified my position in regards to your comment. Please visit the article again - I think we've addressed your points. Rama's arrow 14:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Problems with sonata articles

Hi Tony. How's the editing, real world and other? There's so much to do, and we all have to be selective. Anyway, I'd appreciate your having a glance at a problem that has arisen. It's well summarised in the following note that I left at User_talk:Antandrus:

== Sonata problems ==

Hi Antandrus. It's been a long time since we've caught up with each other. I see you're still a keen editor of music articles. I'm now approaching you in that capacity, and in your role as an admin. There have been continuing difficulties at Sonata form and History of sonata form, along with other articles addressing sonata (of which there are far too many, but that's another matter). I would be very grateful if you would review the situation, looking at those two articles and also at their talk pages. A useful conspectus of some of the issues is to be found at User_talk:Rainwarrior#Sonata. As you know, I am a serious editor in these areas, and I have been patient (well, I also call a spade a spade in edit summaries). But I now need some advice from you about the best way forward. If things can't be put on a better footing, I fear that the suite of articles on musical form, in which Wikipedia has a genuine opportunity to excel, will be jeopardised. Thanks! – Noetica 01:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Your input would be welcome too, Tony. Please note: I am not committed concerning any of the bloated style of those articles! I have sought only to fix things piecemeal, so far. They, and Sonata itself, are in desperate need of rewriting. But you and I are too busy to undertake such tasks, I know. – Noetica 02:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi again. Thanks for your recent involvement in the sonata articles. I'll probably be in touch with you by email, but for the moment I have a few technical problems at this end, and am keeping things simple. Yes, let's see what we can do about the mess in those articles. Quite a task though, I fear. And when I have things sorted out here I'll be happy to review the situation at that other location, as you have requested. Best wishes, - Noetica 05:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Unfinished work FAC

You really should learn how to criticise without being so rude about it. "[Y]ou'd better come up with compelling and specific reasons" is hardly a positive comment that will allow us to work towards improving the article. Just because I disagree with your comments doesn't mean that you should come back and write, as it would appear, in such an aggressive tone. violet/riga (t) 07:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd usually invite someone to do work on my article if they can improve it, but given your comments I really think that any of your contributions to the article would ruin it. violet/riga (t) 09:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Back from break/TS article

Tony, I've returned from my travel, and may find time to catch up on FAR tonight. I mentioned you here. I don't really want to FAC the article, because of vandalism potential, but it is what it is. Best, Sandy 23:31, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey, Tony. I don't know what to do about Tintin and Ziad Jarrah: both articles have now been pretty well referenced, but the prose, yikes. So much to do, so little time. By the way, don't try to look at TS this weekend: there's still more I can do to improve the prose before you have to spend time on it, and perhaps Encephalon will have another look at it as well. I'd like to minimize the time you have to spend in it. Sandy 14:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I've been trying to avoid some of the messy FACs: guess I'll have to have a look, as soon as I'm caught up. Sandy 15:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

HIV is in bad shape, all round. Sandy 15:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I just revisited Tourette syndrome for the first time in weeks. I've done all I'm capable of on the copy edit, JKelly has approved the images, and Encephalon made no medical changes. I still need to add a few paragraphs to Screening, and I just realized that Management is not cited (don't know how I missed it, but I can do it today). So, it's ready for the real copy edit. Best, Sandy 22:00, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Done. I asked everyone who has helped to have a look at it ... Sandy 00:01, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Sandy—I've looked at the lead. What about referring to it consistently as TS? Let me know if you prefer to retain "Tourette's". Tony 01:43, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I knew you were going to raise that: I remember the same issue from the AS article. OK, here are the things to consider: Google goes by density of keywords, so when you use TS, you start to lose Google ranking. Not sure that matters, but it's something to consider. Right now, the article has a good Google ranking. Then, there's the problem of direct quotes, where they all say something different. In practice, *everyone* calls it either TS or Tourette's: no one says the whole name, Tourette syndrome. I understand the need for consistency, but am not sure which way to go. After you've read it, tell me what you want me to do, and I'll go through and do the work to make it consistent. Sandy 01:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Great so far: I'll wait til you're done to deal with inline comments and questions. Thanks so much. Sandy 01:55, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

An anon AOL editor chopped up the paragraphs into short, stubby sections in the midst of your copy edit. Now I've got a headache, and will have to go in and fix them before you continue. Sandy 14:46, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Yep, now I've got a mess trying to figure it out, so I took the article temporarily out of use to sort it out. I'm also working in some of your comments: I had to go backwards on some of them, but we can sort those out after I deal with this. Sandy 15:15, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'm done. The chopped paragraphs had left some stuff hanging without references, which led to questions from NCurse on his review. Hopefully the anon editor will let you complete ce before making further changes. Sandy 16:13, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I got through all of your inline comments on Causes and Diagnosis, and left you some questions/things to check in the edit history. Thanks again for the good work! Sandy 15:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The realms of functioning that are most often mentioned (as being impacted) are behavioral and academic ... let me try to find a source to locate some better wording. Sandy 16:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, I found the exact words which were in DSM-IV, and were deleted from DSM-IV-TR. They are: "marked distress or significant impairment in social, occupational or other important areas of functioning" ... we should be able to use that or similar, if you like. Sandy 16:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Further reading (I just realized I need to change that section to References, since they are all used as References): can you educuate me on this? How come book titles aren't capitalized? (I just copied the book titles from Amazon). Thanks, Sandy 13:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, I caught up with all of your edits. Still need to review the lead, line by line, as I had to go backwards on some of your changes a few days ago: some of them didn't quite work. If you see anything in the lead we should still work on, please drop me a note when you have time.

Also, do you think I have overly relied on any one source? Most of the info there comes from so many sources, that I could have cited the article entirely from a couple of references. I tried to diversify the references, and use the original studies where they were easily located. Do you think the refs are good? THANKS so much ! Sandy 14:19, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Tony, I'll work on those - and your older comments - today. I took a few days off from the article, so I can re-read it with fresh eyes today. Yes, I'll convert that back to prose ... thanks again! Sandy 12:24, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

It's getting so much better: I shouldn't have neglected it today. I'll expand the pargraph about increased cognitive ability: it makes perfect sense to me, but I'm too close to the subject - I can fix it :-) There's a problem here: maybe you left something out? "A supportive environment and family generally acquires the skills to manage the disorder." I had "gives one the skills to manage" Sandy 02:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Catching up

Catching up on this work today. I got sidetracked yesterday by the debacle unfolding across multiple pages regarding requirements for inline citations of GAs. Seems that one editor working for WikiProject GA got bludgeoned by a few editors who seem to claim exemption from WP:V; since that editor was doing the same work on GA that I do on FA, I'm watching the debacle. I also got sidetracked on an article at FAC - lacking citations and POV/OR - which was recently promoted GA. On a separate note, see recent editor frustration with attempts to improve GA on my talk page. Anyway, back to work:

1. "There's some repetition concerning the relative intensity of tics and comorbid conditions, and of treatments." I need to look at this: do you mean repetition across sections, or within one section?

   But no longer since my edit has been updated.

2. "Classification is a stubby section; I wonder whether it's possible to merge it with Characteristics?" This is a WP:MEDMOS issue. Not sure the article has to 100% conform (since it's not "clinical" medicine per se), but I was trying to stick as closely to the Project guidelines as possible. If we convert it back to prose (see below), do you still think it's stubby? I could add another issue which isn't dicussed anywhere in the Wiki tic articles: that the medical consensus is that transient tics, chronic tics, and TS are basically all the same thing (as far as the "brain" is concerned) under different, arbitrary, man-made, everchanging definitions imposed by committee. I felt that was getting tricky/technical/confusing for the average reader, and really a topic to be covered at tic disorder.

   Running prose should do it.

3. "And to forestall the anti-list reviewers at FAC, should the three items under Classification be in running prose?" I had them as running prose, and they were running prose when you copyedited that section. The anon AOL editor chopped them up, but I mistakenly thought you had done it. Here is what you and I had right before anon chopped it up. I did not think it should be a list, since the entire classification is covered at tic disorder. I didn't change it back because I mistakenly thought you had introduced the list (anon went in and chopped things up right after you ce'd).

   I don't mind lists as much as some FAC reviewers. I think it's in a rather prominent place so close to the top, so perhaps running prose again?

   Converted back to prose, expanded one sentence. Sandy 16:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

4. "Yeah, the family reference repeats what is said elsewhere. Perhaps "gives those with Tourette's the skills to manage"? Didn't like "one"." Will change that back.
5. "An age-matched controlled study on a small (13) group of individuals with Tourette's found that cognitive control is enhanced in young people with the syndrome, possibly because the need to suppress tics results in a more efficient control of inhibitions, a skill that confers an advantage when switching between tasks." I will expand this, per your inline comment. The problem is, it makes perfect sense to me (seen it in action :-) I'm too close to the topic: how do I fix it? Is it that the claim is hard to believe, or is it that the sentence is not clear and just needs more detail/explanation for clarity? Or both :-)

   Both; what kind of cognitive control? I find it hard to believe that all forms of c c are enhanced.

   re-worded and expanded - check out new version. Sandy 16:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

6. Are you satisfied now with Research directions and controversies? I'm thinking a better section heading would be Research controversy.

   Hmmm ... Perhaps "Research directions", since controversies can be considered to be related to what directions research is or might take?

   I'd like to keep the controversy word, since the article does specifically deal with all the controversy within the research field, which I think is a needed part of FAs (we should include controversy, criticism, and other views when they are present, and the Swerdlow article sums up all of that). Sandy 16:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

7. I still intend to try to rework the lead per some of our earlier discussions. It can do a much better job of explaining how common tics are, and drawing in the reader.

On a separate note, I feel badly taking so much of your time, when Joel has his Fauna of PR article up on FAC. TS does not need immediate attention :-)

No prob.

If everything so far is up to snuff, I'll later turn to re-writing the lead. Sandy 16:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Sandy 14:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Looking ahead: ending up categorized under psychology would be unacceptable. This has to be fixed before I'm going there. Sandy 13:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Cyrus the Great FAC

Hi, Tony. I've rewritten the second paragraph of the Cyrus the Great article, so I was hoping you could take another look and give your opinion on the FAC page. I'd appreciate it! ♠ SG →Talk 08:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

re: ise/ize

whoops, my mistake Tony! usually i'm so good about that. my appologies. JoeSmack ^Talk 15:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

HIV

Hi. If you know of anyone who could look over this article, I'd be grateful. I knew the article wasn't up to standard yet (which is why, after two peer reviews I still hadn't put it up for FA), but since it is up for review might as well take advantage and make it as good as possible. --Bob 02:09, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

War of the Fifth Coalition FAC

Hey Tony, thanks for your comments! I've made all requested changes but two. The first is about the casualty rates, which were higher in this war than in previous wars during the Napoleonic period. If you want me to indicate this somehow, then I will. The second is about the "although." As it is used in the sentence, it does not contradict anything; all it says is that the British sent an expedition to the Netherlands, "but" (or although) it did not swing the war in any way. Maybe I'm mistaken, either way just let me know and I'll get back to you. Once again, thank you very much!UberCryxic 13:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

For you...

The Original Reviewer's Award for Tony, in appreciation of his outstanding efforts in striving to maintain the quality of articles going though FAC. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 12:53, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Tony,

Just wanted to say thanks for all the hard work. Keep it up. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 12:53, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

The image is just a copy-paste (and resize) work. I just used some of the existing images. See the image description page for details. If you want to learn technical details, buzz me anytime. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 16:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Changing urgent template

Great job by Ambuj.Sazena - you deserved it! I changed the Urgents template to send the editor to the entire review, rather than directly into the page to add a comment. It seemed helpful for editors to see past comments before adding review. Pls revert if you disagree :-) Sandy 17:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Early life of Jan Smuts - FAC

Hello, I've responded to your concerns on the FAC page for the above article. Essentially I agree with you re. the intro. It has been changed about recently by one of the FAC voters, and I'm afraid I don't think that the changes have been for the better. I've pasted the previous version for you to compare; if you prefer that version then I will revert his alterations. Bar the intro though, were there any other major problems in the main text?

Best wishes, Xdamr^talk 03:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually I've gone ahead and reinstated the pervious version of the lead. If you could spare a minute or two to take a look at the present version of the article then I would be very grateful.

Best wishes, Xdamr^talk 16:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Ladakh

Hey Tony, time to repeat an old request. You've got outstanding skills with prose, and it seems that the article could reach FA standards only with your help. So please take a look when you find some time. Regards, deeptrivia (talk) 03:52, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Thatcher131

That was difficult, as on the one hand "a plurality or majority in mainspace" is a standard of mine (I've stated so in my standards for some time), but on the other his contributions are large enough in total that balance amongst namespaces should be less of a concern.

But then I wonder, if you are two-to-one Wiki-versus-main now, what will become of you as an admin? Do we need more policy wonks? Ideally, an admin should be an article contributor who understands policy, not a policy contributor who happens to edit articles. And what I notice too, is that positively great Wikipedians often become totally wrapped up in the Wiki space without realizing it after adminship. That said, his wiki contributions appear less of the bad "I got somethin' to say" variety, and more of the tedious, but necessary, help-out type. It is a neutral, for now; I'll look back on it before the time is up. Marskell 10:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Date links

We've been over this before, Tony. Some of us find date links useful. Some of us don't. I have no issue if people remove useless date links, but I do take issue if people just go around (usually with an automated script) killing them all on sight. I particularly resent that, even though it was pretty clearly established that there was no consensus to be mass-removing date links (and the MOS was changed to eliminate any support for those actions), a small minority of users simply stopped talking and figured that if they persistently did it anyway, people would give up in frustration. Rebecca 22:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I find them useful in certain circumstances, as do many other people. I really think you've got a cheek to insist that they be shot on sight regardless of what anyone else thinks. As for the vehemence, it tends to come with having to have had this argument way too many times. If you or anyone else wants to be able to mass-remove date links, get a consensus to do it. If you're not willing to that, please stop trying to stomp through regardless. Rebecca 01:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

No one else is running around with what basically amounts to a bot making edits which they know they have no consensus to make and are not going to go down well with quite a few users. If someone did this with BC/BCE, they'd be community banned in a week. Indeed, Bobblewik very narrowly escaped being community banned last time he did this. It seems to be an ongoing circle - he starts up his script again, gets angrily asked to stop by multiple users, keeps doing it, gets blocked for a week or two by someone, and stops for a month or two until he thinks people will have forgotten, and then starts again. It's been going on for months, and I'm fed up with it. He needs to either get consensus to make the edits or fucking quit being so inflammatory. Rebecca 08:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

My point stands. Rebecca 00:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

And so does your extreme language, without apology or withdrawal. You do your reputation no good. Tony 00:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I could care less. I've had to go through this roundabout about ten times this year with the same people now, and in light of their abject refusal to get consensus before making their actions, I think I'm more than entitled to be a little pissed off. Rebecca 00:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Courtesy notification

I mentioned your name here. Sandy 17:06, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

India-related FAs

Hi Tony - I request you to please see these comments by SandyGeorgia. She feels there is something intrinsically wrong with prose written by Indian FA editors. As you have participated in many India-related FACs, I would like to you what you think. If there is a real problem, I'd like your advice on solving it. Rama's arrow 18:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your intervention. It seems that rollback is being used against me again. I feel like I am being stalked.

Rebecca's use of profane language is not isolated to this incident. I am no prude and I know she is not the only rude person on Wikipedia, nor the only rude administrator. She has sworn when referring to my edits before. She has sworn when referring to other people's edits, as a search will demonstrate. bobblewik 06:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I certainly did not say that only a small percentage of date links should be retained. I said that I have no objection if ones that serve absolutely no purpose are removed. It's inherently a judgement call, depending on the type of article. Date links in a history article, for example, are likely to be quite relevant, whereas date links in a sportsperson's article are probably not so relevant. This is a judgement call that is supposed to happen based on the MOS as it is, and it is a judgement call that neither Bobblewik or Hmains are making - choosing instead to shoot them all on sight. Rebecca 00:02, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Ziad Jarrah

Do you mind taking another look at this? There's been some work since your remove comment.

Also, I kept my on the RfA and I think he'll pass comfortably so my vote-like-comment remains. My feelings on mainspace editing are growing stronger by the day... Marskell 13:23, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism watch

Tony, since you're in a different time zone than I am, whenever you're logged on, can you check for vandalism on Tourette syndrome? Turns out, unbeknownst to me, it's on Portal:Medicine this week, which should lead to increased vandalism and speculative, or inaccurate, insertions. I know you're busy, but maybe you can catch some while I'm sleeping. Sandy 03:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Tony ... it's 11 pm here now, so about now for about 8 or 9 hours. Only when you're online: I know you're busy. Sandy 03:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Request for peer review of Enzyme kinetics

Hi Tony1. I read your thorough review of HIV and wondered if you had any feedback on this article to help bring it towards FA status. Peer Review. Thank you. TimVickers 18:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Asking for help again

Hi Tony. I am about to submit Fauna of Puerto Rico to FAC but I am aware that the prose is not up to FA standard. I have asked some people (Sandy, Marskell, Peta) to copyedit the article and now I am asking you as my last resort to get the prose up to standard. Any help would be appreciated. If you have questions don't hesitate to ask. Joelito (talk) 23:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fundamental Rights, Directive Principles and Fundamental Duties of India

All your suggestions have been looked into, and taken care of. Please tell if there is anything more required. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 05:15, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Your comments have been looked into. Hope they help. Please review again. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 16:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Burnet

Hi, I was hoping that when you get time you could have another go at the Burnet article; I've had a couple of other people read over it so the grammar and so on are not terrible - but I always find your comments really useful for helping to fill gaps.--Peta 07:45, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Could you let me know what you think of the Fenner quote in the last paragraph of the legacy section, I'm not sure it fits there. --Peta 01:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Yikes

I know you're swamped, but this FAC has four support votes and needs a serious analysis from a pro. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Verity Lambert. Sandy 17:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Thought Re: Good Article

Hi Tony, sorry to bother. I am not sure if you are aware of the recent controversy that has been boiling over Good Article status and the need for inline citations of facts that are, to an informed reader basic exposition of fact (see [[1]]. I feel the debate has exposed a serious flaw in the way in which Good Article status is conferred, and I think you may agree. The possibility has been floated of forking distinct areas into a separate wikis in order to circumvent the naïve dilettantism that seems currently to pervade the GA process. I wonder, however, if much the same can be achieved through a rethinking of the good article process itself. There are many areas – physics, math, music, literature, pokemon, history, etc… - that have portals and named participants. Instead of having a group of 20 or so uninformed generalists undertaking the daunting task of rating articles as good or not, it would be preferable to divert the review process through editors involved in those distinct portals, a sort of fusing good article status with peer review. As a result of this debate, I have looked at a number of good article reviews and I find that the mostly the suggestions are of a “please cite your sources nature” rather than a committed engagement with the material. In effect, I wonder if it might not be worthwhile to investigate the possibility of having the concept of Good Articles divided up by category with respect to review for inclusion or not: thus Good Articles in Physics, Good Articles in Music, Good Articles in Pokemon (shudder) etc…. While the debate has centred around scientific articles (not my area of expertise) I can easily see much the same being applied to music (please cite your source that Haydn visited London!), literature, etc… where citations are being demanded for basic facts that nonetheless may be unknown to an uninformed reader. A proposal to allow informed groups of editors confer good article tatus within a particular field could be floated and the various portal pages invited to intervene with commentary and ideas. This is a distraction, I know, but your fine work at FA + your well-known dedication to quality make you an ideal person to weigh in on the topic. Personally, I think the current system is absurd. Hey, when is JSB going feature after all my work to fill the redlinks! ;) Eusebeus 23:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

re: Redundancy

Thanks for the tip, Tony. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 09:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:1 featured article per quarter

A new idea. Marskell 15:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Arctic Monkeys

Hi! I've done some copyeditting per your comments on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Arctic Monkeys, and I'd be appriciate some feedback on what could be further improved. Thanks! Laïka 19:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Bishojo

It seemed pointless to wait for one more token remove. I generally look at the histories and if there's been recent, useful edits, and it has at least some citations, I'll wait a bit longer than the two weeks. There are serious issues with the Bishojo article beyond citations. "The portrayal of women in bishōjo games varies, but two generalizations can safely be made" = is a statement announcing OR!.

I've also engaged rather heavily with the Sex Pistols article. Perhaps I'm being too forgiving with the quality of writing because I've edited it, but I feel it is within criteria. Punctured Bicycle has made his own copyedits, so it's definitely not a drop-it-and-run nom, but he's coming down quite hard on certain things that I don't think rise to remove (though his demand that sources match-up is certainly fair enough). Marskell 13:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Request for third-party copy-edit

I've seen your work on Wikipedia and you appear to be an English language professional. If you have the time, I'd really appreciate it if you could take a look at the Plot section of The Princess Diaries (film) article. Its content was written by first-party editors familiar with the movie's storyline and therefore has somewhat of an "in-voice" style. Because you are a third-party editor, your knowledge on the topic is likely not as great, and this would be useful for removing the "in-voice" writing. If you don't have the time I will request another third-party editor. Thanks! Never Mystic (tc) 20:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I see you're busy, but nonetheless, thanks for your consideration. Never Mystic (tc) 15:26, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Habesha article

Hello there Tony, I was wondering if you could skim over the Habesha people article, which is pretty new ( I started it a few months ago)to see what parts need to be improved and what parts should be taken out. Thanks Cluckbang 22:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)Cluckbang

Redshift FAC

I responded to your comments. Please reply. --ScienceApologist 12:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Can I have a response back? --ScienceApologist 15:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Anne Boyd

Thanks for your recent edits to the article on Anne Boyd. I wonder, though, why you took out the information that the Conservatorium and Music Departments have maintained "independent characters and student bodies"? This is certainly true (there is a good deal of condescension on each side for the other), and I think it's relevant to the article, as this was one of the concerns with the merger.

On a more personal note, I'd be interested to have a look at your doctoral dissertation--my research at Sydney Uni is on auditory stimulus processing, but it has not yet shed light on why my own sight reading is stupendously poor. Ckerr 15:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Glad you're back

There are a lot of copyedit problems in articles at the bottom of the list at WP:FAC— few seem to have noticed; you might want to follow the discussion at Wikipedia talk: Attribution. Sandy 15:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Welcome back! Before you are diverted elsewhere, may I snaffle you for a review of my next FAC, Mary Seacole? I am afraid it is a bit longer than the rhino, and not quite so polished yet. I should be very grateful for your views. -- ALoan (Talk) 03:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Welcome back! — Deckiller 03:30, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

One at a time :) — Deckiller 05:29, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for having a look at the lead. It is difficult to see what, in retrospect, is obvious when you are so close to the text. Rather than using up your time, let me work on the rest of it for a while. Thanks again. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

No offense

Thank you for your comments on the Music of Italy article. I'll get to them on the week-end. Good points, all. I just wanted to stress that I wasn't being insulting by telling you to loosen your corset. I just feel (new to Wikpedia and all that) that throwing around phrases such as "unctious" and "bootlicking" is inappropriate. I have no idea who the person even is--Raul?--whose boots I am supposed to have been licking. I, too, am a linguist, of sorts; I collaborated on Danny Steinberg's Introduction to Psycholinguistics (for Longman) way back in 1990-something. I hope you don't consider this message unctious. Cheers from Naples. Jeffmatt 15:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Sex Pistols FAR

Tony, I'vre been working over the last few days on the copy of the Sex Pistols article, trying to bring it to a state that would pass its final review on Monday. It would be great if you could scan over to root out remaining weaknesses. I'm not an experienced copy editor, but I'm not a sensitive type either, and would appreciate a framework for the final push and polish tomorrow. - Coil00 21:47, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Invitation

I invite you to join the Pornography in the United States Good Article for some copyedit (particularly for punctuation and the usage of prepositions), but feel free to edit it anyway. Cheers, --Brand спойт 00:18, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Off on the wrong foot?

I really do want the redshift article to get better and I think you have some valuable comments. I just don't think that all of your comments were well-considered or valuable. Please don't take offense. By the way, I'm sorry if you felt that my reminders on your talkpage were pestering. I just want to resolve your issues with the article as soon as possible. Cheers, --ScienceApologist 13:42, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

FAC Sasha (DJ)

Tony, do you have time to look at this FAC? Apparently I missed his talk page message, left him hanging, and can't get to it today: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sasha (DJ). Last time I looked, there were prose problems; he says he's done a ce. Sandy 14:22, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Buffy nomination restarted

Since you were involved with discussion before at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Buffy the Vampire Slayer, you might appreciate knowing that the nomination for the Buffy articles has been restared at the same wiki page. I am letting everyone know who might not be aware (whether they were for or against the article becoming featured). Cheers -- Buffyverse 22:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

It was your comments on the older nomination that led me to get the entire article copyedited by a family member unfamiliar with the text - which eradicated much of the poor prose. I feel that to improve the language further would require a skilled writer. I can see from your talk page (& your contributions to FAC reviews) that you are extremely busy, but would the topic of Buffy the Vampire Slayer interest you enough to give the article a copyedit. Don't worry if you're too busy. Your contributions to Wikipedia are huge and don't go unnoticed, thanks -- Paxomen 01:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your message. Rather not do it (not really my area); have you gathered a list of good copy-editors in the area of TV/film/popular culture? It's very useful. Try searching for good people in the history of edits for other TV FAs. Is there a related WikiProject? Keeping a list is vital to collaboration and the production of excellent articles. Tony 01:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Yep, that's a sensible plan. I'll have to look into this and get such a list together over next few days. It maybe that one of the TV scifi Wikiprojects maybe suited to the task at hand (like WikiProject Star Trek). Thanks -- Paxomen 01:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

more FAC action

well it looks like your talk page sees no end of FAC reviewing requests, so sorry to crowd. just wanted to poke this one through: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Encyclopædia Britannica/archive2. obviously this bad boy needs to be tip top, and so i wanted to go to the best. the world is gonna be looking on scrupulously should it makes FA/front page, and thus needs to be scrupulously reviewed. and most of all, some friggin way it needs just a little affableness; an encyclopedia article on an encyclopedia doesn't make it easy - but hey - who said it would be. any eyeballs you can give it would be most, most appreciated. cheers. JoeSmack ^Talk(p-review!) 08:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Not a FAC review request

Thanks Tony. I have certainly picked up some good advice from your work here. (I think I'll hang around Peer Review a bit more for now, with the intent of helping to improve articles more by the time they reach FAC. I'm sure I'll get over my little protest soon.) –Outriggr § 23:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

You might not have heard Outriggr, but you're only allowed to post to Tony's talk if you have an FAC review request. This thread should be stricken ;). Marskell 23:37, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Dallas, Texas FAC

Thanks for your comments at the Dallas, Texas FAC. I would appreciate a legitimate copy-edit. I fixed the spelling and things you mentioned, but you're right, I've seen this page so many times my eyes pass over things very easily. I would really appreciate it if you'd read over the page and do some copy-edit work to bring the prose FA status—I really don't think its that far off. However, since you didn't fix an obvious spelling mistake ("exitance") I'm not sure if you're willing. drumguy8800 C T 02:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh dang you get a lot of requests for this. Poor guy :D drumguy8800 C T 02:45, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah so just kidding. drumguy8800 C T 02:56, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations

I hereby award Tony1 the Barnstar of Diligence for his excellent copyediting of the Encyclopædia Britannica article. Keep up the good work! --NauticaShades 10:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

TS FAC - darn

NCurse has pinged me twice in recent weeks about FACing TS. I don't want to FAC it, as I am convinced the vandalism will be uncontrollable forevermore, but if I don't FAC it, someone else will <sigh>. Do you want to have one last look? Sandy (Talk) 17:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

1994 San Marino Grand Prix

Hi,

Since you commented on the above FAC, the points you brought up about the standard of writing have been taken into account and the article improved upon. I'd be grateful if you could take a look [2] and let us know how we're getting on. Thanks, Alexj2002 21:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Citation guidelines

Math and physics projects wanted weaker citation requirements, and are calling this a guideline after limited participation: Wikipedia:Scientific citation guidelines. Sandy (Talk) 14:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Sydney Roosters FAC

Firstly I'd like to thank you for your suggestions as to how the Sydney Roosters article could be improved. You suggested I try to attract copyeditors to try and improve the grammar of the article but it hasn't been that easy. Instead, I finally found the time to go over the article once or twice myself and make a few ammendments. Right now I'm guessing the article is probably 98% complete, and I'm wondering if you could quickly skim the article one more time and make a few changes yourself if need be. I think this article is very close to what it needs to be, and with a bit of your time, you might be able to help push this one over the line. Thanks, and all the best, --mdmanser 06:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

TS article

Thanks, Tony. Hey, look, no vandalism yet ! Was I a chicken for nothing? (I'm still trying to get to Colin's comments, but got distracted with the images and Wouterstomp's addition to the infobox.) Sandy (Talk) 15:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to you and LOTS of others. I wonder if some people who pop in to FAC after a few weeks worth of work realize that this article has NINE months' of work, with multiple people consulted and collaborating along the way. Gosh, I was so nervous the article would be killed by vandalism: I'll feel so much better when it's off of FAC and out of the limelight. And, I'll also feel MUCH better when that fire in CA is under control (eeeeeeek, yikes, no sleep here, not sure it has made the news in Australia, but it is very bad, four firefighters are dead, and worst of all, roads OFF the mountain are CLOSED!) - I went ahead and put TS up to distract my fears and keep me occupied. Sandy (Talk) 15:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I guess I was quite distracted by that fire: I just had a go at copyediting West Bengal, but I probably missed a lot. Sandy (Talk) 01:10, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

A new day ! Colin raises a question on how I've handled the numbers; wondering what you think here. Thanks ! Sandy (Talk) 12:25, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Split infinitive FAR/C

Hi there

I wonder whether you're in a position to help to bring this one back to FA standards. Tony 11:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Tony, sorry I didn't see this for so long. I'd like to help but I really can't do much Wikipedia-ing until December. Also I'm not sure I'm a very good person to reference all those things - my knowledge of German's fairly non-existent and my Old English is only slightly better so this would be something quite new to me - not that I won't have a look if it's still going on in a month's time. I suspect Doric Loon's history is along the right lines and I see that much of it is now incorporated into the article but it's hard for me to tell without reading through all the various threads what stage the discussion's now at - does its featured article status mean it's already been a featured article or that it's about to be? Anyway thanks for letting me know and I'll keep an eye on the article. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 12:34, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Final cut for Australia

Hi Tony,

I've reverted your edit "further" back to "final", as this is correct. Your reference to the queen of course relates to HM the Queen of Australia, who is a different entity to HM the Queen of the UK, even if the same person. Cheers, --Michael Johnson 12:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Obviously you have difficulties with the concept. Imagine two public companies, one of which once owned the other, but now share no connection except for the same chairman of the board. --Michael Johnson 13:07, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Not at all. The Act of Settlement, as with all British acts prior to responsible government in Australia remains in force until amended or repealed by an Australian parliament. So it is competent for Australia to amend, but of course this would make the whole situation even more absurb than it is now. --Michael Johnson 13:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Disruptive discussions

Some of the postings to actual reviews have already been moved to review talk and I don't want to antagonize Stb further by moving them a second time. Numerous threads were started—it's annoying. I don't want to participate in that strawpoll, for one thing. The list wasn't meant to be broadcast widely.

But I expect this will blow over. Six months (!) to "prepare" for a FAR is a little ridiculous and Raul doesn't seem troubled by it all. Having an FA dictator has a downside but also some advantages. Marskell 14:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Removal of fair use image

Sorry, but fair use images are not allowed in userspace (see WP:FU#Policy). I did not discuss it on the talk page first because I assumed that the policy was quite clear regarding this. If you do need to have a picture of Nelson Mandela, however, you may wish to consider using one of these free images, which are perfectly acceptable for use in userspace: Image:Mandela minus Clinton.jpg, Image:ClintonMandela.jpg or Image:Madiba Tromso.JPG. Tra (Talk) 16:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks for telling me. I am aware that user pages generally are not edited substantially by other users but removal of fair use images is an exception to this because of the copyright issues. If I wanted to suggest a change for something else, I would have discussed it first. Tra (Talk) 00:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The policy says nothing about how long an image was left there. Generally, I think the main problem is that these images can be put on a user page and forgotten about easily. They still need to be removed. I'd say the best thing to do now is to find a suitable image to replace it with. The ones I listed above will give you some ideas; you might also find a better one. Tra (Talk) 00:46, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Prose question

You may recall me from the Chrono Trigger FAC. Since then, I've worked on my abilities and modeled my prose to better fit encyclopedic writing. Would you consider this paragraph adherent to that standard?

The story follows Goemon as he struggles to prevent a gang called the Peach Mountain Shoguns from turning Japan into a fine arts theatre. The journey covers several areas in Japan and features three cinematic musical features and battles between gigantic robots. True to the Ganbare Goemon series, it is peppered with surrealist humor and anachronisms.

It's being cited as an example of choppy prose at the Mystical Ninja Starring Goemon FAC, and since I'm citing your guide, I felt I should ask you specifically. --Zeality 18:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Hah, yes, time to unleash the dragon on that article. Thanks for the suggestions. I'll return once I give the article a good kick. --Zeality 13:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Pharmacologic vs. pharmacological

Tony, would you mind looking at Samsara's question here? Thanks ! Sandy (Talk) 23:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: Jones

How do you know it is? Two things here:

1. We need a source that that's the reason he was made to leave, and
2. It's not accurate that's the reason he left. Read Chris Masters book, it was more complicated than that.

We need to always keep in mind WP:BIO. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

More stinking FACs

Two FACs, Great Fire of London and Anthony Michael Hall, could use some reviews from a pro. The prose in neither meets 1a in my opinion, yet I'm the only one objecting in their nominations. I was hoping a fellow grammarian could lend some weight to the matter. :) Of course, if you're too busy, that's okay. Cheers, Gzkn 11:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Do you really think that "stinking" is an appropriate adjective to describe Great Fire of London, when you say elsewhere that "It's close to FA in my opinion, but not quite there"? (Also, while I am glad you like the assonance of "squalid suburban slums surrounding", but "Lot's of long sentences" does not need an apostrophe.). -- ALoan (Talk) 13:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The writing of Great Fire of London is, by and large, excellent. I haven't yet looked at Hall. Tony 14:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm...seems people misinterpreted "stinking" and took it literally. I certainly did not mean to disparage those articles as "stinking"! In fact, the articles are quite good. I meant it only in the sense that Tony had yet another request to review FACs. Like "More darn FACs to review". If people took offense, sorry! Again, it certainly wasn't my intention. Gzkn 01:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Those darn FACs :-) No, it's not stinking at all, but yes, it does need a copyedit. I just started into it, but I'm more concerned about the unusual citation style, which doesn't work in a dynamic environment (if someone moves or renames sections in the future, references become invalidated). Not my problem, I guess. I'm kind of "fired" out these days, after Esperanza, so I stopped reading at a certain point. Sandy (Talk) 01:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Invitation to review k-os

Since you very experienced with prose concerns, and I'm pretty sure there are endless prose problems in this Featured article candidates, can you please come and review the article? Thanks. - Tutmosis 18:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

RE: Love the Irony

It's not really irony, since I'm American. I just stated that British English was chosen over American English for that article.

West Bengal FAC

Hi! Thanks for the comments in West Bengal FAC. I have requested SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs), Sundar (talk · contribs) and Ambuj.Saxena (talk · contribs) for copyedits. Sandy did some and incorporated some inline comments. As Nichalp (talk · contribs) is totally absent, Indian articles are getting some weak copyedits :( Can you recommend some others , please? It's tough to find out a good word-nerd! At least, not like you :)Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi! Want to clarify one thing. Which one of the following two is correct?

1. 3rd and 4th century CE, but sixteenth century
2. third and fourth century, but 16th century.

Please tell. I am a bit confused. Thanks a lot. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to peek into this, but I'd say the latter. For single digit numbers, write as words and for others use digits. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 06:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Hinduism

I just wanted to give you a belated thank you for the stylistic suggestions you made about the Hinduism article. I agreed with almost all of them. I have been working on that page a lot (with some others) and I invite you to make suggestions for that article anytime. You can make them on the discussion page for the article or on my talk page. Do you mind if I request you help in the event of any future stylistic debates on that page? Thanks! HeBhagawan 23:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Could I bother you?

I have seen you applying mind to Hinduism shortcomings. My concern is HeBhagawan do not allow right connotations being incorporated in the article. My feeling is, it is due to the article having been nominated for FAC apart from his personal belief to be most fit to write Hinduism article.

I suffer a great deal of pain when Hinduism is projected dimly. I do not want to improperly glorify Hinduism but I want that right connotations of Hinduism find it's place in the article. Hinduism has capability to provide thinking for human religion, rather is a human religion. The philosophy imbibed in Hindus make them tolerant to contradictory views and contradictory customs. Hindus have a very large population. One may experience isolated incidents or groups intolerant to contradictory views and customs but average Hindu is very tolerant, co-operative and helping.

I am deadly against the psyche of any editor of not allowing others to incorporate facts of general knowledge in the name of citation. Though Hindus are strict vegetarians and believe in idol worship, they are not vengeful against Muslims. There may exist element of dislike but it's due to some other reasons. Christains and Parsis though non-veg. have excellent relationship with Hindus. This I am saying to support my statement that Hinduism is a human religion and I wish Hinduism is properly explained in the Wikipedia article.

To my mis-fortune, enough knowledgable editors are either not available or do not come forward to help. I am pretty sure that HeBhagawan is involved in sock-puppetry.

If you observe, he has to frequently edit his statements and yet you could point out poor language. In spite of this, he has been repeatedly involving in incivil comments against me that my English is not good, is full of grammatical mistakes, give a different meaning, my contributions damage the article and exhibit un-fettered authority by suggesting me to edit other articles or edit in other languages and is being supported by Priyanath to suggest me to write blogs or personal websites.

I have principled objections against Wikipedia articles being deprived of free edits. I believe, howsoever good one editor may be, he has no extra constitutional authority to prevent someone from incorporating additional facts in Wikipedia articles that not known to him. It's still worst to involve in sock-puppetry to make incivil coments to serve the malice purpose.

I do not know whether you have a chair of authority to help me or not but I found you interested in preserving standard for FAC and I wish you also hold views of significance of right means behind a right cause.

With due apology for long comments.

Swadhyayee 04:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

on God or upon God?

What do you think is correct, "on God" or "upon God"? Swadhyayee 10:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Usually "on"; what's the sentence? Tony 10:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

"However, when human beings try to think of the infinite God, they project the limitations of their finite minds on God. The human mind cannot think other than in human terms. Therefore, it projects human limitations, such as personality, motherhood, and fatherhood on God."

While I studied British grammar, we were taught that "on" could be used when a physical object rest on another physical object. Like "book is on table". Where as any abstract thing when projected upon other object, "upon" should be used. Hope you might be referring to Wren & Martin. I agree that widely "on" is used in place of "upon".Swadhyayee 07:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd prefer "on" here, reserving "upon" for instances where "on" might be ambiguous (very occasional), or where the context is poetic or very formal/elaborate. In general, I'd use shorter, plainer forms nowadays, in line with the Plain English movement. This is particularly relevant to WP, where there's a wide range of international readers of many backgrounds who want information in the most succinct form. Tony 07:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Non-notable companies

Please see WP:CORP for Wikipedia's guidelines on notability of companies. Cheers --Pak21 13:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

GSUSA FAC

Hi there, the article Girl Scouts of the USA is up for FAC and I was wondering if you could give it a professional look over. I understand if you don't have the time to. Thanks! Darthgriz98 03:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Randall Flagg

I have corrected the problems you brought up in the featured article nominations. If you have anymore, tell me, and I'll try to correct those as well.--CyberGhostface 17:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

NeXT

Hi Tony. At the moment, an article I've done lots of work on , is up on FAC. Two Wikipedians have suggested that it be copy-edited. Can you go through it for me and outline what needs doing? That would help me out a lot. Thanks! — Wackymacs 18:34, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

FAC 2.0

In case you're in the business of supporting / opposing Mystical Ninja Starring Goemon, I've had four or five people review it and fix typos / prose issues. Otherwise, thanks for stopping by, and perhaps I'll see you for Goemon's Great Adventure sometime. --Zeality 19:10, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Nostradamus

I just performed a quick runthrough of the FA Nostradamus. It's a solid article, but the prose may still need some work to conform to the favored style of writing here. What do you think? — Deckiller 12:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

A few of my revisions were deemed hypercritical; perhaps, I guess phrases like "throughout the world" serve good use as precision wording, and don't really go against succinctness. What's your take? — Deckiller 19:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, the redundancies were reintroduced to the article by its primary editor on the basis that they changed the meaning. That seems to be common; but the whole point of having an outside editor look at the article is to show how it can be stated in less words. — Deckiller 00:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Request for independent reviewer

Hi, I saw many of your suggestions in WP:FAC to ask an independent reviewer, not familiar with the subject of a certain article, to copyedit the article. I believe from your messages here in your talk page, that you have a lot of requests of doing this, as you're very good in writing professional-style English articles. If you have some spare time, then could you please review this article: Mount Tambora, that I've prepared for months for FA? The article has not yet listed in FAC. Thanks a lot in advance. Cheers. — Indon (reply) — 16:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: ?deleted image from my [your] 1a article

Hi Tony, yes it was deleted at the Commons - you can see the deletion log there to find out why and ask the admin if still in need of an explanation. I see you have found some more though. Nice page by the way, I was reading it after sound advice from AZPR when I found the deleted image. Regards, DVD+ R/W 19:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

caste and Hinduism

If you are interested, please read the discussion on caste at the bottom of talk:Hinduism and give your vote. Thanks! HeBhagawan 14:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Banksia integrifolia

Hi Tony,
Can I get you to do your thing at Banksia integrifolia please? I think this is ready for FAC. Hesperian 05:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Just saw your "busy in real life" message. Thanks anyhow, but we're going to roll to FAC now. (If it fails on "brilliant prose" grounds I'll be kicking myself for not waiting you out.) Hesperian 01:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Tony. (PS I sometime forget who I've reintroduced myself to and who I haven't: Hesperian = Snottygobble.) Hesperian 03:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Vague terms of size

Hi, Tony. A reviewer is objecting to a FA nomination of mine due to the article's use of "vague terms of size" (actually, he or she is also objecting due to red links and no internal citations in the lead, but these are not actionable objections). I'm not sure I agree with him or her, but this is an aspect of copy editing/redundancy fighting that I'm not that familiar with. The FAC in question is Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Charles Atangana. If you get the chance, would you mind looking it over and letting me know what you think? Just glancing over the comments at the FAC would be great; I realize you're swamped with requests for full copy edits. Thanks, — BrianSmithson 22:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

ABC

I agree that a summary is required, an I think everyone does. I think the disagreement, over urgency became strong as a result of inadvertent escalation. Often the case in electronic media... Looks like it's sorted now though? Rich Farmbrough, 20:17 12 November 2006 (GMT).

ABC Edit Wars: Parte the firste

Tony, first of all, thanks for your message. I also agree that a summary would be helpful, and I'm sorry that the situation has arisen. But Wikipedia is not about consensus or a democracy, and articles get changed all the time. Why not produce one yourself if Cyberjunkie doesn't want to? Perhaps the way to approach this is to say to CJ that if he doesn't mind you intend to create a summary? Having been involved in a few edit wars myself I've learnt the best way to resolve these things is to offer an olive branch - sometimes one just has to be the bigger person. I'm not suggesting any wrong doing, but simply a means by which the future of the article can be assured without either of you giving up and leaving in frustration. That, in my honest opinion, would be the worst outcome.Adamm 22:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

ABC Edit Wars: Parte secundus

Tony,

I'm sorry if I touched on a raw nerve: I'm just not sure how else to contribute constructively to this situation (other than to go back and insert the missing paragraphs). I'm also not good at negotiating this type of dispute or effectively arguing with those that are heavy handed editors: see Talk:Master of Health Administration for how badly I can handle things. I can understand your frustration and irritation, but the only thing to do in this situation in my honest opinion is to keep communicating in a non-threatening manner (as you have to date) and embarrass the other party into action. With my best wishes and respect Adamm 04:19, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Quick review?

• I realize you probably get many such requests, but I was hoping you could give a quick glance at Sasha (DJ). I nom'd this at FAC awhile ago and you cited various wording concerns in your oppose statement. The article has since been reviewed by a couple other editors and we have removed a good deal of ambiguous language, redundancies, and awkward phrases. I have followed your guidelines for passing 1a and have found them most helpful. I realize you are busy in real life as well, so even just a quick review of a single arbitrary body paragraph would helpful. Infinite thanks! Wickethewok 22:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Ilaiyaraaja - Request for a cursory review

Dear Tony,

Read about your impressive work in Wikipedia. I've been editing a Wiki about a music composer (Ilaiyaraaja) and was wondering if you could give it a once-over. When you are absolutely free, of course. Cheers mate. AppleJuggler 15:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

re: cj

That was succinct. Well, if there's anything I can do to help resolve this, please let me know. Meanwhile, I'll leave off hectoring you. See you round the 'pedia. Hesperian 11:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

ABC history debacle

For the record, I consider myself broadly eventualist as well, but yes, removing major sections from developed articles to new pages without notice isn't on. If he'd left a note, I wouldn't really have minded, frankly--internal editing on the ABC isn't something like Zionism or the United Nations, where you've ten times the editors and thus ten times greater a co-ordination issue. But our problem's solved now. Hide&Reason 23:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Firefly FAC

Howdy-- just wanted to let you know that one of the editors you recommended (Deckiller) has done a copyedit... --plange 16:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Prose might still need some work in several sections; if Tony sees it necesary, I can put some time aside to do some more copyediting. — Deckiller 16:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Scientific citations

Have you seen this? Sandy (Talk) 15:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Sydney Roosters FAC

I managed to get a copyeditor to work on the article, and after spending a day on the article he believes that the article is good to go featured. Hopefully you might now feel compelled to change your vote if you feel that this article is of a much stronger standard. Thanks, --mdmanser 01:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Tony, glad to see that you feel the article has improved, especially considering this is my first true copyedit in over a month. Think I should spend some more time on it? — Deckiller 01:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

User_talk:Rebecca#Concerns

You previously posted concerns on User_talk:Rebecca. You may want to comment at User_talk:Rebecca#Concerns.-- Jreferee 22:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I was tempted not to deign to address this with a reply, but in your case, I'll bite. You've had plenty of opportunities to work out any issues you've had with me, so excuse my cynicism when you jump on the bandwagon when one guy who makes the sort of good-faith, but lousy edits you often complain about degenerating the quality of the project decides to try to whip up a lynch-mob to distract the issue from the basic fact that his edits were, indeed, lousy. Rebecca 01:44, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Rebecca, thank you for your measured reply. It's the cantankerous ones that people object to. I was part of discussions about six weeks ago to take the matter to the Arbitration Committee, but no one could gather the energy to do it. I must say that if you persist in your belligerent ways, it will happen. Why not move on from all of the negativity that seems to dominate your interactions on WP? Tony 01:48, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

That's quite an exaggeration. I was unusually terse in the date linking dispute due to some utterly exasperating behaviour from some of the other parties (as was agreed upon by most people last time this went to ANI). Apart from that, I generally shy away from conflict on the 'pedia these days, and have since I stood down from the arbitration committee more than eighteen months ago. This week has been a bit of a rarity, with User:Elonka nominating articles for deletion en masse without regard to their notability, and a couple of vengeful users trying to get me for reverting good-faith, but cruddy edits that did more damage to the respective articles than they addressed. I'm afraid that you not liking a user is not a reason for arbitration action. Rebecca 02:03, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Hero of Belarus

Since you are one of the people who asked for this article to be removed from FA status, the page is now up for peer review. Please leave any comments that you might think will improve the article. Thank you for your consideration. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 00:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm supposed to be rising, not falling

Hey; see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope/archive2 for what I'm talking about. I'm sickened with myself right now for letting The Filmmaker go ahead and nominate it. The prose is horrendous, and it certainly doesn't help that my copyediting skills seem to have actually gone DOWNHILL as of late. — Deckiller 03:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey, Tony. I think you may have been a bit harsh in your first comment at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope/archive2 (which I responded to below your entry). Just letting you know that Outriggr seems to have taken offense to it. :( Gzkn 07:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• Hi Tony. I'm requesting that you correct your assertions on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope/archive2 that I "breached the rules", that I supported the article, and that I contributed to the article "before its nomination". The falsity of the latter two is a matter of fact, so I find it odd that you would attribute these to me. As Gzkn has observed, I have indeed taken offense to this. –Outriggr § 07:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Anthony Michael Hall

Mind taking a second look at the FAC? I recently completed a copy-edit of the article. Gzkn 07:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Homophony

Hello, I've asked User:Meladina to review the content of Homophony and settle our little dispute about vertical harmony (see User_talk:Meladina#Requesting_your_thoughts). Just thought I'd let you know. Thanks, -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 00:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, you are correct, I don't think he will be settling the matter at all. It would seem that bringing in an outside party might've been a mistake. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 18:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Eye movements

Hey; I just moved the page. All you have to do is click "move" on the top tabs; it'll move the contents of the page/talk page and the histories of those pages. — Deckiller 03:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Can't wait to see how that article turns up, especially since it was part of your thesis. — Deckiller 06:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Ian Thorpe

Hello Tony. Could you please look at the Thorpe article again to see if I am on the right track? Cheeers, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Eye movement

Either of the music/reading articles would make a lovely WP:DYK if you were prepared for a day or so of random "improvements" (although sometimes they are improvements, I have to admit) when you've finished them off. Cheers, Yomangani^talk 11:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Tony, the refs show up on the article for me - maybe it's your browser? It looks like you did them just fine. Am I missing something? I see two inline citations. Sandy (Talk) 13:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

FA nomination for Bacteria

Hi there. I've nominated this page for FA. Your expert editing of the article, or comments on its nomination page would be very welcome. TimVickers 17:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

An editor has made some major changes to this article, could you please return to the FAC and provide some feedback on whether or not these are an improvement? TimVickers 21:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

email

I have replied. michael ^talk 06:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Sad note

Just wanted to make sure you've seen User:Marskell. Sandy (Talk) 22:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Tour de Main Page FAs

I've been going through the main page FAs the last few days; they're very good, but I am feeling more and more compelled to suggest the idea of a 1a director. — Deckiller 00:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

With power of veto?  :-)) Sandy (Talk) 00:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Nah, just a team of 4-5 who can go through FAs that Raul has determined have a consensus to promote. They'll ensure that the prose is decent before Raul issues the official promotion. They won't have the power of veto; they'll have to make sure it's a-okay :) — Deckiller 00:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I like the relatively flat hierarchy in WP, and this extra level would bring with it complications, I'm sure. Apart from anything else, some applicants take objection to what I and others say about their prose, and we don't want that to spill into systemic resentment (personal is bad enough!). The solution, I feel, is to encourage more word-nerds into the room. If I were retired, I'd spend lots of time doing it; but the opposite situation applies—increasingly, my research consultancy is making it hard to provide sustained input to the FAC and FAR/C rooms. That's why we need more folks. Tony 03:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I see what you're saying. By the way, I like the term "word-nerds" :) — Deckiller 08:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Split infinitive

Hey Tony. Please let me know when Dr Gary Symes has reviewed the Split infinitive article. Joelito (talk) 19:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Military Brat

Hi Tony,

I responded to your concern about the title in the FAC, but I was wondering if you could give me some examples where you felt the article was fragmented? I'll watch your page for a response.Balloonman 23:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Following up, I've had a few people give the article a good copy edit.... particularly user:outriggr who has gone over it with meticulous detail. I was wondering if you could review it again and let me know if you thought it reached the point where you could support it for FA? Thanks. I'm watching your page, so respond here for continuality of conversation.Balloonman 05:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Beatles FAR

It would be nice if we could save one of these: Johnleemk has been at work on referencing Real Love (The Beatles song) - how's the prose? Sandy (Talk) 02:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Request

Dear Tony1,

Could you take a look at the Ohio Wesleyan University article and provide me with some feedback on how you think the article could be improved? WikiprojectOWU 08:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• Wow, these are some great comments. Do you have an idea of who might be willing to provide some fresh-eye copyediting that you suggested? Thanks again! I greatly appreciate it! WikiprojectOWU 09:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  • OMG... there is an OWU PROJECT... GO BISHOPS!!!! Class of '91!!!Balloonman 09:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Clement of Dunblane

I'd like to thank you for reviewing this article. I'm especially grateful because the article is only ever likely to receive a small reading audience. Just to let you know, I'm anxious to pay back your input by fixing the problems and I hope you will keep in touch about your view of its progress. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 13:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I've requested several editors to copyedit it. Hopefully one or more will oblige. I'll let my mind freshen, then go over it again myself. Then, if you don't mind, I will come back to yourself and ask for your judgment. Regards, Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 13:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Although one other person may look over it again in the next 12 hours, the article has now been looked over by others and has had several more copyedits by myself, as you will see by this diff. I hope this has gone further to addressing the problems you raised. Regards, Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 22:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Aldol reaction

Have I seen you around the Wiki before? :-) Anyway, I'm wondering if I could get more feedback from you regarding the introductory paragraph of that article...seems like it's following the "definition-context" formula, but maybe there is another alternative you have in mind? --HappyCamper 15:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Lain FAC

Hi Tony. I realize that you probably don't have time for a full copyeit of Serial Experiments Lain, seeing all the work you're already putting in Wikipedia. However, could you please recommend someone appropriate for this? I myself worked so much on it that I am not able to see it anymore, and the anime and manga project didn't give much response on that. Thanks in advance!--SidiLemine 15:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

re: recent conflict

Thanks Tony, your comment means a lot. I might return, though I'll leave it awhile first. I'm just wary of my actions earning me a block from Raul that's all. LuciferMorgan 01:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

He does seem rather aggressive I agree. My main 1. c. concern was due to the fact the article states a number of opinions, and uses a lot of figures (35, 00 personnel etc.), but unfortunately when I added cite tags as requested it was seen as WP:POINT.

Other than my objection per 1. c., my other was 1. a., which you're a big patroller of. Personally, I'm not the greatest editor as concerns 1. a. which was demonstrated by my edits when Iron Maiden was under FAR, but if you check the article closely there's a few one sentence statements. My main 1. a. gripe though is the article's tendency to use either "would have" or "was to" quite repetitively - whether this is a valid concern I'm unsure. Your fully welcome to view the article with an impartial pair of eyes and review it as you see fit, even if my concerns are invalid. LuciferMorgan 01:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Was it ALoan who called this the "back-slung conditional"? While not wrong, it can become tiresome in a narrative-based article (history- and story-based). I discourage it. Tony 02:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Copyediting

OK, Angus and 4 other users have read over Clement of Dunblane, either editing it themselves or informing me of suggested adjustments. It has had the extensive copyediting you requested. Please lemme know your thoughts. Regards, Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 01:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Serial

You were correct; I began copyediting, and I noticed lack of capitalization at the beginning of sentences in the character section. — Deckiller 01:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

FAR notification text

I created a template for this at my userspace (see Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_review#Notification_text). Let me know what you think, and if we should move it to the Template namespace. Gzkn 02:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

1a

Tony, I see you've added a bit to "1a". You'll have noticed my alterations. I'm a little surprised that you haven't reverted any of them or even tweaked them -- surely they're not that good. (Give me ten minutes and I'd probably fiddle with half a dozen myself.) I hope they haven't left you with a kind of partial numbness.

"Give me ten minutes" -- yes, I'm afraid I'll be intercoursingly busy for the next couple of weeks. But sometimes my tool for taking out my frustrations with the world in general is a red pen wielded on A4 printout during my daily commute. -- Hoary 11:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

1a ctd

You should take a look at the page history — you may find the top five or so amusing :) I got a little too trigger happy with my hatred of "in order to". — Deckiller 13:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Hoary

I'm confused, how does a copyeditor perform such massive copyedits on the "master copyeditor"'s essay? Does that make him the master of the master of copyediting, or just one with strategic distance? In any case, in looking at what he did, you're better off asking him for copyediting for now on :) — Deckiller 01:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

You got it right: I'm the one with strategic distance. Plus I'm terribly slow, as you'll have observed. And I had a great start: I was [note the past tense!] partly motivated by a kind of revenge: Tony was being so negative about how some FAC failed this criterion that I thought I'd do a "physician, heal thyself" on him. (Revenge is a wonderful motive, at least in fiction: sling a good old western in your DVD player tonight and observe.) However, I was quickly disarmed by the excellence of his advice -- or anyway most of it, for of course we differ at some points -- and my avenging urge soon turned into something else. As for the silly but amusing notion of a top-dog prize, I'm sure I wouldn't win it: I'm certain that Tony could make great improvements to my own crappy prose, and do so at a moderate clip. -- Hoary 02:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, no top dogs here; a team of good copy-editors is what I yearn for! Tony 06:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

FAR urgents

Tony, your template was originally labeled FAR urgents (User:Tony1/FAR urgents), but the text at the top of the template says "FARC urgents". Did you intend it to be used for both FARs and FARCs? If so, should we change the text to FAR/FARC? I'd like to be able to add some of the long-stalled FARs to the template, to get more reviewers to look at them, but I've been using the convention of only adding FARCs. We need to get some of the stalled FARs (e.g.; Joyce, Downfall, Chess) moving, and I suspect a lot of reviewers don't look at some of them until they move to FARC. Sandy (Talk) 21:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I've asked about half a dozen editors to watch it or add it to their talk page - so far, no takers. Sandy (Talk) 15:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Chess

Tony, Chess has been massively rewritten, to the point that it's not even the same article that was brought to FAR. Can you review the prose? Wikipedia:Featured article review/Chess Sandy (Talk) 17:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

This also needs attention. Sandy (Talk) 17:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Thx

Good to be back. I've been missing my fix. Marskell 19:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

"A variety of different" google searches

• Results 1 - 20 of about 22,500 from en.wikipedia.org for a variety of different. (0.23 seconds)
• Results 1 - 10 of about 4,560 from en.wikipedia.org for utilize.
• Results 1 - 10 of about 1,000 from en.wikipedia.org for "various different". (0.17 seconds)
• Results 1 - 10 of about 325 from en.wikipedia.org for "a vast majority of". (0.31 seconds)

Are we mistakened that these redundancies don't belong in elegent, flowing prose, or do people just need to read the guideline(s)? I was looking at my High School papers, and I can't believe how much my writing has improved with the omission of those phrases. — Deckiller 03:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

White Deer Hole Creek FAC

Thanks for your constructive criticisms. I will do my best to clean things up, but it will take me some time (I need to get some sleep soon). I will print it out again and get a fresh red pen. I have edited just the lead to hopefully address the points you raised. The starting date for the prison was given in the article. I have reread your suggestions for meeting 1a and the criterion itself. Neither mentions the number of blue links (that I could see) - could you please direct me to the policy on this? I will work on the rest of the article, but hope the lead is now satisfactory. Thanks again and good night, Ruhrfisch 06:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• I believe I have addressed your points as far as I was able, but still have some questions at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/White Deer Hole Creek. Once these have been answered, I will make more edits as needed, then would appreciate it if you could take another look at the article. Thanks for holding articles to the highest standards. Yours, Ruhrfisch 20:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Datelinking

Hi Tony, where is this happening? I think theres only a voiciferous few on one side of the argument andyway, but I have (I think) voted for the syntax bug on Bugzilla a very long time ago. Rich Farmbrough, 14:48 9 December 2006 (GMT).

A new parallel syntax for autoformatting dates

Thanks for trying to get something started on this. I really don't like the date linking, and I'm glad to see someone doing something productive about it. CRGreathouse (t | c) 16:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the note Tony! I hope your efforts are successful. Kaldari 17:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Hoysala Empire

Hi. Please find some time to review the article again. I have copy edited the article to take care of all the concerns posted by you on the FAC discussion page.Thanks.Dineshkannambadi 22:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Good comments on FAC prose

You have some good and pointed comments on prose in various articles on the FAC page. There are too many editors who use certain turns of phrase with what appears to be the intention of sounding learned, or authorative, or academic. In general, they wind up sounding silly, or saying something completely wrong. I know turgid prose when I see it, because I write it, write it often, and write it well (can one?), and on Wikipedia have thereby gained a small but devoted group of editors who watch my contributions to make them readable, while I stick to accurate (but the latter requires the former). I think that Wikipedia, overall, can aspire to better articles. Many of the FA and GA are not well done, and need quite a bit of help, but with this help could really be excellent. Nice to see someone agrees. KP Botany 01:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Doing something about the ridiculous date autoformatting/linking mess

Visitors to this page may be interested in a technical issue here. Tony 04:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I had noticed this and will now read it carefully. Hmains 05:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I've noticed the discussion of the issue, but it isn't a priority for me. --Gerry Ashton 06:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I've been on an anti-linking crusade lately. I'm not watching the proposal, so just let me know when you need support again. Cuñado - Talk 10:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out your proposal. As you guessed, I'm a supporter. RossPatterson 19:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Links

Tony,

Thank you for the heads up on the linking issue proposal. I was glad to offer my support. The situation is really getting out of hand. And, as Wikipedia grows with more and more articles to link to, there could come a time when every word in an article could be blue! I'm just glad it hasn't progressed to linking parts of speech!

Be healthy,

Michael David 19:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

A behind-the-scenes copy-editor!

Hey there. Ran across this user's edits: Dmacw6 (talk · contribs). Not sure if you have a list of copy-editors or whatnot, but this person definitely knows what he/she is doing. Gzkn 00:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

	<font=3> Thanks again for your helpful comments - White Deer Hole Creek made featured article! Take care, Ruhrfisch 17:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I would appreciate it very much if you could look at the article again when you have a chance and see if there are any other places that need attention. If they are minor, please fix them or let me know. If major, let me know and I will work on them. Thanks again, Ruhrfisch 17:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Patch

Fine. It should really be a trivial patch. The problem may not be having it written, but getting it applied. I don't know, but I think the developer resource is used running the site. I've been offering to help with some aspects of running WP - namely the data dumps, for years, but there seems to be a bit of WP:OWN going on. Rich Farmbrough, 09:25 12 December 2006 (GMT).

The date autoformatting/linking issue

Visitors to this page may be interested in a technical issue here. I plan to file the request on Friday evening, Australian EST. Tony 13:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't much care about the technical issue, so I'm not going to object on that page. I am a bit concerned that it'll be used as ammunition by the delinking crowd to take things even further, but I'm encouraged by recent developments - really, everyone else except Hmains seems to have gotten a clue and come to some sort of middle ground. Rebecca 04:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Germany FA

Hi Tony, you objected to the promotion of the Germany article to FA status because of the quality of the text. I believe that your concern has been addressed to a certain extent by the editors of the article. Could you please take another look and perhaps present more suggestions as to how the article can be further improved. TSO1D 00:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Copy editing and author's voice

Hi, Tony. I'm periodically asked to do copy edits on Wikipedia articles, and I sometimes voluntarily do them on Featured Article Candidates (I'm rather uncomfortable supporting a nomination unless I'm reasonably assured that the prose is good). However, one philosophical problem I find is how to determine if my copy edits are really necessary or if I'm just rewriting things in my own voice. For example, I like to write in simple language. I once ran some of the FAs I have written through a website that ranks their supposed difficulty of comprehension, and my stuff seems to fall between Grades 7 and 10. However, many Wiki authors seem to like long, "academic-sounding" phrasings that may not be inherently wrong. What does the copy editor do in such situations? Is it enough to concentrate on commas and eliminating redundancy? Thanks for any advice. -- BrianSmithson 04:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Date linking

Hi Tony

I heartily commend you for your excellent proposal. Can I ask you to look at User talk:Guinnog/date linking and see what you think? I'm planning to bring an adapted version of it to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers), but probably not until your proposal is finished with. In many respects I think we are working on parallel paths and I hope you agree. Best wishes, --Guinnog 05:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Doing something about the ridiculous date autoformatting/linking mess

Hi Tony, thanks for letting me know about that proposal, and well done for thinking it through so nicely. Neonumbers 08:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Tamil people

Its two week FAR is up - are concerns addressed? Wikipedia:Featured article review/Tamil people. Sandy (Talk) 18:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Hippocrates FAC

Hello. You recently reviewed the FAC Hippocrates saying it "needs serious surgery"; but I've read through the article a number of times and don't think I can improve its prose much further (I'm too close to the article, maybe). If, however, you would provide more examples of awkward phrasing or problem passages, I can make to fix them. I would really appreciate any more assistance so that the article can pass FAC. Thanks. -- Rmrfstar 23:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

"s's", or "s'"?

Should it be: "Soranus of Ephesus, also a mysterious figure, was Hippocrates's first biographer..." or "Soranus of Ephesus, also a mysterious figure, was Hippocrates' first biographer..."?

I always assumed it was the latter. — Deckiller 02:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I balked at this, too. But I do prefer the bulldozer angle here: always add apostrophe s, irrespective of the final letter, and irrespective of whether there's an extra syllable when you say it. Some style guides recommend this; others are flexible. I wouldn't be dogmatic on this point. Tony 02:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Serial Experiments Lain

Hi Tony. Would you mind having a quick look at this article to see if it still as far from 1a as in the FAC? I'm still working on it, but a few people have gone through it in the meantime, and I was wondering if it was still necessary to run around WP in circles, hunting down copyeditors. Good ones are hard to find in the anime area, and these are always obsessed with their own project, as I am. Thanks!--SidiLemine 14:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

FA Nomination

Recently, you left an objection against Avatar: The Last Airbender becoming a featured article. The article has been fixed and organized. Can you please review your ojection and see which parts have been fixed and tell us which parts still stand. I would appreciate it. Thank you! Parent5446^{(Murder me for my actions)} 20:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Needs input

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Simpsons. Sandy (Talk) 17:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Banksia epica

Hi Tony,

Would you be interesting in giving this article a pre-FAC review? It is not quite finished, but the two remaining tasks are not likely to change the article very much, and I'm not inclined to hold up everything else on their accounts.

Hesperian 07:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks; we're still waiting on some photos, so there's no rush. Hesperian 00:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Johann Sebastian Bach

• No offense, and I certainly hope I'm not about to start a flamewar... I'm sure you're a well-seasoned editor and all, but you are really showing an unmoderated, unreflective, sovereign contempt for.. umm.. almost everyone you disagree with. I'm puzzled as to your lack of moderation, although you are certainly civil. --Ling.Nut 14:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

More civil than you, it appears. Tony 15:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Mmmmm, that's quite arguable, since I don't show contempt for others. But again, I'm outta here. Sorry I interrupted you. Best wishes in all you do. I'm removing this page from my watch list, too, because further talk will not generate any positive impact upon the encyclopedia. --Ling.Nut 16:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Rodney Marks (astrophysicist)

Tony, I stumbled across this article via a back link to TS, and tried to clean it up (a lot). I don't know any of the New Zealand/Australia sources - can you glance at the sources and tell me if any of them are iffy? When I came across the article, it was basically saying the "Americans" had murdered him, which seems to be a premature conclusion based on the sources, so I toned it down, removing "murder" - the news story is too recent (it seems) to be calling it murder for sure - he appears to have somehow gotten poisoned, but murder is a premature conclusion. If you know the story, can you just give it a glance for POV and sourcing? It's very short ... thanks. Sandy (Talk) 18:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

==South Australian legislative election, 2006 FA candidate==

Hello - this is a message being sent to all who have contributed comments in regards to this page becoming a featured article. I believe appropriate modifications have been made, please contribute any further comments you may have toward it's improvement, otherwise hopefully we can get some support comments happening! Thanks for your hopefully continued interest toward advancing the article. Tony - issues you have raised have been addressed, can you please advise (if you continue to object) whether you object due to quality issues, or are you saying the subject is boring, or that the current article is a boring report on the subject? Timeshift 18:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Tony, do you have any references that clearly state that Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom is Queen of South Australia rather than "The Queen in right of South Australia", or were you simply interpreting the references I gave at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/South Australian legislative election, 2006 in a different manner than I did? If you're right, we have a number of articles to fix, especially if it turns out to be the same for each state. Thanks. --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Monarchy in Canada#Provinces has a passing comparison to Australia. I'm not real strong on the intricacies of the Canadian legal system either. Quebec recently gained a higher degree of virtual autonomy as "the Québécois form a nation within a united Canada", but I don't think anything actually changed. --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Charles Darwin

Thanks for your helpful comments on the Charles Darwin FAC: hope the article's now been been brought up to a standard you find tolerable. The substitution of "among" for "amongst" feels slightly uncomfortable to me, but I'm only going on intuition, a rather ancient education, and reading rather a lot of nineteenth century literature lately! Much appreciated, .. dave souza, talk 18:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Replies to your questions

Please find time to read my replies to your questions on the Hoysala discussion page.Thanks.Dineshkannambadi 15:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Adolfo Farsari

Hi Tony, May I call upon you to check over this article for grammatical and any other issues you care to examine? I intend to submit it for FAC treatment in the near future. Thanks. Pinkville 03:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Hoysala

I just replied on the discussion page. please take a look and advice.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 03:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Question about units of money

I'm asking you because I've been reading your user page and greatly admire your editing skills. This is a question about ways of expressing money. I wrote in an article (Muppandal) that "$2 billion" had been spent. This was changed by another editor to "$2 thousand million" with the edit "less ambiguous term than billion". Is this true? The article is on an Indian village and therefore is supposed to use British spelling. Thank you. Sincerely, Mattisse 16:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

IMV, "billion" is now completely unambigious; it's a thousand million, and should normally be used instead. "Billion" used to mean "million million" decades ago in the UK. This is no longer the case. I'd revert it to "billion". Tony 23:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Sincerely, Mattisse 23:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Tony, I don't wish to start a controversy. However, you may wish to read Indian numbering system, especially the first paragraph. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 23:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I wish that Indians, in English, would avoid different usage from the rest of the world of this very common term. In an article on India, then, perhaps there's a case for spelling out "thousand million", but I wouldn't agree to it elsewhere. Tony 00:09, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I just want to make sure I understand correctly...

I just want to make sure that I understand correctly. You appear [3] to asserting that a excerpt of a commercial recording of a piece of public domain music which is used in an article about its composer is used in accordance to our policy because, in part, "it is not replaceable with an uncopyrighted or freely copyrighted sample of comparable educational value.". Correct? --Gmaxwell 08:45, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I've asked you a clear and simple question and I'd appricate it if you'd answer with a clear and simple answer. Are you making the claim that no free sample could satisify the role of the 'fair use' clips in that article? --Gmaxwell 21:39, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Since the items have been deleted and removed (by people other than me) I guess the matter is moot now. My intention wasn't to upset you, and I'm sorry that I did... I was only trying to get a better understanding of our misunderstanding. In any case, I'm working on getting some more replacement audio for the article. The BWV 971 on on commons is rather good, and we might use that... and I'm talking to a couple of organists. I believe that, ultimately, this article will be better illustrated than it ever was before because of the removal of the unfree audio... and I hope that you will stay around to enjoy the fruits of all of our labor. --Gmaxwell 22:14, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

please review your vote

Hey, Latter Days has been extensively copyedited since you last checked it. I'd appreciate it if you could review the article and possibly change your vote? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if you would review both the article and your vote. Thankyou, Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas, and May the Edit be with you, always. T-borg ^{(drop me a line)} 20:39, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

My "illegal" deletion

You have got to be kidding me. Danny 03:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and we dont allow fair use on user pages. Danny 04:15, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

To clarify what Danny meant by the above comment, he was referring to the exerpt from Riders in the chariot which was on your user page. Sorry to intrude, but you seem to have thought he was referring to an image. -- MediaMangler 12:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Your illegal deletion of Bach sound files

Dear Danny

You have clearly breached the fair-use guidelines for uploads made before the threshold date. This, among other related issues, is causing a great deal of hostility.

Please reinstate the files and post a notice on the talk page of the article; when that is done, we can start the debate as to whether the files do in fact breach the fair-use guidelines. Whatever conclusions you and Maxwell may have taken it upon yourselves to arrive at unilaterally and without communication, the due process requires seven days for debate and/or modification of stated reasons for fair use.

Even without this rule, it would have been practical and, dare I say it, proper, to raise the matter on the talk page; this is particularly the case since the issue of what is and isn't fair use rests significantly on interpretation at this stage, and is an unstable issue on the fair-use talk page.

If this matter remains unresolved, we'll take it further: this will include the proposed deletion of the seven-day rule, since failure to revert and go through the legal oprocess will represent a wilfull breach. We believe that it is preferable to remove that rule than have it applied in an arbitrary and self-serving manner, whenever you please.

Tony 00:53, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia's WP:NLT policy which forbids legal threats. Your choice of language above is either quite incorrect (using 'legal' and 'legal process' to describe internal wikipedia resolution methods) or it is an implied threat to sue or otherwise take legal action. Either way, be aware that legal threats will result in you being blocked from editing the project to protect others. If you meant to refer to the internal methods of resolution (like WP:DRV), then please restate that appropriately. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Let me begin by saying that your use of hyperbole is hardly becoming a professional editor. Your accusatory tone and defamatory rhetoric hardly inspire me to answer you. Yet, I will, if only because there may be other people reading this, and I have an opportunity to clear up some key points about Wikipedia to them. Wikipedia is a "free encyclopedia," that is, "free as in freedom," not "free as in beer." We pride ourselves on the creation of free content, not only as a free resource for looking up facts, but as a repository of information and knowledge that anyone can use in any way they choose. That's right. People can come to Wikipedia and copy material verbatim. Just provide the appropriate credit and it is theirs to do with what they wish--print it, sell it, publish it, edit it, and even change all the "was"'s to "wasn't"s. That is because of an underlying principle of Wikipedia that knowledge shou;d be free. In that sense, we are the antithesis of the very world of copyright. It is very rewarding to me when people call our office and ask if they can use a photograph or cite an article. I say "sure, and its free too." In a sense we are liberating information, one byte at a time. At the same time, however, we are faced with a dilemma. We want our information to be as good as possible--to be as media-rich as possible--and too frequently the information we would like to present is copyrighted. Enter fair use. Some Wikipedias, notably German, have made the conscious decision to ban all fair use. They have decided that they are willing to pay the cost. In the English-language Wikipedia, we have reached a compromise. We will allow fair use if and only if no other alternative is possible. Note that I did not say "no equivalent alternative," but "no alternative." We can search for alternatives or we can create them. In fact, it is a very challenging creative process to find alternatives to copyrighted materials, and a very rewarding process too, in the end. By the way, this is not some random policy on Wikipedia. It is the underlying principle upon which this entire project was built. When we have music inserted into articles, people should be able to copy that music, play that music, and even make a CD of that music and sell it on street corners. Fair use does not allow that. In some cases, like a Beatles song, we have no alternative but to go with fair use (although I might challenge this assumption too). In the case of classical music, we do have alternatives--find a public domain recording, make a public domain recording, convince an artist to release their work into the public domain. We are doing all of the above. And if we don't have it yet, that is fine too, because Wikipedia is a work in progress. I can still remember when there were no pictures and no sound files. We've come a long way in just 6 years. Now it may be that you reject this notion of freedom. That is fine. You are free to do so. That does not mean, however, that you can manipulate the project's overarching principles to meet your beliefs. I invite you to continue participating in the project, but remind you that if you do, it must be on Wikipedia's terms, not on yours. Danny 12:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Help me understand

Can you explain the apparent discrepancy between your recent claim:

For the record, I have never received a legal threat concerning the inclusion of the two musical sound excerpts in question (although the owner, who's a long-standing friend, at one point said he was willing to annul the permission if I requested this - a process that I doubt holds water, in any case, since I'm sure that the continuance of permission should not be based on personal whim).

And your actual edit:

The copyright owner has advised me in writing (29 October 2005) of his withdrawal of this permission and the likelihood of legal action against WP unless they are removed immediately.

Thanks. --Gmaxwell 15:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Maxwell, you don't appear to acknowledge that suitability of a music excerpt involves more than just being free. Much more. No point in putting out-of-tune, poorly judged performances, often on the wrong instruments, which make up many of the free resources available. That is one reason that - if the rules had been followed - I'd be requiring a more detailed debate of just what "replaceability" is for a musical excerpt. I certainly would have used free recordings if they'd been worthwhile, but I'm not going to be party to degrading an article on a great genius that insults his output with amateur performances. But the opposite occurred, with apparent consensus on the talk page at the time: we removed most of the plethora of odd-ball, scrappy, out-of-date recordings that appeared at the bottom of the article under "Media". They were mostly appallingly bad. Explorer's kind offer of a piano rendition is not going to suffice, since the piano didn't exist in the composer's day. The kind of educational support by audio excerpts in a serious article on JS Bach at the very least requires the right instruments. (I do concede that there's a case for using the "wrong" instruments in one or two excerpts at the bottom of the article, but only explicitly to illustrate the use of those instruments, and not as the default educational support of the main text.) I could slam out some good recordings of the composer's music myself, and on the "right" instruments, but to use anything less that a professional standard of recording and sound editing will make WP look amateurish. Better to have none. And I cannot hope to illustrate the core of Bach's output, which involves choir and orchestra. That is why I organised the use, with permission, of the full tracks of choral and orchestral music. Why on earth were they removed? Tony 15:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I have pointed you to the media we have on commons multiple times, are you intentionally ignoring me? You haven't answered my question above about your comments. Please answer. --Gmaxwell 15:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Do not colour your text red on my talk page. Your order that I "answer" you sits oddly when you have failed to answer my central queries concerning your breaching of the seven-day rule. The text you quote is from an extremely abusive RfA in which lies and exaggerations were bandied about by several parties, particularly on the closing day. There has never been doubt about the permission, and it still stands. To repeat myself, the documentation has always been available on requirest. Clearing up such doubts, if they exist, is yet another reason that the seven-day rule should have been obeyed.

I'm well aware of the Italian Concerto recording on the Commons; it's one that we removed from the Media section ?last year by consensus, because it's of such low musical standard. If you want to debate the musical, educational and historical shortcomings of that recording, I'll be pleased to, but not until I return to my own computer in 24 hours' time.

In the meantime, please answer my questions. Tony 16:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

It is your text that is colored and it was colored by you. The text is from the pages of the removed recordings. I even linked to it. Before you claimed that rights were revoked, now you claim they weren't. I don't understand. Please help me understand. Were you being dishonest before?

I have nothing to say about accusations about a "7 day rule", first of all I didn't delete anything, secondly copyright violations are always speedy deletable.

I answered your question with respect to the audio by linking you to the recordings we have. I have answered you over and over again. You ignore my words and respond only with attacks. We have several of high quality and on the correct instruments. Although, even if we didn't that would be no excuse to breach our fundamental mission of free content. Something of an aside, do you have something against Bach's extensive organ repertoire? It's one of the most substantial parts of his work but you have paid it very little attention. --Gmaxwell 16:16, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, Your idea of "removed ... by consensus" is a bit odd. Talk:Johann_Sebastian_Bach/archive_1#Assessment_of_the_sound_excerpts. Your commentary on those recordings was fairly positive until you had non-free recordings you were trying to defend. It's moot in any case, no matter how little you like the recordings we already have or even if we had none at all, the non-free recordings are not allowed by policy. --Gmaxwell 13:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

A rule is a rule, and you've been mixed up in the breaching of it. Nothing you've said about this breach remotely justifies it. I find the rest of your statements tangential, and I certainly believe that the currently worded policy does not support the stance that you and Danny are taking.

I was a professional organist for 30 years. The standard of recordings of Bach's organ repertoire is generally not good. However, I'm willing to audition any that you think are good enough for inclusion in the article.

It looks as though this will have to go to mediation. Tony 12:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Our rule is and has been not to accept non-free content outside of certain limited exceptions which would likely never include audio recordings in this article. You can assert that I was acting at odds for tagging inappropriate content as inappropriate, but that doesn't make it true.

So your claim is that there are no good recordings of Bach's organ repertoire? I'm beginning to wonder if your obviously strong biases have not caused an unreasonable slant in the article. As far as your willingness to audition, see WP:OWN.

Considering your loud complaints about my behavior, perhaps a RFC would be better. --Gmaxwell 13:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Then change the policy so that it supports your contention, from the currently vague, non-specific language. If you're mouthing the establishment interpretation, make "replaceable" and other such words mean something useful. Then this dispute wouldn't have arisen. And give people advance notice and they won't respond with contempt. It's basic politics/psychology.

Because contempt is what I feel for you and your associates now. Tony 14:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

You are the only person I can see right now pushing the notion that policy doesn't support removing these recordings. I wish you would act with a little more kindness. --Gmaxwell 14:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Goodness, it's getting hot in here, isn't it? Since this doesn't seem to be heading anywhere good anytime soon, and since I've already been called "meddlesome" more times than I can recall, I'm going to pipe up with a few comments:

• There can be no doubt that everyone involved here has the long-term good of the project at heart. <Some|None|All> of the parites may be woefully misguided, but no one is trying to screw anything up on purpose.
• Fair use is a thorny question, one that we alternate between over-reacting to and ignoring. I don't see much disagreement on it being complex and subjective.
• An equitable solution is unlikely at the pace we're going now. Descent into acrimony almost certainly precludes a positive outcome.

Is there any way that this can be pulled back from the brink at all? That we can return to discussin it all "hip-hip, I say chap" -like and less "I spit on your grave" -ish?brenneman 15:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Just came over to say thanks for the message. I didn't know you knew GMaxwell and Chairboy, you must be an IRCadmin regular too! Watch old Chairboy though he is a little trigger happy. Regards Giano 14:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Germany

Hi again Tony, thank for the suggestions you presented on the Germany FAC page. I think I've addressed most of your concerns, at least in part. Could you please take another brief look and see if my corrections worked or if there are other major issues with the article. TSO1D 15:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Question on abreviations

I was informed here at Wikipedia that using the abreviation R&B was incorrect when first used in an article, that the first instance must be the complete phrase, rhythm and blues. Today's FA uses R&B immediately. Was I missinformed? (I realise that in most situations, an editor would use the entire name at first mention e.g. Bamako Initiative, not BI.) Sincerely, Mattisse 19:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I must be dense. I don't see it in the opening paragraph before R&B is used. Sincerely, Mattisse 02:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Are we looking at the same version of the article? I don't see that. And "find" doesn't pick it up. Sincerely, Mattisse 03:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, we will have to agree to disagree. It is not a browser cache problem and the first use of rhythm is in the heading several paragraphs below R&B in the article I get when I go to FA (now archived). Sorry! Must be one of those mysterious unexplainable things. But at least we agree in principle. Sincerely, Mattisse 03:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

(copy of opening sentence) Salsa music is a diverse and predominantly Spanish Caribbean genre that is popular across Latin America and among Latinos abroad. That is where R&B is spelled out? (Not to harass you.) Eye movements -- there is an article in the wikify backlog on that subject -- not a very good one. I was going to pass it on to you but I lost track. It's an interesting subject because of the left brain plus right brain combo. (O.K, now I get it. You are talking about the R&B article, not the FA article of yesterday, Salsa music.) Sincerely, Mattisse 03:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Eye movements

I'm not surprised it is poorly treated. Everything psychological is poorly treated here. Eye movements reading music is more complex than the average topic in psychology, although at least an article on the subject could be based on research. I have good knowledge of the field of psychology and neuropsychology but I had never thought about eye movements in reading music before encountering your page. It is intriguing. Sincerely, Mattisse 04:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

"as follows" versus "as follow"

Tony, you are going against the established form. The American Heritage Dictionary lists the definition of "as follows", but does not list "as follow". The Usage Note[4] advocates the former usage over the latter, regardless of number. To most ears, "as follows" sounds more agreeable than "as follow". Rintrah 13:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)