User talk:Tony1/Archive13/Archive 13 (29 April – 7 June 2008)

Request for checkuser

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:DavidPaulHamilton, a discussion that has turned onto discussing you and the related Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Tony1. Just to let you know. Hope all is good. Regards. Woody (talk) 22:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Get your popcorn: free movies !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Yup, another witch-hunt beat-up based on dishonest muchraking. I turn my back. Tony (talk) 14:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: As of

My reply. -- Ned Scott 05:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

MESSNUM

My sense is you're having a negative reaction because it seems like a whole lot of discussion without any useful outcome in sight; I'm having a positive reaction because of the new blood and cordiality, which I think, if it prospers, might lead to less work for you and me in the long run and better results. I'm not sure how to figure out which of us is right. See my last message; I'm going to see if any of the new blood is interested in doing leg work and sourcing their preferences, that's probably a good test. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 12:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your work at FAC during April

		The Content Review Medal of Merit
		To Tony1, For your exceptional reviews of 56 Featured article candidates during the month of April, the FAC community and I thank you for being one of the top reviewers this month and for your dedication to helping assure that only Wiki's finest prose and style are recognized on the Main Page.[1] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The Old Country

Hi Tony - I know sod all bout "hypotactic and paratactic clauses" but have gone over ye olde Timeline of prehistoric Scotland (nom) a few times and addressed the issues you raise as best I can. Any further comments gratefully received.

I'm sure you will have seen my comments on SandyGeorgia's talk page re the 'Monthly updates of styleguide' - its a fine and long overdue contribution. Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 08:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

File:Neanderthal 2D.jpg		The WikiProject Scotland Award of Excellence
		This award is given with many thanks to Tony for assistance in helping Timeline of prehistoric Scotland to become a Featured List from Ben MacDui, 4 May 2008.

FLC Comments

I believe I have addressed your comments on the EA acquisitions FLC. Hello32020 (talk) 12:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I've expanded the lead of the list, what do you think? Hello32020 (talk) 01:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I used the main article's sources to add practices by EA, the other sources have some more examples of how EA uses new companies to explore new fields, but that would be excessive IMO. Hello32020 (talk) 03:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Jack Kemp FAC

Would you be so kind as to either strikethrough or

Hide Tony1

resolved content

Also, if my extensive re-editing has moved you to the fence or over it please update your stance.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your time. I could not muster enough consensus and the article is now at Wikipedia:Peer review/Jack Kemp/archive1. Feel free to come and comment.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Zinta FAC

Hello Tony. Thanks for the comments on the above-mentioned FAC. Since your last visit, the article has been copyedited by an un-involved copyeditor, and most of your comments have been addressed. For other comments which I didn't understand, I need your guidance. Could you please have a look?

Regards, Shahid • ^Talk2me 15:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

1995 Japanese Grand Prix FAC

Hi Tony1. A comment left at the above FAC suggested that I ask someone to do a "comma check" at the 1995 Japanese Grand Prix, as according to the user, there are "a number of extraneous commas" in the article.

As you know the MoS very well, and as you are very good at that kind of stuff, I was wondering whether you could do a quick comma check at that article for me. Much appreciated, D.M.N. (talk) 15:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Article in need of FAR?

I came across Menstrual cycle; it is an FA but I don't think should be one and that it should instead be taken to FAR. What are your thoughts? Also, could you possibly take it to someone who knows the process better than I do? I'd rather not spend time with it, but figured I would at least bring it to the attention of someone and then let it go from there. Cheers. Gary King (talk) 02:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess

Hey, I copyedited The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess. Please review my changes here when you have time; I spent quite a bit of time on it and would appreciate it if you could at least look at my changes and tell me if I'm doing something right or wrong for future reference, so I don't make the same mistake twice. I would enjoy it if you could criticize my copyediting so I can eventually bring it up to snuff. Cheers! Gary King (talk) 07:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Your concerns have been addressed at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of acquisitions by Yahoo!. Gary King (talk) 18:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

RE:Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Green Bay Packers Hall of Fame

I have addressed your concerns, answered your questions, and asked a question of my own. Any additional comments are welcome and would be appreciated. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 09:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I also want to point out that I am going to bed right now, so any comments or concerns you may have will be addressed tomorrow. Thanks again for the review. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 09:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Just a friendly note to let you know that I am awaiting your response. Thanks again for your review. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 09:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I addressed your last few comments, thanks for the review. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 19:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Overlinking in FL

I am interested on your thoughts about the overlinking of lists given the revised criteria being developed. I have an FLC up at the moment List of Victoria Cross recipients of the Indian Army (FLC here) which has objections per the linking. Do you think that it is overlinked? Would it be covered by the new criteria do you think? Woody (talk) 11:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

May 5 Dispatch

Tony, can you tune in to Wikipedia talk:Featured content dispatch workshop#May 5? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Dash discussions

I think I've demonstrated that I'm perfectly willing to smack anyone who demeans MoS and its editors; if anyone tries to jump on an anti-dash, anti-MoS "bandwagon", I'll deal with that when it happens. You also know, I think, that I value your opinions on style, language and formatting in Wikipedia above my own.

All I'm saying is that we have to be careful. I've seen numerous comments at GAN, some of which are documented at WT:GAU, objecting to swapping in en-dashes or no-break spaces. I support the MoS dash rules, and MoS rules in general, for FAs and GAs, certainly. I worry that bot-forcing any MoS guidelines that aren't well-understood and well-received on all 2.3 million articles will promote an unfair view of all MoS editors as "officious". I've become more aware recently that there are a lot of people out there who are angry at Wikipedia for a variety of reasons, and who spend their days looking for "officiousness" that they can turn against hard-working Wikipedians; I don't want to give them ammunition. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 16:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

RE: Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Sydney International Piano Competition

Hi there Tony1,

The nominator has replied to your comments there, just thought that I would let you know!

Have a nice day!

The Helpful One ^(Review) 17:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Preity Zinta

Has been copyedited by Scartol; pls revisit Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Preity Zinta when you have time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Tony, have you had a chance to revisit Preity? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess

Fair use images all sorted now I think - one image gone, the other two captions/text improved; I'm still not totally convinced about the wolf one, but it's good enough, I think. Black Kite 20:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Dirty Dancing

I'm going to try and take Dirty Dancing to FA again... Since you were one of the principal opposers, I thought I'd check with you, what do you think? --Elonka 13:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I've obviously read and re-read and re-read the thing several times, so evidently my idea of "what's good" doesn't match with some of the other FA reviewers (which surprises me, because in the corporate world, everyone praises me as the best copyeditor they know, and I'm the senior editor on various industry white papers). In any case, if that's not good enough for Wikipedia, so be it. I've asked several other people to go through the article, and even Ealdgyth has done a complete pass. Who else should I ask? --Elonka 14:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Jbmurray (talk · contribs), BuddingJournalist (talk · contribs) or Laser brain (talk · contribs), and allow them time to work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Note that I'm only an indifferent copyeditor. Even I get someone else to go through my stuff before FAC. (I write like an academic, very wordy). Ealdgyth - Talk 14:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Sandy, thanks for the names, I've left them some notes. I have to admit that my frustration level is pretty high on this, especially as I see each newspaper article about Swayze's declining health (he has said goodbye to his wife, and written a living will). I've tried editing the article, going through Tony's exercises, groveling for peer reviews and copyediting, and even just setting the article aside for a couple weeks and then coming back "fresh", but it seems as though "Elonka's best" is never going to be good enough for Wikipedia. :/ --Elonka 15:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, Swayze's ill? I didn't know that. I'm sorry about the difficulty of securing copy-editing. It's a systemic problem on WP. I get too close to my own text and have to find others to review it. Tony (talk) 15:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I find people are usually willing to help out when their efforts are recognized and appreciated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

May 5 Dispatch

Wikipedia:FCDW/May 5, 2008, Featured content at schools and universities. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Tony, can you help with images there, or at least, the one image caption, something catchy? FAC is lagging: there are only four reviews I can close. We need reviews. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Images at GAC

Since a number of articles are arriving at FA and failing NFCC, I had a look at the GAC conditions. And, well ... Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_criteria#Non-free_images. Black Kite 18:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Japanese characters in leads

Tony, I sense that this may have been debated ad nauseum in the past, but why are we putting Japanese characters in articles? See opening sentence of The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess for example. I commented on it at the article's FAC and my concern was summarily dismissed with a "the others are doing it" argument. --Laser brain (talk) 18:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Here is the policy on it: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Article_guidelines#Japanese_and_other_foreign_titles Gary King (talk) 00:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Ocarina of Time FAC

It's been a few days since I responded to your comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time, and I'd appreciate it if you could let me know if your uneasiness level has changed. Pagrashtak 23:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

for the kinds words. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 04:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Unclear?

Tony, thanks for your work. Can you help me here on the inline comment? I'm not sure I see what's unclear. Thanks again. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 04:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

And ... a catchy image caption. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

FL criteria

There are aspects of the criteria (notable, factually accurate, neutral, MOS) that are fully covered by policy and guidelines. At FL, those aspects should be scrutinised and should naturally rise above the low standard elsewhere. Other aspects of a high quality list are not covered by existing policy and guidelines: comprehensive, well structured, stable, appropriate images. It is useful to mention them as prompts for reviewers to consider, and to establish some consensus as to the level required. To those, I'd argue that blue-linked list entries is another requirement that raises an FL above any old compliant list. Ignoring the oddball timelines and bibliographies, nearly all "useful" featured lists on WP have a blue link per list entry (or close). Too many redlinks (or not enough links at all) is still a relatively common complained at FL. List of ammonites is an extreme example. Underlinking doesn't help Wikipedia and too many redlinks makes the article look unfinished. I think FLs (and FAs) should look finished. Another list-specific failing we sometimes see is where a list (usually in table format) is annotated with information for only some of the entries. Without good reason, such tables also look unfinished and could be improved with effort (though sometimes the sources just don't permit). You say "Overlinking" is a problem. I can see that with the prose bits, but is this common for the tables?

You can copy this to the FL discussion page if you want. I'm rather hoping that some other folk (potential directors?) have a say, rather than the two of us. Colin°^Talk 12:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Re:Vandal

I asked an admin to handle User talk:Miffyandfrends. Regards. Oda Mari (talk) 15:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Requesting an opinion

Tony, I appreciate that you're busy, but still wonder if you can find a minute to look at an article, Aeneas Mackintosh, that's been on FAC for six days now. It's gained one support and a couple of resolved comments, but otherwise there seems to be indifference, unlike with its peer review which was quite busy. I'd like to know - is the article OK? Is it boring? Can it be made less so? Incidentally there is an Australian angle, mainly through the involvement of Dick Richards GC. I quite understand if you haven't time, but it would be nice to hear from you. Brianboulton (talk) 10:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I've revised the final para of the lead, where most of your points occurred. Am looking closely at the rest of the text. Brianboulton (talk) 12:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Hint

It's a plain user with no privileges. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.218.36.7 (talk) 18:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Preity Zinta

I began copy editing the first few sections the other day which you may have noticed. Tomorrow I'll try to make it a priority to improve the rest. If there is still a problem when I've completely done what I can please let me know. Give the article a fews days thats all ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 21:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

FLC feedback

Hi Tony, as always, thanks for the comments on this FLC. I was wondering if you could revisit the list when you have time and respond to my reply, when you have the time of course. Thanks again and regards. Woody (talk) 13:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

May 12 Dispatch

And now on to Wikipedia:FCDW/May 12, 2008, May 12 Dispatch, to cover new directors, general FL issues, etc. They never publish on time; it should be ready by the 13th, I've asked Scorpion and Woody to start throwing some text in there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments on the MoS

Hi Tony! Just thought I'd pop in and tell you that I replied to your comments on the MoS. Also, perhaps you could give me a few pointers as to how to improve my writing? With your expertise I would imagine such comments quite helpful. In any event, I hope I didn't come off as arrogant or anything of that nature. Cheers!--Liempt (talk) 10:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Well Tony, the reason I decided to make a long "song and dance" is because I believe strongly on the issue, and I'm a mathematician. I'm accustomed to having my claims examined under scrutiny and I'm accustomed to trying to use logic, as best I can, to convince other people of my opinion. On the other hand, I'm open to people using logic to convince me of theirs. Further, as you can probably tell, I feel strongly about the issue. I honestly and completely believe that singular they is abhorrent, for all the reasons I listed in the Manual of Style's talk page article.

As for my argument, I'll say for the record that there is nothing inherently wrong with such words as "firefighter", but to my ears they sound awkward. I suppose it's because we're a product of our environment. To answer your question, no, I'll not start a war over anything. I've presented my opinion in an attempt to show the Wikipedia community how I see it; if they decide that I'm wrong, that's their right and I'll accept it as gracefully as I can. I'm a little bit surprised that you would accuse me of rallying to my supporters as I don't think I've done anything to induce that accusation. To be frank, I have no supporters and I said nothing of this except boldly putting the appropriate links in the appropriate places to get the community's opinion.

Finally, I wrote a lot of text as I expected a great deal of resistance and thought I'd set my opinion in stone beforehand, that way my whole argument would be there for all to see, and the template was simply so readers would know that text is contested. I believe (I could be wrong here) that it's standard practice for an editor to label things he finds inaccurate/in violation of NPOV/etc. . . with the appropriate template when he finds them. In any event, I'm sorry if I came off egotistical. I'm just trying to help out the project in my own way.--Liempt (talk) 11:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm interested to find out what your response is to my fourth point in the MoS page, as it deals specifically with the issue of offensiveness (See now why I wrote it all in advance?). Further, as demonstrated by my second point, whether it is offensive or not is really irrelevant to the issue. There are lots of portions of Wikipedia's policy that are offensive to lots of people, like my two specific examples on the talk page, or how it allows nude photos and so forth. My opinion is that it's only offensive because people want to believe it's offensive, as it's nothing but an inherent construct of grammar. --Liempt (talk) 11:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, Tony, I'd like to point out that I'm not against pluralizing where appropriate so as to avoid the gendered pronoun altogether as you did on my talk page. That's not an issue to me, in fact, I condone it where appropriate (not to say one should go out of ones way to do it). My concerns are for instances where pluralizing is impractical or creates poor prose, which is to say, situations where it is far more convenient to use the singular. Further, I'm not advocating framing women as men by using male pronouns when the subject's gender is known. I'm simply saying that going out of our way to avoid offending people is not what Wikipedia should do. To me, it's censorship.

Specifically, I'm speaking out against the avoidance of perfectly legitimate words like "chairman" and also against the usage of either the awkward "he or she" or singular they. In summary, my complaint is that we're throwing away a thousand years or more of linguistic tradition just so we can advance an agenda. That seems wrong to me. --Liempt (talk) 12:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, Tony, I'll do just that, and I'd like to thank you for brightening up my evening with a good debate! In any event, I'd like to get my final word in. Your last response demonstrates quite explicitly that this is a political thing. More than anything else this is what I object to. We're suggesting users go out of their way to accommodate a specific group. This occurs no where else in the project and is censorship. Anyway, I've said my spiel, and I'd love to continue arguing about this, but I'll leave you in peace for the time being. Have a good one!--Liempt (talk) 12:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Dispatches pictures

I noticed the note you left on Ral's talk page about the Dispatches pictures he removed. I do agree with you that the article was nicer with the pictures, but I also enjoy reading the stuff you've written. You might object to Ral's editing, but he is the editor and has done this elsewhere. Please don't stop writing for the Signpost over something like this. Carcharoth (talk) 11:28, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, no reason to ration use of Commons images. I think the idea is that Commons images can be used for more than just encyclopedic purposes. They can be used on Wikinews and other projects as well, so using them as "stock" images to tangentially illustrate newsletter articles is perfectly OK. See stock photography. "Publishers, advertising agencies, graphic artists, and others use stock photography to fulfill the needs of their creative assignments." That is precisely what you were doing. Nothing wrong with that. Just seems like a lack of communication between writer and editor. One thing to remember is that Ral may have been rushing to get this week's Signpost out - it was late last week and the previous week, and the next issue is scheduled for 12th May. But as you said, it really depends on his response, so I'll stop here and let you wait to hear from him. Carcharoth (talk) 13:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I removed them because I felt they weren't too strongly related to the article, and personally, I feel that stock photos can clutter an article. I've added back the images, at least for this week, and if you're interested, we can discuss the use of stock photos in future issues here. In any event, I hope you didn't take my removal of those images personally; honestly, with all the hubbub about the NYB story, I didn't do much editing, and didn't notice the pencil sharpener image from last week's dispatches. If I had, I would have probably removed that as well. Ral315 (talk) 17:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:FLRC

Hi. I've left a message with both Scorpion and TRM saying I'm interested, but I'd prefer some kind of process, perhaps an opportunity for people to voice dissatisfaction, rather than a vote or !vote. I'm so bedded into consensual working here that I'm uncomfortable steaming in because Scorpion and TRM thought it a good idea. I note that there's only 1 article currently undergoing the process and Matthew is heavily involved with it... and he's apparently away for a week or so.

I suggest it gets parked for a week? --Dweller (talk) 14:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Tony, just so you know, Rambling Man and I have decided to hold off on an official announcement until Matthewedwards gets back. You can remove the bit in the signpost article if you like (although it is accurate - they have only been asked at this point). -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 14:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1995 Japanese Grand Prix

Hi Tony. I replied to your comment at the above FAC. Please reply back. Thanks, D.M.N. (talk) 17:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Jbm

I know your workload is high right now, so you don't need to reply, but just to say that I loved your efficient and effective four word support at Jbm's RfA. We need more like him indeed! And I surely need copyeditors to reduce my multiple sentences to four words ("LOL, spot-on Jbm support"? :) Geometry guy 20:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Gilberto Gil ping

Massaging has been completed on the Gilberto Gil FAC (see here) as far as I can see. Please make note of any outstanding issues as possible, though RL certainly takes priority. (: --Kakofonous (talk)

Species names

I see you are busy both here and elsewhere, so please treat this as non-urgent. I recently asked your Aussie colleagues what they do about the MOS mess on species capitalisations here. Perhaps sensibly they seem to be cheerfully ignoring the problem, my description of which and proposed solution for are here. My preferred solution would be a credible MOS policy on the whole subject, but that seems unlikely. Comments welcome, preferably on the associated talk page, from both yourself or any passers-by with an interest in the subject. Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 08:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Date formats

I recently had a discussion with SandyGeorgia about date formats with the suggestion that I contact you for your opinion.

The discussion centered around Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Autoformatting and linking, which I (and others) have interpreted as meaning that dates should be wikilinked so that each user sees dates in the date format specified in their preferences. (Note: The comma in the date is optional; it is automatically added if needed for the date format preference.) Many articles follow this convention, including WP:MOSDATE itself. I am a WikiGnome and have updated many articles to wikilink dates according to the guideline. The question is: should the dates be changed or should they be left alone in whatever format they are in? Your comments are appreciated. Thanks. Truthanado (talk) 16:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Tony, context is here and here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

It's quite clear in MOSNUM that there's nothing at all mandatory about the autodudding of full dates. I strongly discourage the practice wherever I can, for a whole bunch of reasons that have been aired countless times. Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Autoformatting_and_linking Tony (talk) 16:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I understand it is not mandatory. I was under the belief that it was a reasonable thing to do so that user date preferences have meaning. It appears that I am mistaken. Could you please point me at (some of) the "reasons that have been aired countless times" so that I may be properly educated. Thanks. Truthanado (talk) 22:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

In the MOSNUM talk archives and/or the MOS talk archives. Here's just one; there's a much more recent one that brings up the problem of the concealment of inconsistencies in raw date formats, which are visible to all but the tiny proportion of readers who are registered and logged in. Tony (talk) 12:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks!

		RfA: Many thanks
		Many thanks for your participation in my recent request for adminship. I am impressed by the amount of thought that goes into people's contribution to the RfA process, and humbled that so many have chosen to trust me with this new responsibility. I step into this new role cautiously, but will do my very best to live up to your kind words and expectations, and to further the project of the encyclopedia. Again, thank you. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 06:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Seinfeld (season 1)

I don't understand one of the comments you posted on this FLC. could you please explain more? --Gman124 ^talk 19:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Donald Bradman

Would you mind casting a quick eye over this article, prior to my planned run at FAC?

It's had copyedits from 3 editors, 2 of whom were not associated with its editing.

Criticisms I'm prepared for are:

• It's too long
• Too many subsections

I'm happy to defend both accusations, although I guess I can't win everyone over.

Issues I'm worried about:

• It's hagiography
• It doesn't flow
• It's impenetrable, due to excessive cricket jargon

I've tried my best to tackle these and I really hope I've succeeded. Would value your opinion, either here, on my talk, or at its PR. Cheers muchly and no mad rush - I can see you're busy. --Dweller (talk) 10:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

That'd be great. --Dweller (talk) 11:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

If you don't have time today, please don't worry, as I've quite a bit of work to do from comments already at the PR and I'm unlikely to finish them before Tuesday lunchtime, GMT+1. I'm very keen to hear from you on the three points I mention above, and I'm more than happy to delay going to FAC until you've found the time to give it a decent look. While there's usually no deadline, there is a sort of deadline with this, as I plan to lobby for a mainpage appearance on Bradman's hundredth birthday, but that's at the end of August, so we're still in good time, even if PR/FAC bring up loads of work to be done. --Dweller (talk) 13:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Dispatch image question

... at User talk:Elcobbola#Dispatch image question. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Greenbox

There's been a Complete rewrite of section 4 (greenbox) of the MOSNUM in the last few days. Could you give feedback and vote?

While your at it, check out the bluebox and purplebox proposals.

Thanks. Headbomb (ταλκ · κοντριβς) 02:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

June 2 Dispatch

Tony, I'm going to be traveling at the end of the month, and have to get Wikipedia:FCDW/June 2, 2008 dealt with in advance. They're going out invariably three days late, so it will be more like June 5; can you use it for your monthly updates, to combine coverage of April and May changes, linking to your earlier Jan thru March? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:30, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I would think the format would be similar to the last one, which covered three months. I'm still unsure if we should aim for monthly or quarterly, but May was busy. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:18, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we do need to do those interviews; I'm just always so busy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

FYI, have now watchlisted that redlink. So feel free to call on me. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 04:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Tony, pls don't worry about it being a rush; I've noticed that the Signpost is routinely three days late. As long as you have something up by the 2nd, you still have time to tweak. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Tony, for coming through in a pinch. I added the 26th to the Templates: [2] [3] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of HIV-positive people

Hi, any objections if I contact the nominaters of List of brain tumor patients and List of polio survivors? They might agree with me and I don't want to canvas but since the same objection apply to their featured lists it would be good if they participate. Garion96 (talk) 17:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem; I do think the boundaries of such lists are problematic in terms of Criterion 3. Tony (talk) 02:24, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

PS Except that HIV has the additional problem (like diabetes) in its explicit knowledge by only a low proportion of those who have it. Tony (talk) 02:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

centuries

Tony, you're the man on the MoS... I was editing King Arthur, and laboriously changed all instances of centuries: 5th to fifth, 12th to twelfth and so on. My changes were reverted, and I was surprised to see that the MoS in fact mandates the former style over the latter (numerals over words). I find this odd, and out of line with, for instance, the MLA which says "spell out centuries in lower case letters." Is it worth trying to change the MoS? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I had anything to do with that discussion at MOS, but I think I entirely agree, even—as an exception—for single-digit centuries. The number is embedded in a standardised item "..th century", and thus is highly recognisable and easier to read, to me; not at the start of a sentence, though (I hope that's clear in MOS).

I'll ask Noetica, who's riding down the valley, fast approaching. He was more connected with this guideline. Tony (talk) 02:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

OK. It's no biggie, but I was (as I say) a little surprised. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 02:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Tense for written work

For a biographical article, if the person has written something, do we refer to the written work in present or past tense? For instance, "John Smith (1900–1950) writes in Book X that this is true" or "John Smith (1900–1950) wrote in Book X that this was true"? Gary King (talk) 01:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll jump in here: with rare exceptions (e.g. when your focus is on the writing as a historical event), use the present tense. So, for instance, "Smith wrote Blah in 1862." But "In Blah, Smith writes that..." HTH. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 01:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that's what I thought, because when I read it back to myself, I feel like the words are immortalized in the work so it should be present. Gary King (talk) 01:54, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thanks JB. Tense is at its trickiest when reporting the experimental process and universal/not-universal results of one's own and other people's work. Ouch. Tony (talk) 02:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

Do you have any evidence to contribute to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Fnagaton? User:Shalom isn't even convinced that DavidPaulHamilton is a sock. To me, this is plain as day. — Omegatron (talk) 19:32, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

On a related point, you guys may wish to my comments about MOSNUM at User_talk:Lightmouse#Greenbox. Lightmouse (talk) 19:48, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

It's as plain as day that Hamilton is just Fnagaton; if he wasn't able to get away with it, this would be extremely childish. But he can get away with it, because it's so hard to acquire solid evidence. Tony (talk) 03:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Out of line

Edit summaries like these and the comments therein are out of line. Nominators shouldn't be dicks to those who are patient enough to actually review articles, but on the other hand you shouldn't be haphazardly trashing the work of others. It doesn't build respect for reviewers or the entire FAC process. Yes, FACs aren't supposed to be peer reviews, but since the LoCE died, there are no real project-wide outlets for improving; editors have to learn from their mistakes one way or another. We can't all be as wonderful writers as you, Tony, but on the other hand, I don't see you writing many FAs either, so next time think before you call others work trash. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 19:54, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

But it is trash, and your threats won't change what I said about it. Tony (talk) 03:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

However, I do partially apologise for over-reacting, here and in my edit summary. Tony (talk) 07:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Prose woes

It seems the gaming FACs need additional copy-editors. Hmm...should I risk returning even part-time? I can't stand the endless, circular debates. — Deckiller 03:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

FAC update

Hi Tony. I've made some tweaks to the things that you mentioned. Are you still waiting for another copyediting set? Also is it just me or does this not pass 1a at all. Thanks. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Dashes/colons

As a purely visual matter, I would prefer colons even if it means a double set. It's no big thing though. Perhaps get a third opinion? Marskell (talk) 13:56, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, we could try it with commas. "well-written, with engaging, even brilliant prose of a professional standard." That might get loopy though.Marskell (talk) 14:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Excuse this intrusion from the peanut gallery, but why not colons and semi-colons?

It is: ¶ (a) well-written; its prose is engaging... Pinkville (talk) 14:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

As long as your workload is at 3

...I'm going to drop by for FAC language advice. I just noticed your copyedit at WP:MOS, "Unlike normal spaces, browsers do not compress...". Can I count on that construction being okay at the FAC level? I think I see the logic, and I agree that it's widely accepted these days, but I just want to make sure because I got wrist-slaps for that kind of thing 20 years ago, i.e. not leading with what "normal spaces" modifies. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 15:38, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

May 26 Dispatch

They're always three days late, so as long as they know it's coming you should be OK. Wow, last time I'll count on someone outside our regular circle. WP:FCDW/May 26, 2008, and be sure to link it in at {{FCDW}} and {{FCDW/T}}, and the newsroom. Thanks, Tony! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Tony, it's hard for me to follow this while I'm traveling, but I actually don't know what you've done here. I went to link these to the templates myself, because that wasn't done, [4] [5] but now I'm seeing something off. The article is still at WP:FCDW/May 26, 2008, where it should be since the Signpost hasn't yet been publihsed, but it appears that you've created another article at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-05-26/Dispatches. I don't know what Ral315 is going tot make of that (he moves them from the temp file when he publishes to the permanant file), and I think it means that our versions in our two templates are no longer in agreement. I don't have easy access here, so I'm not sure what to do, but the instructions for our process are at WP:FCDW; we're supposed to create the article in our temp file, link it to the newsroom, and Ral moves it to the perm file when he publishes. I don't know where we are now or how to fix it. I was hoping Jbmurray was watching over this; now someone with admin tools may need to get everything back in the right place. Please check both of our templates to see which is the correct version and why we have two articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea how to do it, and I can't make sense of exactly what the instructions there say to do. Tony (talk) 02:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

You write the article in the temp file, you post the temp file to the newsroom, and you add the title to our templates. That's all we do. Ral moves it to the Signpost and publishes. We need admin tools now to merge and correct this, because other editors continued to edit the temp file. Can I ask Gimmetrow to fix it? The Signpost version needs to be deleted; it's FUBAR and I don't know what to do know, but I haven't slept for almost 24 hours, so I'm a bit rum-dummy frustrated here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

You need to spell it out for me. First, which one is the "temp file"? Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2008-05-26/Dispatches? How do you post a file to a newsroom? Surely you don't mean to paste it in there ... Adding the title to "our templates" eludes me too. Am I being dumb? Probably, but I think you need to explain to in very simple terms, not wordy, but just exactly what you do where, explicitly. I had a patent on computer software, and I still can't understand what to do. Tony (talk) 02:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC) And this FCDW/T thing: what is it? Tony (talk) 02:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC) Please ask Gimmetrow. And can we fix the instructions so that anyone can understand? Very frustrating. Tony (talk) 02:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

We write the article at WP:FCDW/May 26, 2008 (see the instructions at WP:FCDW). We post that that to the newsroom (see instructions at WP:FCDW). Ral moves them to the Signpost file when he publishes; that's the part where he comes in as the editor of the Signpost; we don't write directly on the Signpost. It's already posted to the newsroom; you added a note there under my note where I posted it befoer I left. I don't know, I'm too tired, the steps are all there, I haven't slept for 24 hours and I'm ill and exhausted. I don't know how to fix it now because they need to be merged per GFDL; you have two files with subsequent edits by different editors whose contributions have to be recognized correctly for GFDL, yet me need to db-author the incorrect Signpost file to get rid of it, so I don't know how to fix it. Please see the instructions at WP:FCDW when I'm not so tired and exhausted and feeling ill and working on a bad connection :-(( Doctors app't as soon as I home, but these damn Dispatches are really getting to me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I left a note for Gimmetrow, he'll understand, I'm too tired to sort it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

It's the instructions at FCDW that are the problem. Incomprehensible. I'm not tired, but have just reached a dead-end in knowing what to do. Tony (talk) 02:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry, Gimmetrow will fix it; we'll sort it when I'm home. If you can fix the instructions in the meantime, be bold. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Natalee Holloway

After a bit of a search, we finally found fresh eyes to polish the language on the Holloway article. Miranda (talk · contribs) gave us the independent copyedit you suggested, and I hope this has addressed your 1a related concerns. When you get a chance, please check back in with us and let us know the status of your oppose. Thanks, - auburnpilot talk 13:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Copyedited; pls revisit when you get a chance, no hurry. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Bradman

Hi Tony. Thanks for the thoughtful comments. I'm quite busy IRL, so it'll take me some time to finish the current PR comments, but then I'll get to yours. Cheers. --Dweller (talk) 13:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

FSC in signpost

Hiya mate, got your message, sorry i didn't reply, iv had a hectic RL day. Would i still be of any use to you? The problem with FSC is that its dead :P ŠξÞÞøΛ ^talk 16:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Yer that very true. Iv been trying to get involvement, posting at community notice board, posting on IRC, and posting at various talk pages. Ill keep an eye on the FSC talk page ŠξÞÞøΛ ^talk 16:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

FLC

Thanks. Yeah, it looks a lot better. Only reason I took out "for edits made" was because it had been removed from WIAFA. — Deckiller 16:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

FPC

Ah, the only major change I made was that I turned the first two criteria into a small lead section (sort of like how the other criteria pages are set up). I also combined the last two bullets, but that's pretty much it. — Deckiller 16:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

"Captain Marvel is a fictional comic book superhero..."

Hi.

Could you share your opinion on the first sentence of Captain Marvel? I think fictional is unnecessary --there are no real superheros, after all-- but others disagree with me, saying that it's standard for articles on fictional topics. What do you think? Awbizkomeydownstar (talk) 23:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

And what do you make of the first sentence of this article? Could we drop fictional there? "Recurring character" seems sufficient, but others insist on keeping fictional. Thanks! Awbizkomeydownstar (talk) 00:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks for your thoughts! Awbizkomeydownstar (talk) 17:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

		What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
		For noticing the problems with the Featured list criteria and working with the participants to construct clear and concise ones. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 06:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi

I'm finally beginning to make some headway at Bradman's PR. I'd like to bowdlerise (sp?) User_talk:Dweller#Bradman to the relevant PR. I hope you don't mind. Please keep an eye on the PR a) in case you feel I miscontrue your comments and b) for my (eventual) responses. --Dweller (talk) 10:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Dispatch

Wikipedia:FCDW/June 9, 2008 - not done yet but feel free to tinker. --Laser brain (talk) 19:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

It needs to delve into a serious discussion about notability in relation to FAs ... any article that is notable can become featurd, any article that is featured is eligible for mainpage. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Bradman

I've responded to most of the issues at the PR, except the two most thorny ones. I have also name-dropped you here. Feel free to join in (!) but please especially ensure that I've not misrepresented your opinion. --Dweller (talk) 15:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The FA-Team

Hi. There has been some discussion of how to improve the FA-Team's functioning. It's be grand if you could comment on the new suggested structure, and perhaps also look at our current proposals. Thanks. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 18:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

MOSNUM

Hi Tony. We miss your contributions at MOSNUM. I understand the reasons for your absence, but it makes for tough going out there when the voices of reason are chased away - it gives the impression that the extremists' views are representative. Please consider paying us a visit. Thanks, Thunderbird2 (talk) 12:40, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

SummerSlam (2007)

I believe I've covered everything in its FAC. Thank you very much for all your comments. –Cheers, LAX 13:25, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Brian Horrocks

I have made an effort to address your comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Brian Horrocks. If you have the time, I'd be grateful if you could give it another review to see if I have met your standards. Thanks. Leithp 06:50, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

MOSNUM: 'prefers' versus 'rarely uses'

Hi Tony,

I notice that you changed the section about scientific units. The term 'prefers' could be taken to mean a simple majority. For example, a domain may quote angstroms for 51% of references and nanometres for 49% of references. Using the 'follow current literature' approach, a simple majority would mean that 100% of Wikipedia articles for that domain must use angstroms. Thus Wikipedia could be more anti-SI than the domain itself.

As I understand it, the argument for including a test of 'literature' has been to avoid Wikipedia using unfamiliar or confusing terms. If domain experts do indeed use SI units, albeit at a prevelance less then 51%, it would be difficult to claim that SI is unfamiliar to confusing to domain experts. Thus I think the term rarely used is more appropriate. Lightmouse (talk) 10:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Featured list removal candidates

Just wanted to say that I hope you don't think that I was saying you were sticking your nose in. I certainly wasn't, although my initial response regarding WP:WIAFL here wasn't that nice, so my apologies for that. :( -- Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 17:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Riven

I contacted two other editors who have gone through and done their best to copyedit. I would appreciate it if you looked over the article again. Thanks, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 14:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

MoS and tables of contents

Hi Tony - I am working with User:Vintagekits to prepare Michael Gomez for FAC, and one concern I have is the size of the table of contents. I haven't been able to find anything in the MoS about dealing with long TOCs, but it's quite possible I've been looking in the wrong place. Would you have any generic suggestions or, alternately, could you point me in the right direction? Thanks. Risker (talk) 14:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for those suggestions, Tony. I'll work to incorporate them later tonight when I finally get on my "real" computer. Risker (talk) 17:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Linking to images

Use a colon before the image name to link to them, like so: Image:Stereo-pak advertisement.jpg. (Edit this comment to see the code.) Gary King (talk) 17:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Or do this [[:Image:Stereo-pak advertisement.jpg]] to show the wiki-markup. Carcharoth (talk) 17:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

FAC followup

Tony, you have some outstanding opposes at the bottom of FAC; I'm hoping to close some when I'm home tomorrow (the Viet Nam and Anna Wong articles come to mind, but there may be others). Can you revisit when you get a chance? Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I've done another round of copyediting. Can you take a look to see if I've imporved things at all? Thanks, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: linking

Thank you for the compliment. MOSNUM is rather vague - not very useful actually. I personally think full dates should be linked, at least in the PB100 article, for consistency. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 14:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry

Problems at home and with wiki-drama have slowed me down; I'll get to the archiving chore as soon as I can. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 16:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Benjamin Franklin Tilley

I've made some changes to my article to work with your comments. When you get a chance can you please take a look and let me know if there are any further improvements which should be made? JRP (talk) 00:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Emmy Noether

Tony, thanks for your comment about overlinking – I think that's been a result of having so many different folks working on the article. I'll take a look today and work on it. In the meantime, I wonder if you agree with the comment at FAC that it needs a copyedit. I have a lot of respect for your opinion, and while I feel that the prose is of high quality, I'm obviously not an unbiased party. =) Any thoughts you can share would be appreciated. – Scartol • Tok 14:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Doggystyle

Well, here's the answer: I personally disagree with you and the other reviewers. If you felt that my rationale for supporting the FAC was unclear, well, sorry. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 06:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC))

Hmmm: cogent. Tony (talk) 09:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Communism

Any thoughts on Communism as a proper noun? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 08:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:Main page day.png

Hi Tony. Wikipedia screenshots need only be tagged as non-free if they show some Wikimedia logo, or part of a copyrighted interface (e.g. the Windows taskbar). Images such as the above can be tagged with {{wikipedia-screenshot}} and nothing else. Hoping all is well, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

All is prob'ly well

John had a nasty fall a couple of weeks ago and is still having vision problems, but the doctor says it will clear up on its own in a couple of weeks, so we're prob'ly out of the woods. Thanks for your concern. I'll go have a look at the archiving. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 18:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

VNQDD

Hi Tony, it's been updated and copyedited. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Date links

Hi TONY,

Anything I can do to help push forward the change to date links so they are no longer links? Tempshill (talk) 16:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we should start a club. Lightmouse (talk) 17:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm quite in favour of starting a lobby group, perhaps a page in Wikispace. We could all revisit the past, stalled attempt at Bugzilla, get some tech advice as to the best code to represent a new non-linked autodate function (which was always a diffculty), then develop a strategy to present another, much bigger petition to Bugzilla, or perhaps to ArbCom first. What do you think? Tony (talk) 17:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Links to date fragments are much less common than they used to be. I think this is an indication that the community is much more tolerant of unlinked dates. Lightmouse (talk) 17:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Arrogant, unpleasant and improper behaviour by yourself

Tony. I do not know what your problem is, but your appalling, uncouth and boorish behaviour with regard to the Roman Catholic Church FA nomination needs some comment. You have now come into this nomination several times, made entirely negative, vague and dismissive comments without any justification. Moreover you have insisted on making unwarranted and totally unjustified attacks on, not only the writers of the article, but also upon the editors who have indicated their support of the nomination, accusing them without any evidence whatsoever, of dishonesty and collusion. You then top this up by trawling through the supporting editors, criticize one for his English language skills on the page, and then, seeing a message on his page, and without checking your facts, you make further false and completely unfounded accusations against the nominator of the article! Now that your accusations have been proven false, I must presume you will be making just as public an apology for your despicable behaviour. Xandar (talk) 21:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I will not cave in to these continual threats. I think what you say is utter rubbish. Do not post it on my talk page. I've already asked at the FAC that personal attacks not be posted here. Forming a an aggressive cabal to get your nomination through is not going to work. Tony (talk) 01:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I see no threat, only a statement followed by a (clearly unlikely) presumption. Does the word "threat" have a different meaning in Australia? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)