Jump to content

User talk:Tony1/Archive 12

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15

Patrick White

I did the Patrick White navbox basically at random. After my first 20 or so navboxes, I ran out of authors that I'd read or was personally interested in, so now I'm picking authors who I've heard of and who have enough articles on their works to justify a navbox.--INeverCry 18:19, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

You might be interested in seeing the first feature film of a White novel: The Eye of the Storm. Tony (talk) 07:55, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Hyphen question

Hello Tony,

Which of "dependently typed programming language" and "dependently-typed programming language" would be correctly hyphenated? I have difficulty choosing between "Do not hyphenate between an “-ly” adverb and an adjective" and "Hyphenate between two or more adjectives when they come before a noun and act as a single idea."? (Here it are the "types" which are "dependent".) Cheers, —Ruud 19:56, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I think "dependently" is an adverb here; not like the book example of "friendly-looking man" where the hyphen is needed. My tendency would have been to also hyphenate "dependently-type", for a different reason, but that's not WP style. Tony might agree or not, when he wakes up down under. Dicklyon (talk) 20:09, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
The MoS says generally to avoid hyphenating -ly adverbs (since their forward connection is well-flagged by the -ly). Tony (talk) 08:19, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Note on requested moves

Hi there Tony! I accidentally closed some of your recent move requests a couple days early. Since they seem fairly non-controversial I will leave them for now, but if anyone questions what happened, just send them to me and I will relist the discussion. Cheers mate, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 20:24, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much for doing that page-move admin work. Tony (talk) 01:25, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 October 2011

FS

I'm not sure if you saw the Signpost or my edit but FS is officially inactive. If you would like to discuss I am open. I just ask you put a note on my talk page if you reply here. cheers --Guerillero | My Talk 20:12, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: October 2011



To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

Unsubscribe · Global message delivery 06:11, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

SFL task force

Hi Tony, I thought it was probably about time that we moved your sandbox over to WP Linguistics and start the SFL task force going officially. With your permission, I'll move the page over to Wikipedia:WikiProject Linguistics/SFL and get the infrastructure set up. Do you have an image we can use for the task force on Template:WikiProject Linguistics, by any chance? Nothing obvious really jumped out at me. Also, for the name, would you be happy with "Systemic Functional Linguistics Task Force", or would you prefer something else? Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 04:29, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Mr. Strad., I'd be delighted if you did that. I hope we don't disappoint in terms of immediate activity. Some people have joined up and we have established a bit of a list of need-tos, but it's not a hive of dynamism yet. It's just a start. And I've got little time at the moment. Tony (talk) 08:00, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Business Process Model and Notation

Hi Tony1, first I appreciate your huge work on correct capitalization, but I have reverted the one on Business Process Model and Notation. I don't find any discussion initiated on this one, and I'm not sure this will be an accepted one. You can still intiate a requested move procedure if you like. -- SchreyP (messages) 14:00, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I see now that there's a version number attached (it's software, proprietary I presume). Fair enough, and thanks for picking this up. Tony (talk) 14:07, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Office Hours

Hey Tony1/Archive 12! I'm just dropping you a message because you've commented on (or expressed an interest in) the Article Feedback Tool in the past. If you don't have any interest in it any more, ignore the rest of this message :).

If you do still have an interest or an opinion, good or bad, we're holding an office hours session tomorrow at 19:00 GMT/UTC in #wikimedia-office to discuss completely changing the system. In attendance will be myself, Howie Fung and Fabrice Florin. All perspectives, opinions and comments are welcome :).

I appreciate that not everyone can make it to that session - it's in work hours for most of North and South America, for example - so if you're interested in having another session at a more America-friendly time of day, leave me a message on my talkpage. I hope to see you there :). Regards, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:33, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry not to see you at the session; the logs are here. In the meantime, the Foundation has started developing a new version of the tool which dispenses with the idea of "ratings", amongst other things. Take a look at WP:AFT5 and drop any comments, criticisms or suggestions you have on the talkpage - I'd be very grateful to hear your opinions. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:28, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Or not? :P. If the issue's no longer one that interests you, just say the word. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 08:56, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
It was scheduled at 6am on a Sunday. Tony (talk) 08:57, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
I meant heading over to WP:AFT5, giving it a read and seeing if you have any comments to add to the discussion on the talkpage. I understand that Office Hours is a problem for aussies, yes - as said above, we're working on holding one at around midday your time, if that would be more helpful? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 09:00, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Midday would be fine (presumably on a weekend day), if there's notice. Thank you. I'll try to look within a few hours. Tony (talk) 09:03, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, if I know in advance. Thx. Tony (talk) 00:08, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

animals

i love animals
i love animals so much it could kill me. Kickback98 (talk) 19:40, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
WikiLove strikes again haha. ResMar 01:46, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Advance passenger information system

Can you take another look at the move you've just made - surely this article is about a specific system so the capitals are correct (as in references). DexDor (talk) 09:04, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll go there right now. Sorry if I got it wrong, but I don't know yet. One moment please. Tony (talk) 09:13, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
US Customs own website downcases it, at least in the first reference. And I notice they call it "AdvanceD", not "Advance", which was worrying me a bit. [Later:] Yes, it IS with the D, so the article title was wrong anyway. Hmmm ... I see it's used outside the US, too. Can you check whether this is proprietary and specifically licenced out, or whether it has now become generic (like Internet protocol suite?). I'll revert if it's a proprietary, specific title rather than a generic name for a type of software/system. You may be right. Please let me know. Tony (talk) 09:21, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
The first two refs show both "Advance" and "Advanced", but neither show "advance". Also the article begins "The" rather than "An" indicating that it's about that specific system, not any such system. DexDor (talk) 09:32, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
So do you agree it should be upcased again, but with the "d"? Without the "d" looks weird and a little ambiguous, and the primary site does use the "d". Tony (talk) 09:34, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it should be upcased. Probably best with "d". P.S. Your edit summary ([1]) could be construed as misleading. DexDor (talk) 09:44, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Done. Tony (talk) 09:49, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Looks OK now.DexDor (talk) 10:56, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Global Editors Network

The first paragraph of the new article "Global Editors Network" is the following.

Global Editors Network (GEN) is the first non-profit, non-governmental association that brings together editors-in-chief and senior news executives from all platforms – print, digital, mobile and broadcast[1]. Its goal is to break down the barriers between traditional and new media, so that information can be gathered and shared with each other to define an open journalism model for the future and to create new journalistic concepts and tools[2].

  1. ^ "New Global Editors Network To Bring Journalism Into The Digital Era". Inaglobal.fr. 2011-04-18. Retrieved 2011-09-19.
  2. ^ "Global Editors Network launches under former WEF leaders". Le Monde. 2011-03-29. Retrieved 2011-09-19.

The official website is http://www.globaleditorsnetwork.org/.
—Wavelength (talk) 19:29, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 7 November2011

A kitten for you!

I loved your changes on Human systems engineering, though both universities who offer such a program write it in upper case. But the changes you made in the text convinced me that you are right.

Beyond this you seem to be a very interesting guy in matters of prof. activity and probably also privately.

Congratulations, thank you and warm regards, christa

Christa.muth (talk) 23:52, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Snuff n' stuff

I think you would be interested in this. Actually I kind of hope you can fill it out when you have the time ;). Cheers, ResMar 02:05, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Office Hours

Hey Tony! I've got your questions and requests filtering through the woodwork now. Re calls to action, there will definitely be an effort to improve them - this will come after the basic framework is in place and confirmed :). Oh, and 3am UTC on Saturday features a stripped-down office hours session for australiasians and east asians in #wikimedia-office. It'll just be me (everyone else has, y'know, a life) but I hope to see you there :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 13:04, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Oliver, I've a client starting right then, but could hold him off for 20 mins. Tony (talk) 13:09, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Okay, cool :). I'll be staying around for a couple of hours, so if you can avoid disturbing your schedule, do so! I'd hate to think I'm interfering in meatspace. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 13:51, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Sure. It's a three-hour session live online, so we could be lively for the very start of the office hours session, that would be good. :-) I'm sorry to have been unable to contribute much—this has been my busiest Oct/Nov ever. Tony (talk) 14:21, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Oh, that's fine; don't apologise for employment! :D Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:18, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Case-changing issue

Hi Tony. I wanted to start by saying that I agree with at least 95% of your title changes. I also appreciate that you've stopped changing the case in articles where you've requested a move until after the move is made. However, when you do change the case somewhere, your edit summary of "fixed dashes using a script" (here, for example) can be a little misleading, considering that you aren't fixing dashes, but changing cases. Just makes it harder for editors to keep track of what's going on. If you wouldn't mind changing how you word the summary in the future, I'd appreciate it. Thanks. Dohn joe (talk) 21:47, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks, I'll try (even though it's not a formal requirement). If the dash thing appears, dashes must have been fixed, though. Tony (talk) 04:41, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your fuller edit summaries - I appreciate it! Dohn joe (talk) 23:15, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Pull-quotes

Are you any good with templates and whatnot? I'm trying to find a decent way of doing prominent pull-quotes at the sides of Signpost stories to draw reader attention but WP doesn't seem to have anything appropriate (because magazine-style pullquoting doesn't belong in an encyclopaedia). See last week's ITN for the current hackaround. Skomorokh 13:26, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

No one online at the moment who might know among my contacts. Jarry edited an hour ago. Headbomb nearly two hours ago. We should suggest this functionality. Tony (talk) 13:37, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Yup, will mention it during the week so. Skomorokh 13:44, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Any thoughts on the format of the Discussion report? The combination of third- and fourth-level headers are really not working for me; too little visual distinction between them, too much visual clutter overall. A change in font, linking, moving level-four headings to bolded bullets? Skomorokh 13:54, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I think it looks good, but no on further reflection, I'm not sure the upper level is necessary. That might solve the matter. The logo discussion is highlighted anyway by being at the top, so why not get rid of "Critical issues" and "Centralized discussions". Sven might be thinking it's important to classify the discussions on the basis of whether they were advertised at CD, but I'm not sure this matters after the fact (and given that the links are in the SP article for readers to go there directly. The "Proposals" could be dropped because "proposed" is in the lower-level heading already. And RfC is at the start of the text of Wall Street (and could be put in the lower-level title if Sven wants that). Yeah, could be simplified for an easier read, I think. Tony (talk) 14:08, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
I have absolutely no attachment to the format at all. I originally used the format that I found on the very first discussion report, pre-hiatus (and I stole the categories from that too). Before publishing, the bullet points got changed to level four headers. I'm open for anything that makes the discussion report better, if we find a better format, we can run with that from then on out, no problem. Sven Manguard Wha? 14:19, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Sure. This is something for you and Sko, but simpler would be better, IMO. Gotta get to bed by 2am. It's a good page, Sven. Tony (talk) 14:22, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Good night Tony, and thanks hugely for all your input on this issue, much appreciated. Skomorokh 14:25, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Great, we might experiment with the a format along the lines described above this week, although it could take some more testing to see what's the best fit for the Discussion report. Skomorokh 14:25, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Does {{rquote}} do what you want for pull quotes? I only know about it because a similar template, {{cquote}}, used to have major accessibility issues. Both templates are fine for screen reader users now. Graham87 14:15, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the tip, Graham! It's good, but not for all purposes intended. I'm specifically thinking of the sort of pull quotes where the font size is several times larger than in regular text. Skomorokh 14:25, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

November Group

Hi Tony - it's been to long. I wonder if you might give me your opinion. We've got an article called November Group (German) which all of my english texts refer to in the german as 'Novembergruppe'. MOS seems to suggest the article is correctly named in that it has anglicised the German. But I'm minded that the similar and related articles Bauhaus, Arbeitsrat für Kunst, Deutscher Werkbund all retain their original names (not least because Bauhaus is actually quite nuanced and difficult to translate I believe.) Any thoughts? --Joopercoopers (talk) 21:19, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm seeking an opinion from Noetica. Tony (talk) 03:12, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. --Joopercoopers (talk) 03:37, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 November 2011

Your "new" question

Hi Tony - I'll respond to your new question on my candidate question page later this evening; you're raising an important point and I want to ensure that I answer thoroughly. I will probably be longwinded for this one, so apologies in advance. Risker (talk) 18:27, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

No fair?

Why were all articles about the Vietnamese dynasties being renamed with the de-capitalization of the word "dynasty"? Moreover, if we did that, then we HAVE TO APPLY it with every other similar articles as well. We should also rename all such articles about the Burmese and Chinese dynasties. That would be fair, I guess. Waorca (talk) 21:53, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Is it a matter of fairness? Is capitalisation regarded as a boost, that's the very reason I think WP:CAPS and WP:MOSCAP say to minimise it ... commercial contexts one-up each other, and so do rOYAL fAMILIES in the race for status. Perhaps they should be able to stand on their own without this crutch? Willing to talk further about this, of course. Is there capitalisation in Chinese? Tony (talk) 08:15, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Nope, Tony, there isn't. Chinese characters, unlike Latin characters, aren't capital or lowercase, they stay the same even when that character is used as a proper noun. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 8:50pm • 10:50, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
<blush> It was a rhetorical question, coz I know there are no caps in Chinese script; I guess there are in Vietnamese roman, which is why I slyly didn't ask about it. Need User:Noetica's, User:Dicklyon's, and User:Ohconfucius's advice on this. Tony (talk) 11:56, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

2030

No idea what you mean, didn't create the article about 2030. The population growth article, yes.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:41, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, wasn't clear from your statement. I see now. But the larger point remains. Tony (talk) 12:51, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
I really don't care about linking it or not. If there must be a rule against not linking to years then fine, but in the context of discussin future population projections it seemed useful to link to the article we have on that year in the future. One does not need much effort to type it years but for me it defeats the object of having wikilink technology. In my own point of view if we have an article on the subject, except fir the extremely common grammar I think its fine to link. But obviously others disagree, and there are a far more important things to be discussing on here. Like how to introduce an article of the month scheme like they have on German wikipedia which could potentially bring us hundreds of decent articles more than usual a month... ♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:43, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Per WP:UNLINKDATES:

Dates should not be linked purely for the purpose of autoformatting (even though linking was previously recommended). Dates should only be linked when they are germane and topical to the subject, as disussed at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking#Chronological items.

2030 is not germane to population growth and when editing it is common practice to set aside one's predispositions, Wikipedia is built on consensus, if you disagree with a policy or guideline suggest a revision on the relevant village pump or talk page, don't take it up with the user who was merely following standard practice. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 8:44pm • 10:44, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Improving Wikipedia's most important articles

I found a link to this page at Wikipedia talk:Vital articles. I am aware that your available time is restricted, but you might wish to bookmark it for future consideration when you can spend more time in reading it.

—Wavelength (talk) 21:51, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Are you still active?

Hi, Tony. Are you still active? If yes, and if you're interested, could you take a look at Luís Alves de Lima e Silva, Duke of Caxias and help me out with any spelling or grammar errors and if necessary, improve its prose? The article is now a FAC and I want to be sure that it looks good. Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 14:47, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Signature image processing article

Hi, I noticed that you commented at the Signature image processing article talk page within the last few months. About a week ago I indicated that I plan/propose to roll this article into a broader article on weld monitoring, testing and analysis, roughly per the outline in my August post. In case haven't been watching the article but would like to give input on this I thought I'd drop you this note. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:43, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

This would be a very good move. Please let me know the link after you've done it, and I'll try to contribute (but I'm RL work-stressed at the moment, and I'm not an engineer, as you know). Tony (talk) 12:50, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Cool. Circling back on one other item, if you ever had a chance to send me those tech papers on the Signature image processing method, I'd be happy to digest them and incorporate them into the article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:53, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't have paid access to electronic versions, and I've no time to go to the library to find hard copy and photocopy, scan, send the texts. (A few years ago I was on-site.) Unsure how to proceed. Tony (talk) 11:58, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I misunderstood. I thought/mistakenly assumed that you already had emailable electronic copies of these. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:03, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
I did have a folder of hard copy, but ... I threw it out when I cleaned up my bedroom last year. Oops. Tony (talk) 12:11, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
OK, so maybe my brain isn't as addled as I thought it was.  :-) Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:25, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Heads-up

Hello, Tony1. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Regarding WP:MOSPOST, you are our style guru so I am happy to defer to whatever you think best, but a means of distinguishing direct quotation from paraphrase is needed, and that's one in use in newspapers. No strong feelings on the issue, so by all means be bold. Skomorokh 10:13, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Sko, I've never heard of this or seen it used. It cuts across the British practice of single quotes (doubles for quotes within quotes), versus the US practice of doubles (singles within). Very confusing. As a reader, I'd take single quotes as being a direct quotation, and occasionally as a word as word. BTW, I defer to Noetica as the style guru. I can help in writing this guide, but not until mid-December. It should, I think, be reviewed by the other journalists and other WP stylists. Have we decided whether it should be a stand-alone style guide or whether it should be part of a larger how to page (some of which already exists, I think)? Tony (talk) 13:08, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 November 2011

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-11-28/Featured content

Hello

I have a proposition: its possible to put on sites like Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-11-28/Featured content list (only list) of Good articles? They are also goodl articles, so is also quite nice info. I understand that full description will take too much time - but list of GA from last week shouldn`t be hard to take. PMG (talk) 07:58, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi, this has come up a few times before, and the consensus has been to deal only with featured content, as the name of the page indicates. If you want to talk about this more, I wonder whether you could contact Skomorokh, one of the two managing editors. Thanks. Tony (talk) 08:33, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Article Feedback Tool newsletter

Hey, all! A quick update on how version 5 of the Article Feedback Tool is developing. I'm sending this to both newsletter recipients and regular participants, because I appreciate we've been a bit quiet :).

So, we're just wrapping up the first round of user contributions. A big thank you to everyone who has contributed ideas (a full list of which can be found at the top of the page); thanks almost entirely to contributions by editors, the tool looks totally different to how it did two months ago when we were starting out. Big ideas that have made it in include a comment voting system, courtesy of User:Bensin, an idea for a more available way of deploying the feedback box, suggested by User:Utar, and the eventual integration of both oversight and the existing spam filtering tools into the new version, courtesy of..well, everyone, really :).

For now, the devs are building the first prototypes, and all the features specifications have been finalised. That doesn't mean you can't help out, however; we'll have a big pile of shiny prototypes to play around with quite soon. If you're interested in testing those, we'll be unveiling it all at this week's office hours session, which will be held on Friday 2 December at 19:00 UTC. If you can't make it, just sign up here. After that, we have a glorious round of testing to undertake; we'll be finding out what form works the best, what wording works the best, and pretty much everything else under the sun. As part of that, we need editors - people who know just what to look for - to review some sample reader comments, and make calls on which ones are useful, which ones are spam, so on and so forth. If that's something you'd be interested in doing, drop an email to okeyes@wikimedia.org.

Thanks to everyone for their contributions so far. We're making good headway, and moving forward pretty quickly :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:40, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Hilarious

Tony, I finally bothered to read your user page after you'd recently posted on my talk and I find it absolutely hilarious. The first six items in the list of things your dog hates are things I agree with, but they're written in such a hilarious fashion I found myself sitting here at work just laughing nearly to the point of tears. You may not have intended such things to be humorous, because they are serious issues, but I tend to see humor in the most unsuspecting places. What really sent my laughter over the edge though, was the perfect way you've expressed the overlinking problem. I don't think I could have said it better. Always nice to come across another grant writer; I think I'll be taking a look at some of your writing guides. John Shandy` • talk 18:20, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Echolocation

Hey Mr Styletip Person, how badly do you think this recent edit has debased that article's meaning, readability, etc? -- Hoary (talk) 01:47, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: November 2011



To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

Unsubscribe · Global message delivery 13:17, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Weld monitoring, testing and analysis

A heads up as you had participated in the discussions on this. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Weld monitoring, testing and analysis Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:31, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Tony (talk) 11:36, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 December 2011

My ArbCom election endorsements: AGK, Courcelles, Hersfold, Kirill Lokshin, Roger Davies

As an election coordinator I should probably shut up. But one editor whose judgment I trust has made the point that my role is rather functional this year. In any case my time-budget for WP is regrettably small at the moment, so I'm not heavily involved. I'm voting "oppose" for most of the candidates not mentioned here, but I don't want to focus on this.

Here are the editors I believe we're lucky to have as candidates, and I strongly recommend that voters support them:

AGK

  • Knows the go from his experience as a clerk, a CU, an OS, an AE admin, and member of BASC.
  • Cluey about conflict of interest.
  • Experienced and interested in mediation—always a good thing in an arb.
  • Has the type of writing skills necessary to draft judgments. Not much of a content editor, but I don't care in his case.
  • He's keen to rationalise the text bloat in arb judgments, particularly the ridiculous segmented no-brainer restatements of long-standing policy (a particular issue for me—see his responses to my queries on his talk page).
  • I sense he's likely to be on the "keep the cases short in duration" side on the committee—this is a top priority, IMO.


This guy is on the mark. I don't mind a technocrat on board. :-)


Courcelles

  • Admin, CU, OS, BASC, and OTRS service—all trustworthy service.
  • Level-headed, with good social judgement. I'm happy with his responses to the questions.
  • Has content experience, and may be suitable for induction into case drafting, first as a co-drafter.
  • Good interwiki affiliations, including adminships on Commons and Meta. This will inject new skills and knowledge into the committee.


Ideal new blood on the committee.


Hersfold

  • Has the right skill-base to be a very effective arb. Good social and policy judgment.
  • Pretty good answers (but a lame candidate statement—memo to Hersfold ...).
  • Could tighten up his prose when he contributes to case drafting; not bad, though.
  • Only just scrapes across the line for endorsement. I was put off by his early resignation last time. I do hope it doesn't happen again ("I'm away from my computer for this week", last Friday, was not a good sign. Will he have the time to be an arb?)


I will vote Support for him, giving him the benefit of the doubt.


Kirill Lokshin

  • An old hand; knows the process very well, which is important for continuity and inducting the new arbs.
  • Trustworthy. Very bright guy. Doesn't play games.
  • Good understanding of CoI.
  • Good writer/drafter.
  • Overstepped the mark with that GovCom thing in 2009, and admirably resigned, which was more than he had to do, IMO. Has come back shining.


Solid arb, still fresh: a big tick.


Roger Davies

  • Shows a fine sense of justice and balance.
  • Well-developed sense of CoI, particularly in separating his personal views from his judgments; plays it by the book.
  • Has kept the whole thing running by doing a lot of the hard yards, from what I've been told.
  • Excellent writer/drafter, and has a strong track-record of MilHist and FAC involvement.
  • Good commitments in his candidate statement; I like his policy of "small government".
  • Has a reputation for being highly skilled at managing the stream of sociopaths ArbCom saves the community from having to deal with.
  • Don't see eye to eye with him on the size of judgement texts, but what the heck. If he's been one of the arbs pushing for the shortening of case-times, I like it.


A stand-out for his professionalism, pragmatism, and intelligence.

Tony (talk) 13:10, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Tony, since you are an election coordinator, and your views heavily influenced the RFC, this is wrong. Wrong. Shall I raise it on the appropriate election talk page to get more feedback? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:34, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
I have asked the advice of the election admins. Tony (talk) 01:46, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
No one has responded there ... Tony (talk) 09:49, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Saw that (and that the only response was that other coordinators were doing it, too) ... but I also saw that anyone could sign up to be a coordinator, and the list included several who haven't done anything (fortunately :). So the whole thing doesn't inspire confidence! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:00, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Sandy, you may wish to make a point about this in the feedback and/or in the run-up to ACE2012. Tony (talk) 04:14, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
There's currently a thread about this on the Feedback page: Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2011/Feedback#Coordinators.2FVolunteers. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:14, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Yogurt

Tony1 you made an edit consisting of two postings to ANI with the comments "My block of admin PBS - review please: Good block. Voluntary recall is very appropriate in this case". Yet you wrote "The WP:INVOLVED policy is quite clear: admins should avoid even the appearance of conflict of interest. It is easy enough to seek an uninvolved admin's opinion. ..." I was not the involved admin. I took an administrative position over a talk page and issue that I have not been involved for 5+ years. The people involved in the current dispute who have complained about what I did are those advocating the same outcome for the recent move I advocated 5+ yeas ago. My premature closing would have left the page at the name I argued against 5+ years ago, so it can not be said that there was any apparent conflict of intrest.

The administrator who put a block on my account first expressed an opinion in the current survey in favour of moving the page. So which of the two administrators were WP:INVOLVED and which administrator showed a conflict of interest through that involvement?

You can criticise me on two issues. The first is the initial premature closing of the debate. The second is placing a 3 hour block on the talk page. As both are matters of opinion and judgement. But to accuse me of involvement when the policy says "One important caveat ..." seems to me to be unreasonable. I would like you to ponder and then consider if you still think what you posted was a fair and accurate summary. -- PBS (talk) 12:03, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Redirect templates

I notice your recent edits have been moving overcapitalised article titles. Good for you! I am now using AWB to go through these moves and adding the R from other capitalisation template Lmatt (talk) 15:10, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for doing this. I'm unsure whether it's expected that I do this upon moving a title, but I'm very happy for it to be done using automation. Tony (talk) 15:13, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 December 2011

Office Hours

Hey Tony1/Archive 12; another Article Feedback Tool office hours session! This is going to be immediately after we start trialing the software publicly, so it's a pretty important one. If any of you want to attend, it will be held in #wikimedia-office on Friday 16th December at 19:00 UTC. As always, if you can't attend, drop me a line and I'm happy to link you to the logs when we're done. Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:31, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Thanks for your writing tutorials! Braincricket (talk) 05:52, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Page moves

Please stop. Your renaming of numerous technical analysis articles to lowercase disagrees with reliable sources (including the inventors) usage of these names as proper nouns. ~Amatulić (talk) 02:00, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I have stopped, but which ones? I'll take this up on your talk page. Tony (talk) 02:25, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
There are lots of examples of downcasing in at least one of those that you've reverted. Needs discussion. See my examples on your talk page. Tony (talk) 02:47, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikilinking

Ok, sounds good, thanks for the update! Bbmaniac (talk) 05:22, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Apologies

Sorry about this, I'm not really sure what happened. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:59, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

No problem. Tony (talk) 09:03, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Hitchens: if you want to see what all the fuss is about ...

YouTube is packed with excerpts from his debates, addresses, and Q&As. The address and Q&A he presented in the authors@google series at their headquarters is Hitchens at his best, and well worth committing the hour (high-res vid) if you want a brilliant lesson in rhetoric and plain-speaking, piercing logic. And it's entertaining. I also recommend it to anyone who still hasn't quite broken loose from the grip of religion. It's listed at the top of a google search for <hitchens authors at google>.

YouTube contains many excerpts from his early appearances on American TV, too—back to the 80s, I think—answering viewers' questions live. There, he's strikingly handsome (despite the nicotine bags under his eyes, if that's possible) and just as lucid as he was to the end.

In my view, his genius on the stage is not matched by his writing, which is far too discursive for my taste. But that's probably a personal choice.

Tony (talk) 13:28, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

What a loss. The world needs more like him. If only he'd turned his ferocious intelligence on his lethal smoking habit. Awien (talk) 00:49, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Reminder

This is a reminder that even just potentially contentious title moves should go through the formal WP:RM process, and that changing a title merely to make it more descriptive when it is already at a title with which there is no conflict in Wikipedia (a.k.a. "predisambiguation") as you did recently when you moved Life Safety Code to Life safety code (US fire protection), is inherently contentious. Next time, please go through WP:RM instead of unilaterally moving an article like this again. Thank you. --Born2cycle (talk) 07:26, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

This is rather rich coming from you, after the licences you've been taking to push your agendas on article titles. I suggest that wt:title is due for a debate to make more sense out of the clumsy rules on specificity–vagueness. Tony (talk) 07:28, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps you'd like to comment when it comes up at wt:title. I'm surprised you don't object to rampant vagueness in article titles, where the title could be referring to ... just about anything. Tony (talk) 07:45, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
It does need to be longer: what the hell is life safety code? Tony (talk) 07:53, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Answering that question -- what the hell is life safety code -- to someone unfamiliar with it is what the lead, and, ultimately, the entire article is for. It's not what the title is for.

As to raising this issue at WT:Article titles... it's been done a number of time, and each time goes down in flames for good reason: it's unclear what exactly you're suggesting we do instead of adhering to the practice of making titles precise, but only as precise as necessary to disambiguate from other uses in Wikipedia. You seem to want to disambiguate from other uses Tony might imagine, or something equally ephemeral. In other words, you're not even proposing an alternative. To appreciate the problem, see if you could even come up with some specific wording changes to WP:Article titles that you think would at least address this issue to your satisfaction, much less to that of the community. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:52, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Re Reopening of Catholic Memorial School

Tony, I understand your concern. However RM is not a contest, nor is it a binding process. Any RM discussion can be immediately restarted (especially no consensus ones) (several examples of that underway now) by any editor, and as you know, unless someone move protects the article, the title change can be made unilaterally anyway. Since RM closes can happen at anytime after 7 days, when an editor asks me to reopen the discussion in a no consensus debate, I generally do. Further civil discussion to reach consensus is always better than festing contentiousness over a title. As for the potential of WP:CANVASS issues, that's something you'll have to deal with outside of RM. FYI, when I revert my closes, I generally don't do the subsequent close to preclude involvement concerns.--Mike Cline (talk) 14:53, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

OK. Tony (talk) 14:55, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 December 2011

Talkback

Hello, Tony1. You have new messages at The ed17's talk page.
Message added 08:59, 21 December 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:59, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

AN notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at WP:AN regarding repeatedly reverting without substantive objection. The thread is "Uninvolved admin - please take a look".The discussion is about the topic Wikipedia:Article titles. Thank you. --Born2cycle (talk) 09:26, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Signpost Barnstar
So we have this barnstar laying around, gathering dust; and I feel as though none of the editors that put pen to paper every week to produce the much-demanded Signpost has been properly compensated for their efforts. You deserve this :) ResMar 05:28, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
PS: If I left someone out by accident, feel free to give one to them, too. ResMar 05:28, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Reaching out

Let's look at what happened. Yesterday, I boldly edited WP:Article titles and explained the edit on the talk page. You reverted this. Okay, that's 2 out of 3 on the WP:BRD scale. But where is the D? You did not discuss. You even admitted not even thinking about the change or reading the explanation, and refused to do so. Instead you ranted on and on about me and my behavior. I'm really trying to AGF here, but I'm having trouble seeing it. Can you help me see it?

Also, what about AGF regarding my initial edit? Why not take a look at it? Why not read my explanation? Why not comment on that? Why assume the worse and revert without giving it any consideration whatsoever? What about recognizing that I'm merely restoring the longstanding wording and meaning that was there just a few months ago? You obviously had enough time and energy to comment about me and my behavior... how is that productive? Where is the AGF? How is all this not disruptive? If you can help me see that too, that also will be appreciated. Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:14, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

B2C, I'm a bit distracted and will read this properly later. Calm down. Let's be kind to each other. I genuinely don't know exactly how the title/category thing should move forward, although I have a strong sense that something needs to be done. The editors you're having a tense time with mean no harm to you, personally; I think we would all benefit from an open-minded debate. You're doing well on WP (but that doesn't mean I won't disagree with you on certain matters at certain times). Tony (talk) 07:03, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't mind disagreement. I mind disagreeableness, and, unfortunately, the latter is what I have been sensing from you. --Born2cycle (talk) 07:13, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Ah, my goodwill thrown back in my face. Tony (talk) 07:42, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
If you feel like I just threw something at your face, I'm sorry. I'm just trying to let you know how I'm perceiving your behavior. And I'm talking specifically about reverting without paying attention (by your own admittance) to what you're reverting.

Here's something I would like from you... an acknowledgement that your revert yesterday was contrary to AGF (not because you reverted, but because you reverted without evaluating the change; without good reason; without Discussing the change substantively after the revert), and a promise that you will assume good faith regarding me and my actions in the future. Can you do that?

Is there anything that you need or would like from me? --Born2cycle (talk) 08:10, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

The revert wasn't good- or bad-faith. You're not even in the mood to perceive good faith from someone, as I just tried to convey. You seem to be looking at posts through a dark lens. Now calm down, take a step back. No one's out to get you. Engage with what people are saying at wp:title, and let's make it a mature debate. I don't dare post there until it calms. A good rule of thumb is to post brief and post late. Tony (talk) 08:16, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
I am sensing the good faith here - sorry for not acknowledging it. My request stands. --Born2cycle (talk) 08:21, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
I've got a headache, and I yearn for calm. I thought it was very reasonable to revert when you'd not discussed the major change your edit comprised. Please, can we not be so adversarial? Tony (talk) 08:23, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Sorry to hear about your headache. I'm not trying to be adversarial; I'm trying to not be adversarial, while still discussing this. Is that possible?

So your position is that "not discussed" is a perfectly fine and reasonable reason to revert? What's the point of WP:BOLD, then? Yes, I know significant change to policy is an exception, but this was a restoration of longstanding wording and meaning. I explained all that fully in my talk page comment, how I researched it, how I discovered the implication of the change clearly was not discussed nor intended. Why is that not good enough? Why does it also have to be "discussed"? I mean, if you had something specific to discuss, sure. But you didn't.

This goes far beyond this particular instance, but how in general we treat each other, and changes to policy. Again, undiscussed changes happen all the time. Reverts are fine - but they should not be based entirely on "not discussed". You really should have a substantive objection to a change to revert a change, and be prepared to discuss it.

People reverting solely because a change was "not discussed" is simply disruptive. --Born2cycle (talk) 08:50, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay, here's a good starting point. Have you seen WP:REVEXP? Do you agree or disagree with what it says? Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 09:31, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Attracting women into the community: here's the type of vid the WMF might think of producing

Every schoolgirl in the world should see this engaging and touching exposé of a woman's pathway to a leading position in her mathematical field.

But apart from this, the vid shows how the Foundation might approach the production of a series of YouTube-style vids exploring the individual experiences of women (and men) in their own lives and field of interest, and how they came to be active members of the WP community. There has to be something special about such vids to get high hit-rates and wide impact. It might be hard to get the depth ... but it's worth thinking about. Tony (talk) 08:47, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Article titles

Hi Tony--

I have just accidentally stumbled upon this Wikipedia talk:Article titles page.

First let me introduce myself: User:Milkunderwood, if you would care to glance at my userpage. I have made a few WP edits here and there, but mostly have asked a lot of questions, and definitely consider myself to be a user in the sense of "reader" rather than an "editor". If you look down at the bottom of my page you'll find my WP "motto" - or rather anti-motto: Remember, the reader is the enemy.

I've only very lightly skimmed and skipped through all of the discussion at Article titles, and certainly haven't looked at any of the esoteric examples thrown out by everyone. That whole discussion reminds me of the cliche of medieval clerics arguing about the number of angels dancing on the head of a pin.

As a user, I will say that never once have I ever looked at a "Categories" section of any page.

And as a user, I have to say that in the arguments on article titles that I have looked at, you are right and the editors who keep quoting rules and policies and guidelines are wrong.

I'm just posting this to you here, because I have no intention of getting involved at that discussion. But perhaps my reaction may help. Milkunderwood (talk) 23:53, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mozart: Violin Sonatas K. 301, 304, 376 & 526:

Back on May 8 2011, using the reasonably common search term Mozart violin sonatas, this article concerning a single CD of four miscellaneous sonatas performed by Hilary Hahn was the first Search suggestion that popped up, rather than the listing I had expected to find. At that time it was then named simply Mozart: Violin Sonatas. To try to avoid this problem I "moved" the page to a new name, adding the specific K. numbers included on the disc. I also left a message on the article's talk page, which has never been responded to. However, even now, as soon as I type in the Search box no more than "Mozart v" this same suggestion continues to pop up as first choice.

(disregard as irrelevant):

The article is nothing but a bare track listing, containing no discussion whatever, or any other kind of useful information -- simply the track names, without even including their timings. It may or may not be a 2005 recording as stated; this is more likely to be the release (P) date.
I'm not opposed in principle to having separate articles on individual recordings, but surely there must be some justification for them, in terms of their notability and how informative the discussion is. Milkunderwood (talk) 18:21, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Milkunderwood (talk) 09:51, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your response - actually, I've already had a few helpful conversations with him. The thrust of my note to you was really concerned with clarity and unambiguousness of article titles in general, using that Mozart search problem just as an example. Everyone's visits to WP begin with the searchbox, and when its suggestions lead the visitor astray it makes for a very frustrating experience. This is where your common-sense arguments about article titles ought to prevail over the rules-&-regs attitude of those who can't see beyond their knowledge of editorship. As I posted on my own page, Why make it hard for people? Milkunderwood (talk) 20:33, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Text-mining Wikipedia for misspelled words

You may be interested in this external article.

—Wavelength (talk) 18:23, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Happy Christmas

Season's greetings!
I hope the holiday season is relaxing and fulfilling, and that 2012 will be fruitful for you. --John (talk) 00:40, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Season's tidings!

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:02, 25 December 2011 (UTC).

Royal Prerogative

Hey, Tony; I've reverted your move here because "Prerogative", with the capital letter, is the correct and formal title. If other articles say different, other articles say wrong - although I note that, actually, the other articles do capitalise it in a Commonwealth context. Ironholds (talk) 13:05, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Royal_prerogative#Requested_move. This happened a while ago. Tony (talk) 13:08, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Merry Christmas, Tony! I've contributed to Royal Prerogative in the United Kingdom too, so my view is that of an involved editor. I think we should retain the capitalised form of the article on prerogative use in the UK. The title is a proper noun in much the same way as Privy Council or Prime Minister, and is capitalised in the literature; checking a source I have near my desk now, Constitutional and administrative law (Barnett: 2006) uses the form "Royal Prerogative" in its coverage of prerogative powers in the UK. You are correct that prerogative powers as a concept would not be capitalised, but when we refer to it as an institution, it is a proper noun: compare the generic office of prime minister with Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, or a "king" with "the King of Denmark". The move at royal prerogative should be kept, but Royal Prerogative in the United Kingdom should not be moved again. Regards, AGK [•] 16:16, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
I haven't contributed, but have noticed the move/revert/discussion. I'll just point out that book evidence from UK English doesn't really support the idea that Royal Prerogative is a proper noun. More likely it's capitalized sometimes by those sources who want to show special deference to the Royalty. Dicklyon (talk) 18:00, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
Looks as though an RM is required. Tony (talk) 01:16, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Seasons Greetings
Have a Merry Christmas
and a
Happy New Year

Apologies, slight technical problem in the Christmas Cheer Distribution Network Automated Felicitations System (no electricity) meant a small delay in getting my greetings out this year ... Chaosdruid (talk) 17:03, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Names of specific entities

Please don't lowercase the name of specific entities with proper names, even if they appear to be generic names. For example Integrated Electronic Litigation System. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:24, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

You're right, it is a generic name, and not a proper name. It should be downcased. Tony (talk) 15:36, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
It's a proper name that looks like a generic name because it's composed only by generic words. I remind you the cases of Public Achievement or Napoleonic Code. Not to mention Giant Compressed Earth Block, Virtual Cybernetic Building Testbed, Thermally Advantaged Chassis or Platform Environment Control Interface. At this pace you'll be downcasing Internet Protocol because of "protocol" being a generic word. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:56, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

If you guys are going to be moving things around, it would be decent to at least make sure there's at least one referenced source that supports your point of view. Enric, you've moved several articles that have no refs at all. Tony, I've seen you do that, too. In the case of the "iELS", the sources seem pretty clear to me: of the few sources that we have, few or none support the idea that it's a proper name. Even the official roadmap doc doesn't support that interpretation. Dicklyon (talk) 18:00, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Hum, how about "The Electronic Filing System (EFS) in Singapore is a nation-wide court document filing and handling system."[2] or "We have recently embarked on the next phase of EFS. We call it the integrated Electronic Litigation System or iELS."[3]. It refers to a single specific system.
And the article is not about filling systems that happen to be electronic and integrated, it's a single especific entity that receives that name.
(And have you ever seen an acronym of a generic term that started with a lowercase??) --Enric Naval (talk) 13:06, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
I think you're right about EFS and iELS (although the second one seems to undermine the notion of caps and titles, doesn't it.) But I think your list above contains items that should definitely be downcased. Tony (talk) 13:33, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Well, I don't agree with that. There are trademarked names of products built by only one company, names of specific entities, names of specific standards, etc.
Anyways, we are now running into borderline names, like National Security Letter and Personal Equity Plan. The general question is: should we capitalize the names of specific types of documents that are named and regulated by a specific law? As in, are they unique enough to be considered proper names? Are we talking about "the" National Security Letter type of document or about national security letters in general? --Enric Naval (talk) 14:24, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Many organisations upcase just about every important noun they write. It's beyond a joke, and our ngram and google and book searches show how uncomfortable writers in general are with this eye-poking boosterism. Another issue is that over time there's a natural drift of some terms, particularly those of new products and technologies, to become generic. If the telephone had been invented three years ago, was not an everyday term, was still being disseminated as an idea, and was marketed by only a single entity, sure, we'd probably say Telephone. You can see this process of drift in many terms. WP has taken the decision to err on the side of downcasing (see MOSCAP), so where there's evidence of generic identity and usage, and downcasing in usage aside from its occurrence in title-case titles, the tendency is to downcase. If we're to cap "National Security Letter", why not cap "Letter of Acceptance" and "Letter of Rejection", just because they happen to be capped by a particular organisation? National security letter is a distinct term that is highly unlikely to be confused. It is unique, with or without the eye-poking caps. Same for unit trust and personal equity plan. Tony (talk) 14:48, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
What the MOS says is to uppercase proper names. You argue that all these names are generic names or will became generic soon. Others argue that some are generic and others are proper. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:08, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Enric, those are perfect examples of sources that do not support the proper noun interpretation. In both docs, the capitalization is used only where the acronym is being defined, which is a typical use of capitalization for non-proper terms. Yes, acronyms are very frequently defined for generic terms. The fact that you think otherwise suggests an unfamiliarity with typical English usage. Dicklyon (talk) 22:19, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Please see "Singapore introduced the Electronic Filing System (EFS) to provide end-to-end electronic filing (...). EFS also automates (...) We have recently embarked on the next phase of EFS. We call it the integrated Electronic Litigation System or iELS."[4] This is a specific system in Singapore, and it has a proper name. I am not interested in creative interpretations of sources.
If you want to write a generic article on electronic filing systems, using the common name, then do so. But keep it separate from this article. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:53, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Enric, you may have a point about the Singaporean example, but I can tell you that if I were working for that organisation, I'd be downcasing it in company text to avoid the eye-poking bumps that would result in every paragraph; or better still, I'd upcase but have chosen a more distinctive title. It really is like a company that decides to nab the name "Computer System" for its new customised computer system: does that mean the whole world has to adopt the caps to pay deference to the aggressive poaching of a common term by a single organisation? This is a problem for all of us. Tony (talk) 07:07, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
A capitalized proper name can be composed only by generic terms. In Talk:Nottingham_Asphalt_Tester I gave you several examples like Reliant Fox, GAZelle, Photoshop, Discovery Studio or Logical Domains. That you personally dislike the capitalization of those names is not everyone's problem. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:14, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

See Talk:Cognitive_process_profile. This is a specific computer program sold by a specific company, and it's capitalized in the few sources that it has in google books. The article was created with this capitalization. Make a RM if you wish, but please don't make moves that go against all available sources. P.D.: I think that you didn't realize that you had already moved that article. P.D.D.: just to clarify that I agree with many moves that you make, we are arguing only about a subset of them. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:14, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

DIRT

Hi Tony, I wonder why you made this page rename when the Irish government sources, other than the one initial sentence of this page, use the capitalised name for the tax, as it also does for the abbreviation. Seems like WP:COMMONNAME applies. ww2censor (talk) 17:02, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Ww, I think the example you cite is sufficient evidence that WP should downcase. Elsewhere in the documentation, the tax is upcased when part of titles or when adjacent to the abbreviation. WP doesn't upcase in either of those circumstances when there's no other reason to do so. Tony (talk) 11:18, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 December 2011

About your edits of Flue-gas emissions from fossil-fuel combustion

Hi, Tony:

You recently edited the subject article by changing "Flue gas" to "Flue-gas" and "fossil fuel" to "fossil-fuel" in the article's title and first sentence. I do not find those changes particularly objectionable but I do wish to know why you felt the hyphenation was needed.

I am a retired engineer and had a 60 year working career that involved designing and operating industrial combustion furnaces in power plants, refineries, petrochemical plants and other similar industrial facilities. During those 60 years, I rarely (if ever) encountered the hyphenation of either "flue gas" or "fossil fuel"

I assume that you are aware that the rest of the text in the subject article has many more occurrences of "flue gas" and "fossil fuel" which you did not revise. I am at a loss to understand why you felt that the article's title and the first sentence needed the hyphenation but not the other occurrences of those same un-hyphenated words in the same article.

I also assume the you are aware that the words "fossil fuel" and "flue gas" (without hyphenation) occur perhaps hundreds of times in many other Wikipedia articles. Is it your intention to also hyphenate all of those occurrences as well?

Tony, I would appreciate knowing why you felt those changes to the subject article were needed. mbeychok (talk) 17:57, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Mbeychok, interesting questions. WP:HYPHEN is one of the best guides to hyphen usage in English. Item 3, "To link related terms in compound modifiers" is the one at issue. In this respect, hyphenation is unstable in the language, and will continue to be. You've noticed already that when these items are grammatically (single-word) adjective + noun, no hyphen is used, but where compound adjective + noun, it is; so, fossil fuel is ..., but a fossil-fuel processes is .... A lot of engineers and company people wouldn't bother with the hyphens inthese double adjectives, since they see these compound items in print every day and become very used to parsing them in context without. But as the MoS says, "where non-experts are part of the readership, a hyphen is particularly useful", and WP articles try to aim at a wider readership. Non-experts have to slow down to wonder whether it's, for example, flue gas-emissions. If it's a particular issue for you, perhaps you'd like to start an RM to bring out discussion. Tony (talk) 10:35, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Tony, I have better things to do than to spend any further time on this. In my opinion, the hyphenation of those words is trivia implemented to the point of silliness. I have no intention of reviewing whether my wordage is grammatically an "adjective + noun" or a "compound adjective + noun" every time I write those words. What foolishness!! mbeychok (talk) 22:55, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I think you were going a bit too far here, Tony. Hyphens in noun-noun compounds are helpful when they can avoid ambiguity but they are in no way a requirement. From the guideline you cite: "where non-experts are part of the readership, a hyphen is particularly useful in long noun phrases". It doesn't say that a hyphen is required, and I bet you'd rarely see one in other writings for such cases, where the intended meaning is quite obvious. Nageh (talk) 23:20, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
PS: Ok, it's not clear whether fossil is actually an adjective or noun. Anyway, I don't care how it is written in the end (with or without a hyphen). Nageh (talk) 23:24, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
PPS: While technically you may be correctly interpreting the guideline, I think it would be better to give leeway to/respect the primary editor's writing in such cases where the meaning is rather unambiguously clear. Why? For two reasons. First, the vast majority of editors would write these compounds without a hyphen. (Q: Would quality newspapers always use a hyphen?) Second, it is exactly this kind of pedantry that may get quite a few editors pissed off. Just saying. Make your own conclusions. Nageh (talk) 23:46, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Bravo, Nageh! I agree that "this kind of pedantry" is ridiculous. mbeychok (talk) 02:07, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
I added a few more hyphens to the article, in places where optional hyphens could help unfamiliar users parse the complicated compounds correctly. Just doing my part for pedantry, I guess. Dicklyon (talk) 02:11, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I appreciate Tony's command of the manual of style and of the English language first and foremost. However, in such situations in the past, I've most commonly seen editors agree to go with the what the reliable sources most commonly use, for both hyphen and other non-hyphen style discrepancies. Although a reader may have no expertise in the subject, if they were to read the sources and encounter fossil fuel rather than fossil-fuel, then I see no problem parting from the MoS. Perhaps if most of the sources are avoiding the hyphen, Wikipedia should as well. John Shandy` • talk 02:59, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I appreciate Diklyons's recent insertions of hyphens. Certainly we don't want the ambiguity of natural gas combustion (as opposed to unnatural gas combustion?). This is a good example of where engineer and management guys become loose about proper typography in items they see every day, since they don't have to slow their reading one nanosecond to parse this three-word item correctly. However, normal folk do have to slow, and should not be asked to carry this unnecessary burden. Natural-gas combustion is it; which is the combustion of natural gas (without hyphen when used predicatively, since there's no grammatical ambiguity). Now, I cannot see why professionals and experts in this field object to the hyphens: what exactly is it they don't like? If it's just that they're not used to them in their in-house docucuments, I say that's too bad: we are writing for non-experts, too. Tony (talk) 07:27, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Tony, please read my user page slowly and carefully in its entirety ... including the listing of the 130 or so articles that I either wrote or re-wrote extensively. Then re-read the explanation of why I left Wikipedia when I grew weary of people who make revisions because they "know better than anyone else". How many "normal folk" have you actually polled to determine if they needed help in understanding "natural gas combustion" or "fossil fuel combustion"? Do you realize that by referring to "normal folk" as compared to "experts", you have relegated all experts to being "unnatural folk"? That includes your doctor, your pharmacist, your lawyer, your auto mechanic, etc. I had thought that by now Wikipedia had learned better than to exhibit its bias against expertise, but regrettably I was wrong. mbeychok (talk) 16:12, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
I have a few comments to make in this message.
  • Expertise in any field is on a continuum, and not strictly a matter of polar opposites. Professional status is another matter.
  • Expertise in spelling and punctuation and word usage is on a continuum, and not strictly a matter of polar opposites. Professional status is another matter.
  • Wikipedia has its own in-house style guide, although it does consult other style guides.
  • If the word normal is offensive as a descriptor of "non-experts", then diligent use of a thesaurus can provide alternatives that are better. The expressions average and typical are perhaps more accurate. I prefer the expression less-expert readers (hyphenated because some people use less to mean fewer).
  • The adjective 60-year in the expression 60-year working career would need to be hyphenated in Wikipedia articles, in accordance with WP:HYPHEN, sub-subsection 3, point 8.
—Wavelength (talk) 17:38, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Tony, you can see the Citizendium user page of Milton Beychok at http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/User:Milton_Beychok.
—Wavelength (talk) 19:38, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Tony and Mbeychok, please see the last message which I posted at User talk:Wavelength/Archive 3#Sparsely-spotted stingaree, in which I discussed both expertise in the English language and expertise in another field.
—Wavelength (talk) 21:50, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Another pedant (Wavelength) heard from! I wonder how many of Tony's "normal folk" would understand what you mean by "Expertise in spelling and punctuation and word usage is on a continuum, and not strictly a matter of polar opposites" ... what convoluted, incomprehensible gobbledygook from someone who wants to prevent confusing "normal folk"!! mbeychok (talk) 00:50, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
(By the way, a complete url is not needed to reach my user page and its talk subpage. All one needs to do is click on my signature. Much less convoluted!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbeychok (talk • contribs) 00:50, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Article Feedback Tool - notes and office hours

Hey guys! Another month, another newsletter.

First off - the first bits of AFT5 are now deployed. As of early last week, the various different designs are deployed on 0.1 percent of articles, for a certain "bucket" of randomly-assigned readers. With the data flooding in from these, we were able to generate a big pool of comments for editors to categorise as "useful" or "not useful". This information will be used to work out which form is the "best" form, producing the most useful feedback and the least junk. Hopefully we'll have the data for you by the end of the week; I can't thank the editors who volunteered to hand-code enough; we wouldn't be where we are now without you.

All this useful information means we can move on to finalising the tool, and so we're holding an extra-important office hours session on Friday, 6th January at 19:00 UTC in #wikimedia-office. If you can't make it, drop me a note and I'll be happy to provide logs so you can see what went on - if you can make it, but will turn up late, bear in mind that I'll be hanging around until 23:00 UTC to deal with latecomers :).

Things we'll be discussing include:

  • The design of the feedback page, which will display all the feedback gathered through whichever form comes out on top.
  • An expansion of the pool of articles which have AFT5 displayed, from 0.1 percent to 0.3 (which is what we were going to do initially anyway)
  • An upcoming Request for Comment that will cover (amongst other things) who can access various features in the tool, such as the "hide" button.

If you can't make it to the session, all this stuff will be displayed on the talkpage soon after, so no worries ;). Hope to see you all there! Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 04:49, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Oliver, 06:00–10:00 my time will comprise bouts of rapid eye momement. :-) Tony (talk) 04:58, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Am? Damn :P. I may stay a bit later if there's the demand (hint, hint). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 07:09, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Not having participated in a live discussion (except for The Signpost a while back, where the excitement of the weekly deadline added to the spontaneity), I'm wondering whether I'll be of any use. Instead, perhaps I can go somewhere and view whatever the state of play is, and comment ... Tony (talk) 11:42, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Cool beans :). Well, I'll have everything we discuss in the office hours (and an updated AFT5 page) live as soon as the chat is concluded, so I can drop you a link as a reminder, if you want? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 19:12, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Graphs

Are these two better for thumb view? Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:06, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Re Email and Proper Nouns.

Thanks Tony, I'll work with Noetica if he decides to pursue this. --Mike Cline (talk) 14:40, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 January 2012

This Month in GLAM: December 2011



Headlines

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

Unsubscribe · Global message delivery 17:17, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Parallel element processing ensemble

Could you have another look at the title of this article? —Ruud 20:28, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

If one reads the online history of that computer at PEPE - Parallel Element Processing Ensemble it is quite clear that the proper name of that computer was the "Parallel Element Processing Ensemble" rather than "parallel element processing ensemble".mbeychok (talk) 00:48, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Ruud and Mbeychok are correct. It's a proper name, not a generic term. I'm moving it back. Jeh (talk) 00:35, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Hmm, I would have moved it back , but the redirect page was edited by a damn bot. Speedy deletion for the redirect page requested. Jeh (talk) 00:54, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
The edit in question was made using a semi-automated tool in good faith following a Wikipedia policy. Lmatt (talk) 22:12, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
True, though several of us have asked you to stop doing that; at least let a redirect be around long enough to be somewhat stable before salting it. Dicklyon (talk) 23:21, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Beg pardon, but Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects isn't policy, it's merely a guideline. That means it's optional. And nothing there requires that redirects be edited to meet it within any particular time. Jeh (talk) 00:01, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Oh don't give me that "do nothing" stuff. Yours is a prescription for taking years to make WP better. Sorry, I reject it head-on. You fix things up when you can. Tony (talk) 00:30, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
I only said ~"when you're not certain, your default should be to do nothing." And I should have said "start a discussion" rather than "do nothing." And it seems to me that there must be plenty of improvements you could make that would keep you busy full time without ever entering "unsure" territory. But your present attitude seems to be that even when you're not certain, you know better than the (presumably) SMEs who wrote the article, so you should just go ahead and "improve" where you see fit. Edits to article text are one thing (per WP:BRD), but as we have seen, page moves are not always so easily remedied and so should not be "improved" without more information. And, I have to ask... are overuse of title case and underuse of hyphens for compound adjectives really the most pressing problems in Wikipedia? Are they even the most pressing problems that a language expert can address? Jeh (talk) 04:02, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

They are among the most misused aspects of English. Their use can make reading easier, especially for non-experts. I'd say downcasing would make text an easier read for experts in some cases, too. When you say "not certain", that is a fair comment, but I generally am certain. It's just that I make the occasional mistake. In some fields, it's as though newbies/anons come along (at our encouragement, regrettably) and make a one-line stub article on anything they remember from their undergraduate course; but they're not aware of WP's rules on the casing of titles. This leads to massive upcasing in article titles where the creators would be fine about downcasing if the matter were pointed out. The damage this does to the language is in encouraging the indiscriminate upcasing of everything in sight. We don't need to encourage this. Tony (talk) 04:09, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok. I've said all I have to say on this point, so I'm leaving it at that. Thank you for posting your agreement to undoing the PEPE rename. Jeh (talk) 04:16, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Sure, and again, sorry to cause you trouble. It would make life easier if I avoided electronics and telecom completely, but I'd rather just be careful. Tony (talk) 04:19, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Category Advanced Technology Attachment

I noticfe that you have proposed a rename for this category to "Advanced technology attachment". First, this is incorrect as the subject here is a proper name for an interface standard, not a generic term. Second, you did not actually start a discussion at the CfD archive page. Third, the actual name of the standard (as described on the Parallel ATA page) is "AT Attachment." Per the standards committee that created it and the standards they published (all linked in that article) it is not and has never been called "Advanced Technology Attachment" (regardless of case), except by people who know not whereof they speak. If this is properly opened up for a rename discussion then I and others who are familiar with the subject will argue strongly for "AT Attachment". WP should follow authoritative sources. Jeh (talk) 00:35, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

He accidentally posted the discussion on the page for January 2nd. —Ruud 01:07, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Now by "he", I presume you're referring to me, not Jeh. It is considered rude in English to use a pronoun rather than someone's name, at least on the first occasion within a discourse. This is something you may not be familiar with.
It was indeed 2 January when I posted the request. I really don't care about your timezone.
Jeh, by all means change it to what you suggest. All I can say is that I saw that Ruud Koot (living up to his name, I see) changed it to the fully expanded form, with wrong capitalisation in that context. Tony (talk) 01:14, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Apologies, the Dutch are known for their at times unintended rudeness (although this doesn't even come remotely close to the pronunciation of my name). Where did I supposedly change it to the fully expanded form, with "wrong" capitalisation? —Ruud 01:39, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
I can't seem to find it in your contribs. Maybe I got that one confused with another change you made. Sorry. Tony (talk) 01:51, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
re. January 1 vs. 2, the link to the discussion on the category page goes to the January 1 page. Fixing. Jeh (talk) 02:51, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Jeh. I have to say that I'm entirely new to the business of fixing category names. This one needed to be changed, but not in the way I'd first thought. But a lot are self-evidently wrong. There's a big job ahead. Tony (talk) 04:57, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Keeping in mind WP:CIR, I would suggest that you need to be familiar with the subject area in question before taking it upon yourself to "downcase" things, categories or otherwise. Such familiarity would have served you well both re. the "Advanced Technology Attachment" category being discussed here and the "Parallel Element Processing Ensemble‎" article. There was no problem with PEPE before, and you moved it without so much as starting a discussion on its talk page, let alone consensus. But now an admin has decided I have to get consensus to move it back over the redirect, just because a bot well-intentioned AWB user edited the redirect page... In short you've made extra work for other editors and at least one admin. In the future, if you are not familiar with the subject area of an article, please propose and get consensus for your proposed moves, as correcting mistakes can be much more complex than an "undo." Jeh (talk) 06:05, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
  • The problem with leaving it to those in "the field" is that it goes all over the place, with patently bad article and category naming. I could equally say "stay out of it, I'm a language expert"; but I don't because I believe a collaboration between both is best. Perhaps I was too hasty in the examples you mentioned, but it goes to show how poorly the topics are framed in the article texts themselves: if I can't tell whether something is proprietary or generic, how can other readers? And bear in mind that some tech fields are full of capitalisation zealots: we've had to accept, unwillingly, this business of retaining caps for protocols; but please tell the reader what it is, preferably at the opening. Tony (talk) 06:15, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Please. The article began "The Parallel Element Processing Ensemble (also known as PEPE) was one of the very early parallel computing systems. This computer..." i.e. it was the name of a specific computer. The article goes on to describe that only one example was ever built! I see no way to reasonably interpret this as a generic name. In any case, if you aren't sure, if you "can't tell," then that should tell you that your default should be "do nothing, they might be right." Or at the very most, use the RM template and propose your move in a discussion on the article talk page.
For now, if you want to help shorten the "consensus" process, you could visit talk:Parallel element processing ensemble and note that you support undoing your move of that particular article.
Re "capitalization zealots" this is not a matter for WP to address: WP must follow its sources, not try to lead. Jeh (talk) 07:32, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Jeh, just returned and had decided to do that anyway. On your statement about what WP "must" do, I don't think it's anything like as simple as that. Tony (talk) 11:44, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Hmmm... my reading of WP:V is that WP indeed "must" follow its sources. Thank you for the agreement re the PEPE article. Jeh (talk) 21:19, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Favour

Hi Tony, happy new year to you. Would you be kind enough to do me a massive favour? The blurb on the 9 January 2012 WP:TFL reads pretty poorly to me, I was hoping you'd be able to copyedit it before next Monday? Any help is very much appreciated. All the best, The Rambling Man (talk) 14:45, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Gentle nudge... The Rambling Man (talk) 11:08, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I remembered while at the Mac doctor's retrieving my supposedly repaired computer (which has turned out to be a total disaster ... on old machine now). Then I forgot. I'll go there now. Tony (talk) 12:45, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Splendid, many thanks! The Rambling Man (talk) 14:46, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Procedural Reasoning System

Note the use of "the Procedural Reasoning System" versus "a procedural reasoning system". —Ruud 19:14, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Quite so. Note that the original papers that defined this concept used "a", as in Georgeff & Lansky 1986: "a procedural reasoning system (PRS)" or Georgeff & Ingrand 1989 "a Procedural Reasoning System (PRS)". Some others have referred to their work using "the", but it's unclear why. Dicklyon (talk) 23:16, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
I suppose there is a general concept of "procedural reasoning systems", but this article seems to be about a particular procedural reasoning system by SRI, simply called the "Procedural Reasoning System" (although the article admittedly wanders off in a few different directions). One might legitimately argue that the article should in fact be about a wider general concept, but this would require substantial work on the content of the article, not a plain renaming.
This obsessive–compulsive desire to eradicate capitals mostly seems to leave articles in an inconsistent state, e.g. Belief–desire–intention software model. I fail to see what all these moves accomplish without accompanied work on the content? Sweeping dust under the carpet if you ask me. —Ruud 23:45, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
But the orignal SRI authors, as I showed, but not intend it that way. It's not a particular system.
You're right that Tony is making work for people; give him hell about that. Dicklyon (talk) 23:53, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

That ribbon thang

Hi mate, you recall when we last talked about awards and decorations and their ribbons in articles? Well we've had no further discussion in MilHist but, in case you haven't seen, there is this at the Australian Wikipedians' notice board... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:30, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

FAC delegate resignation

FYI. [5] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:53, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Article Feedback Tool - things to do

Hey guys! A couple of highly important things to do over the next few weeks:

  • We've opened a Request for Comment on several of the most important aspects of the tool, including who should be able to hide inappropriate comments. It will remain open until 20 January; I encourage everyone with an interest to take part :).
  • A second round of feedback categorisation will take place in a few weeks, so we can properly evaluate which design works the best and keeps all the junk out :P. All volunteers are welcome and desired; there may be foundation swag in it for you!

Regards, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 18:53, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Re: FAC

Yeah, I noticed the RFC at WT:DYK. I'll look into it; I haven't done an interview for this week, so I could do a writeup on this instead. Regarding an interview, she and I have never had positive communication and I don't know if she is the kind to hold grudges, so it may be better for you to do it. Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:36, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, I'll approach Sandy in a few weeks' time. For the moment, I guess this could be just a simple announcement at FC, or nothing at all if you think it's more appropriate to wait. Tony (talk) 06:39, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Anything is more welcoming than the US tourist-turn-off pahlava. I got a smile out of the immigration officer at Vancouver airport when I commented that "I think we share a head of state". Tony (talk) 08:36, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
  • LoL, true true. Well, hope the writeup's up to par; I'll be crossing my fingers here hoping the reentry permit will come in by the 16th. Don't think it'd be a good idea to go to Canberra if the door is slammed behind me when I leave. Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:41, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
You're going to the recent changes camp? I'm wobbly about going (Canberra is a long drive from Sydney). If you're in Sydney and have time, we could do coffee. The big-ass pics at FC appear left-sided, so I inserted "center" into their syntaxes, but that made them right-side heavy. So I didn't save. Tony (talk) 09:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
  • That's the plan, with the flight path Yogyakarta-Jakarta-Sydney-Canberra. Not sure how long the transit in Sydney is (WikiMedia Indonesia is handling the booking), so I can't guarantee anything. Thanks for taking a look; my screen is only 1024x800 so I have no idea what other people see. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:14, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, what do know... I'll be in Sydney... 's airport overnight. Meh, it's gotta be better than the one in Taipei. Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:49, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
You've got my phone number (cell phone usually switched off). It's in the signature of my emails. Tony (talk) 06:50, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks, but I wouldn't want to bother you at 10pm + (especially if you're going to be driving the next day). Just a heads up. BTW: I was thinking that the interview could be a special report or something of the ilk, depending on how much of a response SG gives. Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:08, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Sure. This interview will have to wait until the current hubbub at FAC is resolved. Heck, I had no idea it was going on. And it depends on Sandy's willingness. She may not want me to be involved. Tony (talk) 07:35, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Wow... never thought we'd end up with so much activity before the issue was out the door. Ed did a pretty good write-up (better than mine), but I'm surprised at how much hate the original write up is getting. Sandy called it an "indirect attack" and implied that I had a grudge against her from the DYK fiasco in August. Volunteer Marek said it made him want someone to open an RFC on the Signpost. And this is why I suggested you do the interview... Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:25, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

It's not at all difficult, Tony1-- look at this edit summary, and then consider how that felt from my chair, after I resigned so I could resume editing as an unpaid volunteer. You put the sun down on me (that's unintended bias whether one sees it or not, and I don't assume it was intentional) and your edit summary indicates you thought that was peachy. Insensitive. Now, I may not expect Crisco to have seen that, but I did expect you to think of that, hence what offended me is your edit summary and lack of sensitivity in considering how it felt for me to have The Signpost putting me out to pasture. The hallmark of our friendship, Tony, was that I always thought of you and your feelings, while you in return frequently reamed me out over any minor disagreement. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:00, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, I've had a chance to read it now-- well done guys. The sun setting on me may have been an unfortunate oversight (maybe it's a Mars-Venus thing), and I'm still very much here and well. All's well that ends well. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:00, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Confrontation analysis

You looked at Confrontation analysis article the other day and added a copyedit box to it. I am concerned as I am the main author of this article, and hoped that the things I write were not so bad I needed such a label.

I would really appreciate it if you could glance at the article again and let me know:

1) What do you think is the single most important thing I could do to improve my writing style?

2) What would I have to do to get the copyedit box removed?

Thank you very much indeed. Mike Young (talk) 22:53, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Administrator promotions

Good point, I'll do that from now on. It's annoying nagging people about how broken RfA is, anyway. ResMar 03:02, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 January 2012

MOS discussion that may be of interest

Because of your previous input on various iterations of the debate about the lower-casing vs. capitalization of the common names of animals (domestic cat, blue whale vs. Domestic Cat, Blue Whale), you may be interested in this thread proposing key points that should be addressed by the guidelines: WT:Manual of Style#Species capitalization points. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 05:49, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd glossed over it and recoiled. But I guess I should engage with it. Thx. Tony (talk) 06:14, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited List of Britain and Ireland's Next Top Model contestants, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Reading (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:56, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Moonlight sonata controversy

Hi Tony. Your name was been mentioned here in connection with the Requested move at Moonlight Sonata to Piano Sonata No. 14 (Beethoven). This discussion was closed yesterday [6]. This was then reverted early this morning [7].

I wonder whether you might consider re-closing it? I realise this is a onerous chore, but we don't have any other 'candidate' for this at the moment. Getting us out of this situation would really be much appreciated. Best regards. --Kleinzach 00:15, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Someone else has now stepped into the breach! Thanks etc. --Kleinzach 08:28, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
I had a quick look yesterday but couldn't work out what I thought. Redirects solve the big problem of capturing all google queries that intend to arrive at the article, don't they. But I guess we need an overriding principle ... Tony (talk) 09:22, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
It's difficult because established scholarly practice on musical series can sometimes be irrational (e.g. the Mozart piano concerto series which includes insubstantial juvenilia and works for two pianos). (The 32 Beethoven piano sonatas are straightforward though.) We worked on WP:MUSICSERIES which probably isn't perfect, but at least fills a void (or gives us, as you say, some kind of 'overriding principle'). --Kleinzach 09:36, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Noetica would be good to ask, but I have a feeling he's very busy in RL at the moment. Tony (talk) 09:43, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
I think it's all OK for now. I think most of the people involved just want a rest for the present. Thanks for looking at it. --Kleinzach 12:02, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

More thoughts. During the debate above, various people cited WP:COMMONNAME. My own view is that this policy is not clear enough — for example there is actually no definition for 'common name'. If you agree that the policy section could be improved — would you (and maybe Noetica) be willing to work with me on it? Best. --Kleinzach 05:29, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Please look at this from an MOSCAPS perspective

Tony, look at this RM from a capitalization perspective [8]. Shouldn't anti-Partisan offensive really be anti-partisan offensive. Thanks - Mike Cline (talk) 20:45, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure. The single cap, P, is odd, and are specific battles not normally upcased? Tony (talk) 02:27, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Years

Hi, since your name's down on this project, I'm just writing to let you know that there's a discussion going on at the moment on how to format events – and in particular, events that go on for multiple days – on year pages. Your input would be appreciated. — Smjg (talk) 18:24, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

accidental double vote

i think you accidentally voted twice in the same section of Wikipedia:SOPA_initiative/Action. i put a brief comment there. Boud (talk) 14:52, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting this: indeed it was in error (such a long page, so many sections). I've removed it (and your comment) in a bid to correct the overall "count". I hope that was the right thing to do; please revert if it wasn't. Tony (talk) 04:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Military Historian of the Year

Nominations for the "Military Historian of the Year" for 2011 are now open. If you would like to nominate an editor for this award, please do so here. Voting will open on 22 January and run for seven days. Thanks! On behalf of the coordinators, Nick-D (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:42, 16 January 2012 (UTC) You were sent this message because you are a listed as a member of the Military history WikiProject.

Dateret

[9] What is your justification for this edit, Tony? Gimmetoo (talk) 13:00, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it would have been better to render the decades as numerals rather than spelling them out. Tony (talk) 13:05, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Not what I'm asking, and I think you know that. Gimmetoo (talk) 13:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Signpost

It's fine. Thank you very much. --Lecen (talk) 13:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Your comment on my submitted opinion piece

You commented at the Newsroom on my opinion piece:

"Looks way too long, and has a rambling feel to it. Tony (talk) 07:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)"

The piece is 173 words shorter than the previous opinion piece and 814 words shorter than the one before that. Please cite just one example of a paragraph that you think is "rambling". Carmen Yarrusso (talk) 14:18, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the comment looks a bit rough-edged, so I'm sorry to have cast it so baldly. I've written more at the newsroom and left a note at SMasters's page asking for some decisions. I think it's potentially a worthy piece, but needs to be carefully reframed; it seems premature to publish it. Tony (talk) 15:14, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Tony for your comments. I don’t think you need to worry about SMasters publishing my piece in the current issue (if ever).
I have a background in formal logic. I construct my arguments (all my published opinion pieces are carefully constructed logical arguments even my political satire) using a series of informal syllogisms where the conclusions of one or more syllogisms are fed in as premises to a subsequent lower level syllogism and so on, eventually leading logically to the main conclusion of the piece (my “logician” editors do a good job checking for logic flaws). Many of my premises are “implied” rather than stated (otherwise the piece would become unreadable). But any implied premises are statements (I believe) the vast majority of people would agree with without the need for supporting argument.
You state: …the argument is lost at the top, IMO: "There’s lots of implied politics in trying to “imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge”.
I don’t understand why you think this takes away from the argument (this quote is in the section where I’m arguing that WMF needs to admit it ISN’T non-political). This is an example of a premise I think the vast majority of people would agree with without the need for supporting argument. I assumed that the quote is well known among my readers (Wikipedians) as a statement by Jimbo eloquently describing the ultimate goal of the movement. I thought it would be “obvious” to Wikipedians that to get to this very lofty goal, would clearly require the movement to get involved in “lots of politics” (like SOPA) and in many other areas to “reduce the barriers to sharing knowledge” (from the introduction in the WMF annual report which states, “All of the Foundation’s technology initiatives can be boiled down to one goal – reducing the barriers to sharing knowledge”). Politics obviously plays a big role in many countries re. sharing knowledge. I argue in the piece that these “barriers” are far greater for political knowledge than any other category of knowledge.
You state: “Your statement, "isn’t it time for “the world’s largest free knowledge resource” to openly acknowledge that free political knowledge is at least as important to humanity as free encyclopedic knowledge?" is such a complex, opaque question that it requires a fuller probing of why these aspects are different.”
They are not fundamentally different. I would assume that “everyone” agrees that “free political knowledge” is just one sub-category of knowledge within the term “free knowledge” and “free encyclopedic knowledge” is another sub-category. So my premise is saying nothing more than, “Isn’t it about time for Wikipedians to acknowledge political knowledge is at least as important to humanity as encyclopedic knowledge (which is a pretty obvious statement, no?).
You state: “I don't find the argument for a political version of WP convincing, and I don't feel the essay presents a practical way in which an overtly political version of WP could be managed and be useful to readers.”
The essay is an editorial arguing for establishing some political version of WP, the “practical way in which it could be managed and be useful to readers” is explained in the proposed new project description (WikiArguments) that the piece refers to. It would make the opinion piece way too long and boring to include this in the main argument. Readers interested in how it would actually work would go check the reference.
You state: “Why should it be part of the WMF's outfit?”
I’d say the piece covers this point rather powerfully. Briefly, WMF clearly needs to get involved politically to achieve its ultimate goal (“a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge”). But more importantly, since “everyone agrees” free political knowledge is at least as important to humanity as free encyclopedic knowledge, and political knowledge is obviously part of that “sum of all knowledge”, providing this important knowledge is ALREADY part of WMF’s stated goals, so why not start providing it?
“Why wouldn't it threaten the ideals of neutrality in the existing projects?”
This too is covered more in the referenced WikiArguments (which describes details of how it would all work), but briefly, it wouldn’t threaten the ideals of neutrality because WMF would only be providing the MEANS, not the content, and would thus NOT impose its own political POV.
Thanks again, Tony. I appreciate such constructive comments. Carmen Yarrusso (talk) 17:26, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Tony, here are the basic syllogism levels I mentioned above (in order), which shows the structure of the main argument:
--The WMF clearly has a political POV (even if it pretends not to).
--Political knowledge is at least as important to humanity as encyclopedic knowledge.
--As “the world’s largest free knowledge resource”, WMF should be providing vital political knowledge to the world.
--A brief description of how a new neutral wiki for world political knowledge would work
--Why this new neutral wiki fits well with WMF’s charter goals and its Strategic Plan
--The infrastructure and resources are already in place (Wikipedia) so it would be cheap to implement
--Why the worldwide respect and clout of WMF would make this new wiki work.
--A reference to more details about HOW the new wiki would work.

Carmen Yarrusso (talk) 18:11, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Article at FAC

Hi Tony, I just co-nominated an article at FAC for the first time and was wondering if you'd be interested in reviewing it. I saw your comments on your userpage about "the supernatural industry", and I think the subject of my article, Prosperity theology, is an interesting fusion of commercialism and supernaturalism. Also, thanks for coming up with all those writing exercises, I think they have really helped my prose. Regards, Mark Arsten (talk) 17:01, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at SMasters's talk page.

The Signpost: 16 January 2012

En dash or hyphen

I still get confused: is Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Franco-Mongol alliance/archive2 correct? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:15, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

A hyphen, since the French is shortened to Franco. It's an exception. Otherwise, French–Mongol. Tony (talk) 00:17, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your help

Tony thanks for you help at IMOS and MOSLinking. The reason I brought it up in the first place is the removal of overlinks runs against IRE-IRL. As I have discuused with other editors guidelines can conflict, these need to be cleared up (not just IMOS). And also yes WIKI is slow , logs me out and is a pain since the day before the blackout, I dont know why. Again thanks for you response on the issue.Murry1975 (talk) 15:12, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Murry, nice to hear from you. I've lodged a query at the technical WP:VP. I'm glad it's not just me. It's so bad I'm going to have to give up working at WP until the issue is solved. Tony (talk) 15:18, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Maniac Mansion FAC

Tony- I responded to you comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Maniac Mansion/archive1. I also had a follow up question that I'd appreciate your input on. Thanks. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:51, 19 January 2012 (UTC))

Article Feedback Tool

Hey guys; apologies for the belated nature of this notification; as you can probably imagine, the whole blackout thing kinda messed with our timetables :P. Just a quick reminder that we've got an office hours session tomorrow at 19:00 in #wikimedia-office, where we'll be discussing the results of the hand-coding and previewing some new changes. Hope to see you there :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:45, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you.

diff. I've been struggling for the right words as I did not want to inflame the situation. He seems to respect you, so hopefully that will calm the storm. — Ched :  ?  10:38, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

No problem, Ched. Greg has a certain way of frivolous but sharp language that can be interpreted as his personal style ... written by someone else, one might find it very hard to take. I should point out that Greg and I don't always agree, and sometimes he's right and I'm wrong. Tony (talk) 10:43, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Understood, and the one thing I kept asking myself is how would I feel if someone I thought so highly of were driven off of the project. Not that I don't think that highly of GTB, but we never interacted all that often. — Ched :  ?  10:58, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Yeah. I've changed my tune over the past year as the editor shortage (not to mention the admin shortage) drives home. Every loss of a good editor like that takes on a greater seriousness, to me. Tony (talk) 11:02, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Signpost

My laptop died at RCC, so I'm more likely than not going to be unable to work on the Signpost until it gets fixed. Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:13, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Jaws FAC

Can you continue the suggestions you started on the Jaws FAC? The previous ones covered only the first parts, but were much helpful! Thanks. igordebraga ≠ 21:34, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Question at a RM

Hey Tony. I was just glancing through the RM backlog and there's a question for you on one of your noms, see Talk:Systemic linguistics. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 09:33, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Jenks. Will take a look. Tony (talk) 13:22, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Common names

I'd be grateful if you could have a look at: Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles#Common_names. Thanks. --Kleinzach 01:33, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I hit the same en dash problem you did in SCOTUS=

You might be amused or gratified to see my reply to an accusation of carelessness that popped up on my talk page today. If not, sorry to interrupt you. Cheers! Chris the speller yack 15:57, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

re FC

Hi,

I answered on my talk page. Aside from my hesitations voiced there, I'd need to know where Crisco gets the FC stats from. MathewTownsend (talk) 17:15, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Mathew. I've replied at your talk. Tony (talk) 03:11, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

My statement to Elen

My statement to Elen of the Roads (talk · contribs) about our dispute regarding WT:AT recognizability was so long I put it in a separate file, User:Born2cycle/DearElen. If you have a chance to look it over, and let me know if you find any inaccuracies or other problems with it, I would appreciate it. If you don't mind, please leave comments about it at User talk:Born2cycle/DearElen. Thanks! --Born2cycle (talk) 18:57, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Really not interested in looking at anything but short, succinct posts, and even then this is way down my list of priorities at the moment. Could I ask that you write short rather than long in future, and engage in dialogue with editors rather than produce monologues? While I'll express an occasional opinion (and think you should not change the policy prematurely), this is no big deal for me. I don't want to be whipped up into some maelstrom about it. Tony (talk) 03:11, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 January 2012

Arbitration case

I have filed a request for the Arbitration Committee to look at long-term issues with editing in the Article Titles and MOS areas at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Article titles/MOS. Your input would be welcome. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:51, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I included you as someone who had been heavily involved in the topics. I didn't review your contributions in enough detail to see if there was a current problem, but I did see that there wasn't anything really obvious right now, unlike some of the other parties. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:37, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
My immediate and continuing reaction, too. I thought there had to be a behavioural problem. And as usual, the destructive thing about AC pages is that the peanut gallery is allowed to smear parties with mud-bombs without proper evidence, and to refer to quite irrelevant previous cases to depict some editors as long-term trouble-makers. Got a grudge? Attend AC hearings, take rotten fruit, throw. I don't appreciate this. There will surely be difficulty in pinning down exactly what the problem is generally, and working out why it's been brought to AC rather than AN or ANI, which would be more in balance with the matter. AC's remit is on the behavioural, not the content, side. So isn't the application destructive all-round? Tony (talk) 15:48, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Note that it's possible to be a party to a case and drift through almost completely untouched -- I was a party to the recent Abortion case, but had no evidence presented regarding me, and only presented (iirc) 2 diffs myself. No findings, no sanctions. And it is the behavioral problem I'm hoping Arbcom can address -- I have no position on the content issues of the moment, and barely know what they are. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:58, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Yet you scoped this to include the whole of MoS? WP:MOSLEAD? And a basic problem is in your selection of parties. Can you have a look at the contributors list for the many people who have edited far more than I have at the page, especially recently, but are strangely not named as parties? Tony (talk) 04:15, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Fæ

A request for comments has been opened on administrator User:Fæ. You are being notified due to your prior participation in ANI, RfA, or RfC discussions regarding this user. Thank you, MadmanBot (talk) 20:05, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Article titles and capitalisation case

An arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation/Evidence. Please add your evidence by February 12, 2012, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 15:04, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Freedom and Justice Party - move

Hello Tony1,

thank you for your contribution to the discussion about a requested move of Freedom and Justice Party/Freedom and Justice Party (Egypt). I have replied to you arguments and concerns. If you want, you can check again if I was able to convince you and dispel your concerns. Kind regards --RJFF (talk) 16:23, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

User_talk:SandyGeorgia#Wikipedia:Peer_review.2FAhalya.2Farchive2

Hi Tony. Can you please help let me know the relevant policy related to the issue discussed on User_talk:SandyGeorgia#Wikipedia:Peer_review.2FAhalya.2Farchive2. Thanks. --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:49, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 January 2012

This Month in GLAM: January 2012



Headlines
Read this edition in full • Single-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

Unsubscribe · Global message delivery 20:50, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Airline destination lists: insane voting setup

I think most of us participating in the WP:AIRPORTS discussion about linking are fully aware of WP:NOTVOTE---the problem was caused by a certain user who, in the space of a couple of hours, went off on a rampage of disruptive editing because (s)he was offended by something trivial. That said, now that they've gone away, a sensible discussion of the issue at hand (whether destination airports should be wikilinked in the lists of "Airlines and destinations" on airport articles) seems to be going on. The page history should tell you the story, if you're really interested! Thanks, --RFBailey (talk) 07:06, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Nyon Conference

Hi Tony - I've finally replied to your comment on the FAC here. Sorry for the delay. No need for you to do anything if it isn't convenient. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 23:27, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment in the FAC. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 19:42, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Women in development#Requested move 2

It seems difficult to get closure on this question. Since you contributed to the discussion on the first move proposal, perhaps you have thoughts on the second proposal. Thanks, Aymatth2 (talk) 04:25, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Thx for the note. I had second thoughts about it. But it comes down to the angle of the article, I seem to remember, which might require tweaking. I'll visit when I can manage it. Tony (talk) 07:30, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Guidance, Navigation and Control

Why did you move it to Guidance, navigation and control (engineering) when the (engineering) part wasn't needed? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:43, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

This is an article you've proposed for deletion? I guess you're asking for theoretical reasons, then. It must have been some time ago, because nowadays I'd probably not insert a specifier—the community needs to decide on exactly when these are applicable. Guidance, navigation and control is framed there as a branch of engineering, not just the guidance, navigation and control of my remote-control toy yacht. I'd like better guidance at wp:title on this. Tony (talk) 01:01, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Missouri River

Hey there, I responded to your comments on this fac, would be glad to address any remaining issues Shannºn 03:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

En dash question

Hi Tony. There's a technical request at RM at the moment which proposes moving "Post-9/11" to "Post–9/11". Not sure about it myself; seems a bit like overkill really—why would anyone think the "post" applies only to the 9? Anyway, MOS:ENDASH wasn't much help so I'm wondering what you or your talk page watchers think about it. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 11:30, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Jenks, a dash would be incorrect: it's just a compound adjective; one test I use is whether the items could be reversed, and they clearly can't be here. Slightly awkward to have an adjective as an article title (WP:TITLE prefers nouns and noun phrases). I can't think of an alternative, though. Tony (talk) 11:42, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Tony. I've left an objection there using your explanation. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 11:59, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 February 2012

Talkback

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

—David Levy 18:13, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Tony On what do you base your statement that "chronological articles do not include 'year in x' articles"? Deb (talk) 08:22, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Tony,
It's quite clear that the Year in Topic articles are covered by the exclusion. If they had not been, those links would have been removed in 2009 when the debate took place. As long as you do not damage these articles further by removing date links, I will not be forced to revert your changes. I think that's clear. Deb (talk) 13:11, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Dear Tony

Sorry that you feel that way. I know that you regard the 2009 decision as something of a personal victory, but the fact remains that Year in Topic articles are chronological articles and therefore exempted. If you want to fiddle around with dots and dashes to get your edit count up, feel free, but don't remove useful links. I don't have to justify myself to you, as I am conforming with the community decision. I have never been blocked for failing to do so. Deb (talk) 15:45, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I have explained the situation to you. The Year in Topic articles are covered by the exemption. You have no reason to remove the links, so please stop doing it. Deb (talk) 16:22, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I've explained the situation to you, too. You're wrong. If you weren't wrong, why haven't you been linking day-months in the vast majority of year-in-X articles that don't link them? And do not try to smear me by implying that I am "doing" it. I haven't "done" it since you dropped in. I must remind you again of the civility policy, which you've brushed up against in your comments on the thread on your own talk page. It's thus far been unproductive in talking with you, since you utterly refuse to answer my queries. Not a morsel of logic or argument, but just blanket assertions. This is not going to advance the matter, is it? I'm still waiting for you to justify your actions, beyond the one-clause mantra I see just above. I'd hoped we'd be discussing the substance of the issue. Oh, and I don't "regard the 2009 decision as something of a personal victory"; I don't see things in personal terms like that—I don't need to. It's all about the readers, to me. Tony (talk) 03:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Re: NAN

I looked at the page and got the same error! Mysterious; very mysterious. I'm stumped, this certainly isn't supposed to happen. ResMar 21:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm trying to think of whom to ask. Jarry? Tony (talk) 02:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
I had the good fortune to encounter the intrepid MZMcBride in the search for a fix, and it has duly been solved. Skomorokh 06:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
I'd love to know the answer! I'll see what he did soon. :-) Tony (talk) 06:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 February 2012

The Signpost: 20 February 2012

Overlinking

I know you were part of a page that collected examples of horrible overlinking, so I figure I'd share this with you. Cheers, Sven Manguard Wha? 01:54, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Sven, thanks, I look forward to looking (much later today, in a break between clients). :-) Tony (talk) 03:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Dash script

You popped up on my watchlist having run a script to fix emdashes to endashes. As someone who has no idea how this is done, I wonder if I could ask a favour: could you run the script on Category:Electoral districts of New South Wales and Category:Former electoral districts of New South Wales? Both have a lot of emdashes that should be endashes. There's absolutely no rush. Frickeg (talk) 00:00, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

heads up

Tony, are you aware of this discussion? Your name is being bandied about:

Milkunderwood (talk) 05:28, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

    • Thanks, MUW. I'm so tired from RL overwork that I haven't the strength to contribute. I feel I'm being neglectful, but I'm not sure I can be of use there. I'll be in a better state mid-week, I hope. Tony (talk) 13:35, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 February 2012

The Signpost: 05 March 2012

Thanks for stopping by the Teahouse, Tony!

Teahouse logo
 Dear Tony1, thank you for stopping by the Teahouse. Wikipedia is a community of people working together to make knowledge free. You are an important part of that effort! Sarah (talk) 16:06, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

The Tea Leaf - Issue One - Recent news from the Teahouse

Hi! Welcome to the first edition of The Tea Leaf, the official newsletter of the Teahouse!

Spring has sprung! Stop by the Teahouse for a cup of tea under the cherry blossoms.
  • Metrics are out from week one. Week one showed that the need for Teahouse hosts to invite new editors to the Teahouse is urgent for this pilot period. It also showed that emailing new users invitations is a powerful tool, with new editors responding more to emails than to talk page templates. We also learned that the customized database reports created for the Teahouse have the highest return rate of participation by invitees. Check out the metrics here and see how you can help with inviting in our Invitation Guide.
  • A refreshed "Your hosts" page encourages experienced Wikipedians to learn about the Teahouse and participate. With community input, the Teahouse has updated the Your hosts page which details the host roles within the Teahouse pilot and the importance that hosts play in providing a friendly, special experience not always found on other welcome/help spaces on Wikipedia. It also explains how Teahouse hosts are important regarding metrics reporting during this pilot. Are you an experienced editor who wants to help out? Take a look at the new page today and start learning about the hosts tasks and how you can participate!
  • Introduce yourself and meet new guests at the Teahouse. Take the time to welcome and get to know the latest guests at the Teahouse. New & experienced editors to Wikipedia can add a brief infobox about themselves and get to know one another with direct links to userpages. Drop off some wikilove to these editors today, they'll surely be happy to feel the wikilove!

You are receiving The Tea Leaf after expressing interest or participating in the Teahouse! To remove yourself from receiving future newsletters, please remove your username here. Sarah (talk) 16:09, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Football scores

No my understanding is Ndash should be used in the scores as it is in the majority of football season articles. Also used in page titles and when representing scores in player articles. I may be wrong but thats what the others use so i use it. Which is what N dash should be used for football scores my edit summary says Edinburgh Wanderer 14:35, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Im reading your message again and I'm really not sure what you mean i reverted Hyphens to endash which is what my edit summary says.
Your going to have to explain. I reverted a user who changed ndash to hyphens. Therfore my statement of ndash should be used when reverting is not contradictory in any way.Edinburgh Wanderer 14:54, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
This is getting frustrating in this edit [10] it was changed from ndash to hyphens with my edit the one you are misreading i changed back to ndash [11] so my statement of ndash should be used is neither misleading or contradictory.Edinburgh Wanderer 14:59, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Could you kindly check my edit again, and let me know if I have my glasses on the wrong way around? ;-) I changed hypens in the football scores to ndashes, yet your revert put them all back to hyphens, but your edit summary suggested the opposite. Perhaps you were confused that I changed some of the &ndashes to "–"... --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 15:01, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
No i never you changed the scores from & ndash; to – i changed it back. my edit summary of N dash should be used for football scores is exactly what i did if you cant see that then there is something wrong what a petty thing to ask someone and when explained you say it still contradictory even when the evidence clearly showed you removed that and i changed back.Edinburgh Wanderer 15:08, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
& ndash is used on every season article in Scotland not your straight - whats difficult to understand here. in what way is my statement contradictory to my revert when i say ndash should be usedEdinburgh Wanderer 15:14, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Are we talking cross purposes here? There is no rule that says football scores should be represented as &ndash; in wikicode instead of "–" (ndash), which is two pixels longer than"-" (hyphen). I fail to see why you undid my edit which contained a lot more than your &ndash; when you seem to be objecting to form over substance. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 15:17, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
We aren't crossing purposes I'm answering the question i was asked which was this [12]. Now given you changed from ndash to - and i changed back with the edit summary of ndash should be used for football scores whats contradictory. Edinburgh Wanderer 15:23, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
It is used in the title of all season articles when created its used in all the score sections of all season articles in scotland, its used in plenty of player articles instead of a straight dash. Theres plenty of precident i have no objection to some of your other changes just the scores. What I'm getting increasingly angry with here is tony saying my edit summary was contradictory twice on my talk page when it isn't.
There was no way i was going to spend ages changing back from hyphen back to &nhdash manually just to save your other edits when the majority were that.Edinburgh Wanderer 15:27, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Precedent doesn't apply to difference of form – your apparent preference for html coding for ndashes. I also read your edit summary as contradictory because I clearly changed a number of hyphens into dashes, and you implied that I did the opposite. The straight dash is much more novice-friendly and is in perfect compliance with WP:MOSDASH, so I really don't understand your objection. As I said, the ndash is two pixels longer than a hyphen. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 15:33, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
No offense intended, but your comments are sometimes difficult to parse due to your economy of punctuation. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 15:35, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Listen i couldn't care less whether its too pixels longer or not if i replied here the way i feel like id be blocked so I'm just going to ignore your antagonising behaviour. Oh and there is offense taken strongly and my punctuation is going out the bloody window because your really making me angry. Now if you change in all the score sections from &ndash to a straight - which you did and then i revert saying ndash should be used its not contradictory what your trying to do here is bully me down and its not going to work. Precedent does apply how can you explain why when articles are created with a straight hyphen they are moved to be a &ndash why when u put straight hyphens in players articles are they changed to ndash I'm sorry you are clearly trying to overlook it. Im not going to give you the satisfaction by replying to your contradictory lies anymore my edit summary was not and is not contradictory. Edinburgh Wanderer 15:42, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
we could of had a sensible discussion about this but instead you accuse me of being contradictory when I have explained 4 times how it isn't and you cant back up your claims. I'm following what everyone else does for football articles as I said if that's wrong then fine I will look into it at the project and get back to you but I refuse to have people bully me saying I'm being contradictory when it is clearly not and I have explained that. 212.183.128.81 (talk) 15:55, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm not deliberately trying to antagonise you, and nobody is trying to bully you – you seem to be winding yourself up needlessly, Bud. Your edit summary would be not be contradictory if I made some ndashes into hyphens when I clearly did not. On the other hand, your edit put some ndashes into hyphens. Yes, why don't you check with the project, but I think you will find that they will defer to WP:MOSDASH in that all that matters is the on-screen output of "–". --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 16:01, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
you are trying to bully and are winding me up the only section I'm referring to is the football results scores section that Is what uses &ndash which is what my edit summary says. The rest im not objecting to. So there isn't anything contradictory. Instead of a getting someone else to come to my talk page and then ganging up here we could of discussed. I will ask you to explain by we use it in titles of season articles and on these sections then. P
You're dead wrong, on all counts – I'm definitely not trying to wind you up; my edit didn't introduce one single hyphen. Looks like there's no problem with my eyewear. I'll do you a favour and not speak any more until you have researched the answer with WP:FOOTBALL. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 16:11, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Calm down. Edinburgh. No one is trying to wind you up. You need not have reverted, which did in fact change dashes into hyphens. There is nothing wrong with plain symbols (–) in scores or any other range or opposition of independent entities. And I went to you page under my own steam, not at the behest of anyone else. Tony (talk) 16:15, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
you ganged up on me pure and simple I never used false edit summaries he removed. & ndash and I reverted to put back on how is that a false edit summary when i say a n dash should be used. How do you explain why we must use in titles or it's overwhelming use. I would of been happy to have a discussion on that but you accused me of being false on my edit summaries which is why I'm angry and he repeated. . 212.183.128.81 (talk) 16:27, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
No ganging up; I watch Tony's page. He obviously spotted your edit after I had passed by; I was going to post a message to your talk page but he beat me to it. No accusations of false edit summaries; no accusations, full stop. I believe Tony only queried you because he wasn't sure you understood what I had done. Some of us can tell the difference between an ndash and a hyphen, but I promise you nobody can tell the difference between an &ndash; and a "–" when in read mode (here they are, so you can see for yourself: – vs –). I also said I was confused, so a little bit less paranoia would be helpful. I would attempt to answer your questions above if I could, but I'm sorry I can't parse them. Anyway, I look forward to hearing from you after you have consulted "The Project". --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 01:54, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Photos

Here are three photos of me I found on the Commons; one of them would probably suffice. Rob SchnautZ (WMF) (talk • contribs) 19:13, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Also, I haven't yet received a copy of the interview to review. Please see that I get a chance to review it before it hits the Internet. Thanks! Rob SchnautZ (WMF) (talk • contribs) 19:37, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Sko is scrupulously even-handed, so there's no reason for concern there. The big task is to chop it back by half to two-thirds and to make it digestible by turning it into a journalistic register. That will probably be done in the next 24 hours. Tony (talk) 05:06, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Reply

The answer I'm afraid when it comes to this perticlular user is no. I have no intention of having further conversation with him. I've dealt with Jenks and thumperwad to find out the correct info. I'm happy to speak to yourself but not him. What I have established is that the HTML code can be used per the top line of mos for dash. It's preference and if someone wishes to use that there isnt really a pressing reason why it needs to be changed. I appreciate we all have our areas but the minute he started having a go at me about grammar and making childish remarks like it takes me for ever to parse with you. Or haha or just been cheeky towards me I see no reason to work with him. He isn't interested unless it's his way and the minute I realised that there was no policy against not using it he started it. The truth is I won't take that from anyone. It's uncivil and to be honest I see it as lies. I will work with you or Jenks if need be. I would also like to say in regards to the initial edit summary it wasn't contradictory in my eyes. To me it read like you should use the code rather than a keystroke. It appears you didnt see it as that but that's how I look at it. As I say I won't be communicating with him do you don't have to worry about that. But really it's sorted I'm speaking to Jenks about running the script on the season articles to take it off his list. Edinburgh Wanderer 14:06, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

But that damages you as well as the other party. The no-damage way is to assume each of you is acting in good faith, especially when there's subjective interpretation at issue. Tony (talk) 15:47, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Quick note

I'm running out the door, but will be taking a run at compiling the Schnautz interview later. I've been up to my neck in the education business and am pondering how much of it would be of interest to the general reader, what stands out, what needs context and so on.

I'd initially planned the real-time interview to see for myself the difference between that model and the prepared questions-delayed response model I used when conducting the Gardner interview, before wading into the debate between HaeB and yourself, but time is pressing today so if you have any insights or thoughts on what's noteworthy in the transcript, they would be very much appreciated. Skomorokh 15:59, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I can assist, but not for at least six or seven hours. My huge work pressure is finally starting to subside. I'm wrecked. Tony (talk) 00:05, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Arbcom

Tony - I replied to your posting at the Arbcom talkpage. I tried to make it clear that I'm not trying to accuse anyone of bad faith, or rightness or wrongness. There's simply something about this particular combination of editors that leads to problems. With PMA/JCS gone for a while, that should help. And because of that, I might be sticking my foot in my mouth for no great advantage to the discourse. I just wanted to lay out my observations. Again - I think you're a good editor. I've told you that before on your talkpage, and I said it at the Arbcom page. And I apologize if my tone seemed accusatory. I think that's a byproduct of the Arbcom setting. I know from your page that you've been under real-world stress lately. It was not my intention to add to that in any way, and I also apologize for that. As I said at Arbcom, I just want good editors to work together productively on this great project. Dohn joe (talk) 19:04, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

John, your post is much appreciated. I hope you're aware that I don't have a solution for the article-title scoping thing, and that although you've seen me intensively query a few very general "generic-space-nabbed-first" titles that represent very specific subclasses, I appreciate the disadvantages of the opposite extreme ... who wants parentheses all over the place? I don't think anyone does on that page. After initially experimenting in my mind with the more specific option, I realised the implications of a changed policy that does not spell out in detail how specificity should be constrained in such circumstances. Difficult. Tony (talk) 02:22, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 March 2012

RE: Talk:List of countries by GDP (PPP)

Just in case your question is still open: [13] ... Tomeasy T C 08:26, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Tom, I responded here. Tony (talk) 10:38, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Precious

interest in knowledge being interesting
Thank you for raising the level of quality at DYK last summer, – admitting that what you asked at first seemed an extra load and complication, but thinking now that you achieved a lot in terms of more interesting, more concise information. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:41, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Sorry to see that you need painkillers - I was not aware of it when I came here, hope this helps also a bit, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:41, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Gerda, you really are very kind to send that beautiful blue jewel with those thoughts. I didn't manage to listen to a single movement from a Bach cantata during my stay; I'll have to make up for that now. Tony (talk) 10:25, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Did you see that I took the list of the cantatas over from de? And the top of my talk (about the photographer of the jewel)? Next project: St Matthew Passion structure, also from de, with passion, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:37, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
No, but I'll look later. I had a fantasy once that he met with poor old Picander the postal clerk over coffee at Zimmerman's a few times to work out the structure. But who knows? Tony (talk) 10:51, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

ping

Shot you a belated reply; out for the day now but will look in tonight UTC. Best, Skomorokh 11:01, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 March 2012

Welcome to the Teahouse!

Hi Tony! Thank you for signing up to be a future host at the Teahouse. Well, great news - the future is here, we'd love you to be a Teahouse host! During this pilot time, Teahouse hosts do more than just ask questions - they invite new users to the Teahouse and track those invitations, they also provide input and insight into the development of the Teahouse. A few things I'd love to see you do as a Teahouse host:

  • First, declare your Hostness! Add yourself to the Host page! This page is where new editors and your fellow hosts can learn about you and reach out. By signing up here you declare that you know how to serve up a great cup of tea. Add yourself here.
  • Learn more about your responsibilities as a host. Teahouse hosts have certain responsibilities during this pilot. If you feel you can't meet them, perhaps a host role isn't for you during this important pilot.
  • Invite new users with our invite guide. Aside from answering questions, the most important thing we need you to do as a host is to invite new users. Please follow these steps and invite as many as you can to experience the Teahouse. Also, please document your experience in the spreadsheet link provided on that page!
  • Visit the tips page. The tips page provides you some basic tips on how to engage with visitors at the Teahouse. We have a special way of doing things - unlike other areas of Wikipedia! (Such as greeting new editors with a simple "Hi!" and being as easy to understand and friendly as possible.)
  • Join the conversation by participating on the host lounge talk pages. We also have an IRC channel now for hosts to get to know one another, develop your skills, and eventually the channel will serve as an additional help space for new editors!
  • To visit the IRC channel: #wikipedia-teahouse connect (Feel free to ask me for help if you're having trouble connecting!)

I'm so happy that you volunteered to lend a hand at the Teahouse. I look forward to following your contributions and invitations, and your assistance in making the Teahouse a great and warm place for new Wikipedians. See you there :) Sarah (talk) 21:54, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

There is a question at the Teahouse you might have interest in...

Teahouse logo
 Dear Tony1, I just asked a question at the Teahouse that you might have interest in! I hope you'll stop by and participate! Sarah (talk) 01:33, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Sydney Opera House cost

In your recent edit, you added an explicit "A$" in the cost= field of the infobox. However, the value is used as {{AUD}}, a template that automatically inserts that dollar-symbol (and even links it to an article about this type of currency). Could you remove the now-doubled symbol you inserted? DMacks (talk) 11:33, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Sure, I wondered what that was. Give me a few mins and I'll fix. But my greater concern is that the numbers now sound misleadingly cheap. You can't get a plain office block for 102 million now. Do you think a 2012 equivalent could be cited somewhere (I think it's probably 2.5 times 1972 dollars)? Tony (talk) 11:39, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
PS, the pan-pic of the interior of the Concert Hall: a pity it's so dark ... don't you think it would be more effective if cropped about 25% of the width at both right and left, so the pic could focus more on the stage? Tony (talk) 11:44, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
2012 dollars sounds good but could be some OR issues if someone objects. You could add cost= {{AUD|120 million}} (1972) or something similar? Bidgee (talk) 12:09, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
What about the Reserve Bank's calculator I just found? Goes from 1966 to 2011. OMG, $102M in 1972 (still conservative, I think, since most of the expenditure was before the 1973 launch) is equivalent to $922M in 2011. See what you think in the infobox now ...? Tony (talk) 12:43, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Good idea, providing a "current value" equivalent so the number has meaning! We have {{inflation}} that can calculate it on-the-fly, but that template has a loud warning not to use it for government or capital expenditures, and (while reading the talk-page to figure out why) there's a note that it only supports up to 2008 for A$. MOS:CURRENCY is the only lead I can find about how to format the actual content. DMacks (talk) 13:15, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Request

Could you weigh in here, as a former writer of the featured content section? Mathew and I are having a disagreement over what should be included in the Featured Picture blurbs, and he has said something about agreeing with you. Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:57, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

...for your helpful tweaks to the Teahouse db report page. - J-Mo Talk to Me Email Me 06:16, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Teahouse invitation tracking

Hi Tony! I saw you were inviting folks to the Teahouse! That's awesome, as that is the #1 area that we need help with during this pilot period. However, we do need your help in a more specific aspect - tracking your invitations. During this pilot, we need to track all of our invitations, as this tracking will help us gauge the success (or failure) or the project in various areas. You can do this by using the templates we have created here and by tracking them, as mentioned here. I noticed that you also aren't using the template, while that is okay, and I appreciate your own personal spin on the template, if you aren't using the template, it's really really really (REALLY!) important to track your invites in the tracking document mentioned in the "Track who was invited" section I link above. Thanks Tony for helping during this pilot program (And hopefully beyond!). Sarah (talk) 14:15, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Sure. The instructions could do with some simplifying: I'm finding them hard to digest all at once. I'll get around to this tomorrow. On revisiting that invitation of mine, I don't like it, actually. Tony (talk) 14:33, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

your comment

Hi,

You incorrectly stated that I requested that you comment on Skomorokh's page.[14] I didn't. And I don't know where my request there on his page has gone. I had wanted to have a discussion with Skomorokh but my comment has been removed. In any case, being the new person, I'm beginning to feel very uncomfortable with what's going on, so I think I'll just bow out for now and let you all handle it. Perhaps you'll discuss my concerns somewhere. You, of course, are free to add back the "Lesbian kisses." Best wishes, MathewTownsend (talk) 14:06, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I see above it was Crisco who asked. Does it really matter? I really don't want to take sides here, and thought I was being supportive of all—not hard, since it's based on a genuine belief in both your excellent contributions. What do you mean by "bow out"? Tony (talk) 14:30, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
I really hope he didn't mean he was quitting FC. Why? He's good at it. Tony (talk)
  • I think that's what he meant. I'm not a mind-reader, but he may be upset because of the discussion's outcome and possibly with your typo. For what it's worth, I won't be adding the "lesbian kiss" line to the Queen Christina blurb because I think he's right that such a claim should have a good source (the claim was that the film featured one of the first lesbian kisses in Hollywood). I've also asked him to reconsider at his talk page. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:16, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

(ec) I don't know the rules, I guess, so I'll bow out and Crisco will do the Featured content section. Of course you can weigh in on my request to Skomorokh, whether or not I requested you to. Unfortunately, he removed my comment. Perhaps he wouldn't have removed it if you had not entered, and I could have continued the conversation just with him and come to a satisfactory conclusion. Now my comment is gone with no feedback. In any case, I don't support material that is not sourced being included in FP, especially since the other Featured content items are bound by it. Crisco is apt to include promotional material to hype his images from various articles not mentioned on the promotion page, material that is not sourced. MathewTownsend (talk) 15:15, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I can't imagine how my mixing up your usernames has cascaded into this. Why not reinsert your comment at Sko's page? Can't you work out a flexible practice between you? Tony (talk) 15:20, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
If an editor says he will answer your question that evening, and then after you enter your comment, he deliberately removes the whole thing, is it really ok for me to put my comment back? And if I do, should I put his response bacK? (Both of these he deliberately removed.) And should I return your comment also? This doesn't seem right to me or the way editors do things here. It might be considered vandalism or disruptive. MathewTownsend (talk) 15:26, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't know either, and I don't take kindly to the claim that I'm "apt to include promotional material to hype [my] images". You disagreed with the lesbian kisses line, I removed it and replaced it with a bit about critical reception (cited, actually), which quoted a critical review aggregate site and was thus more representative. You disapproved, so I switched with something completely innocuous which still gave more context than just veni, vidi, vici. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:27, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
FC is more important than this localised differences. Tony (talk) 15:29, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
@Tony, I agree. The show must go on, no matter what. If Mathew decides that working on a different part of the Signpost is better (more interesting, less hassle, whatever), then all the power to him. I'll just need to cut back on my content creation to ensure we publish on time. If he wants to continue with FC, I think he is doing a fantastic job, especially with the text-based featured content. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:35, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
@Crisco, you did not remove "lesbian kisses" as you claim above. I did.[15] Part of the problem is that the Featured picture process is so superficial that no good reasons are given on the nomination page - in fact no reasons at all sometimes. Just vague "EV". It's not a well considered nomination process, and is controlled by a few ediors. No real discussion. Perhaps some work on upgrading Featured picture nominations so that credible reasons are given for the nomination that could be used in Featured content. That way, you wouldn't have to go roaming around to other places to find "reasons" for the nomination and introduce extraneous stuff. The fact that a poster got a high rating on Rotten Tomatoes is a reason that the 1933 poster is featured (when Rotten Tomatoes didn't even exist?) This is on the level of dyk, which I don't respect an can't be a part of. MathewTownsend (talk) 16:15, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Right, sorry. I didn't reinsert it, which got mixed up in my mind. FP doesn't consider the article quality; in fact, if one were to oppose based on text in the article (aside from the image caption), one would see quite a backlash. The film received a high score on Rotten Tomatoes, and by giving an easily understandable factoid (don't forget, Rotten Tomatoes often includes old reviews as well as new ones), we give the reader greater understanding than the bland "well-received". Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:07, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
  • FPCs are certainly less technically troublesome than FSCs were. All of the modes are different in multiple ways, which is one thing you see clearly in doing FC. Mathew, if you find FPC unsatisfactory, why not write an opinion piece about it? Tony (talk) 16:22, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
ps - I have no idea what FSCs are. MathewTownsend (talk) 16:48, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

What was the answer to my question? Crisco says above that it was answered. What was the answer? Should I do as suggested above and reinsert my question on Skomorokh's page? MathewTownsend (talk) 22:04, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation closed

An arbitration case regarding article titles and capitalisation has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

  1. All parties are reminded to avoid personalizing disputes concerning the Manual of Style, the article titles policy ('WP:TITLE'), and similar policy and guideline pages, and to work collegiately towards a workable consensus. In particular, a rapid cycle of editing these pages to reflect one's viewpoint, then discussing the changes is disruptive and should be avoided. Instead, parties are encouraged to establish consensus on the talk page first, and then make the changes.
  2. Pmanderson is indefinitely prohibited from engaging in discussions and edits relating to the Manual of Style or policy about article titles.
  3. Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all pages related to the English Wikipedia Manual of Style and article titles policy, broadly construed.
  4. Born2cycle is warned that his contributions to discussion must reflect a better receptiveness to compromise and a higher tolerance for the views of other editors.

For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 22:57, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Health

Best wishes for a speedy recovery. ```Buster Seven Talk 13:05, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

From me too, mate. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:13, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Very kind of both of you. Thanks! Tony (talk) 05:49, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Asia and dmy

China and Japan do not use dmy formatting for dates, so I do not think it is proper for you to add {{use dmy dates}} onto articles with East Asian subjects.—Ryulong (竜龙) 16:50, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Ryulong, I think it's mixed, although I've noticed that a large majority do use mdy. The situation is further complicated by the fact that we are translating much of the relevant information into English. Your help in commenting on the reliability of articles such as Date_and_time_notation_in_Japan and Date and time notation in the Philippines ("In the Philippines, the dates are written both in dd-mm-yy format as well as in a way similar to that of the United States") would be appreciated. Tony (talk) 05:48, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Linked dates

Oh? Could you point out where? I don't remember doing this. Cheers.  Omg †  osh  17:02, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Never mind, I've spotted them on the t20 article you recently edited. No idea why I did that, but thanks for correcting it!  Omg †  osh  18:19, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, bad practice on my part not to link you to it! Tony (talk) 05:41, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Interview

The interview appears workable. Probably on the Sunday depending on what the people are doing then. Monday won't work because my flight leaves at 10 am. Eclecticology (talk) 02:56, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 March 2012

Berlin

Hola, I've left note in the newsroom to help coordinate the activities of the interested reporters re: the Berlin conference – obviously we don't want to document planning best done in private, but status updates on availability and areas of focus should be helpful. Contactable only on-wiki for the next five hours or so; otherwise will aim to catch up on email tonight (within 12 hours). Cheers, Skomorokh 10:40, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

"that"s

Hi,

I've roamed around your "self-help writing tutorials" and value your insights. Do you mention "that" anywhere? Sometimes "that" is useful/necessary in a sentence, but occasionally I see "that"s put in when none are needed. What is your view on the use of "that"? (Also, I prefer "that" over "which" most of the time when one or the other is needed. What do you think?) Regards, MathewTownsend (talk) 14:50, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Mathew, I strip out "that" wherever it's not needed. And if there's no preceding comma, I do prefer "that" over "which", for the same reasons as the Chicago MoS's: that it avoids any chance the writer has got it wrong concerning the presence or absence of the comma (which can radically alter the meaning). Tony (talk) 15:26, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I think I'll frame this and hang it on my wall. MathewTownsend (talk) 16:01, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Conversions

Hi Tony -

I came across one of your edits calling for metric conversions at Martese. I then noticed that you made a similar plea at Mountain weasel. I went ahead and made the conversions, but was wondering if you knew about Template:Convert? It's an easy way to get conversions into text, and is one of my favorite wikignoming activities. I usually use the default units, and add "abbr=on" to put unit abbreviations in the text and keep things shorter. It doesn't take long to learn (although I do have to go back to the template page now and again for some of the odder units). If you want to start using it, that'd be awesome; if not, feel free to ping me with pages that need conversions. Thanks! Dohn joe (talk) 17:32, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Dohn, thank you indeed for making those changes. I'm not so hot on templates, because they make it harder for "anyone to edit". I'll copy this thread onto my notes file and either ping you or try it out myself next time I encounter this. Tony (talk) 09:44, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

blurb size in Signpost featured content

Hi,

This week I've stripped the blurb size down just a bit on the notion that the blurb should give a general idea of the article and not be replete with facts (and especially) figures. If you get a chance, let me know what you think. (I expect some flak.) MathewTownsend (talk) 22:49, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

You need explanation, here it is

You did read my talk page. My other account is User:Waorca. It's legit if I don't use both accounts to support each other or voting support/oppose. Check both edit histories of the 2 users, I've never done anything like that. I use both users like a separated person. Also, I change the titles due to WP:RETAIN. Like I'd said last time: if you renamed some articles by un-capitalizing the word "dynasty", well then every other articles of the similar subjects should be renamed too. Why did you only rename some articles while not all of them? Last time, someone else already explained to you when I ask you should also rename the Burmese/Chinese dynasty articles, but you ignored that. Why is that? ༆ (talk) 01:01, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

A less aggressive section title would have been welcome. You are on the edge of breaching WP:SOCKPUPPET. Please edit under your real username when performing potentially troublesome actions that relate to your previous name. Tony (talk) 01:44, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
OK! But it's better if I stop using the other account and redirect its talk page to this one (༆). And still I want to keep the word "dynasty" with capitalization. Cheer. ༆ (talk) 02:20, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
You may want one thing, I may want another; but what counts is discussion. Please remember that these names are translated from the Vietnamese, too, and that sources in English are what count (not in sources' capped titles, but in normal text); also of bearing are WP's house guidelines, although they're not the whole story. Do you announce on your talk page what the other account is? That is the expectation under WP:SOCKPUPPET.

I've missed an important point: WP:RETAIN on no account functions between articles—only within each individual article. Please do not use this misinterpreted principle. Tony (talk) 02:24, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you're right, you might want this and I want that. So we should keep it the way a article creator likes it to be unless there's a strong nationalism or it's wrong grammar. Also, recently, all ancient Egyptian dynasty articles are renamed with the capitalization of "Dynasty". You might like to see some oppose/support comments in Talk:First Dynasty of Egypt#Requested move. ༆ (talk) 19:59, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Possibly; it's not an issue I'm going to live or die by. But it should have been put to an RM, since the whole area of caps often needs individual decisions. You'll find that many articles for dynasties and related items are not capped on en.WP. Tony (talk) 03:26, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Titles for articles concerning VESA technologies

Would appreciate any comments you would have on the discussion here. Thanks. GoneIn60 (talk) 03:48, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Web searches—coming changes

This article discusses Web searches and imminent changes. There is an embedded YouTube video with a duration of 12:47.

—Wavelength (talk) 02:12, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Online resources about writing and speaking

Editors can use this link to find online resources about writing and speaking.

—Wavelength (talk) 18:56, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 April 2012

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite

Hello Tony1. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.

Please click HERE to participate.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.

You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 12:00, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

The Tea Leaf - Issue Two

Hi! Welcome to the second edition of The Tea Leaf, the official newsletter of the Teahouse!

  • Teahouse celebrates one month of being open! This first month has drawn a lot of community interest to the Teahouse. Hosts & community members have been working with the project team to improve the project in many ways including creating scripts to make inviting easier, exploring mediation processes for troubling guests, and best practices regarding mentoring for new editors who visit the Teahouse.
Springtime means fresh tea leaves...
  • First month metrics report an average of 30 new editors visiting the Teahouse each week. Approximately 30 new editors participate in the Teahouse each week, by way of asking questions and making guest profiles. An average of six new questions and four new profiles are made each day. We'd love to hear your ideas about how we can spread the word about the Teahouse to more new editors.
  • Teahouse has many regulars. Like any great teahouse, our Teahouse has a 61% return rate of guests, who come back to ask additional questions and to also help answer others' questions. Return guests cite the speedy response rate of hosts and the friendly, easy to understand responses by the hosts and other participants as the main reasons for coming back for another cup o' tea!
  • Early metrics on retention. It's still too early to draw conclusions about the Teahouse's impact on new editor retention, but, early data shows that 38% of new editors who participate at the Teahouse are still actively editing Wikipedia 2-4 weeks later, this is compared with 7% from a control group of uninvited new editors who showed similar first day editing activity. Additional metrics can be found on the Teahouse metrics page.
  • Nine new hosts welcomed to the Teahouse. Nine new hosts have been welcomed to the Teahouse during month one: Chicocvenancio, Cullen328, Hallows AG, Jeffwang, Mono, Tony1, Worm That Turned, Writ Keeper, and Nathan2055. Welcome to the Teahouse gang, folks!
  • Say hello to the new guests at the Teahouse. Take the time to welcome and get to know the latest guests at the Teahouse. Drop off some wikilove to these editors today, as being welcomed by experienced editors is a really nice way to make new editors feel welcome.

You are receiving The Tea Leaf after expressing interest or participating in the Teahouse! To remove yourself from receiving future newsletters, please remove your username here. -- Sarah (talk) 21:48, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

tony

you said to ask you about editing but thats not what im having trouble with...the problem is editors keep deleting my contributions any help? especially on the "al ahbash" article...the article is not even close to NPOV and its a stub. Baboon43 (talk) 01:29, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

B, note that Tony is in hospital right now. I'm sure he'll get back to you when he can in a few days.
NoeticaTea? 05:42, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Postponed interview

Hi Tony1, your note leaves me worried. Get well soon, but take all the rest needed! Looking forward to reading your piece in the next issue. Regards, HaeB (talk) 21:02, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your wishes, HaeB. I responded by email. Tony (talk) 12:13, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

I heard one of our Signpost editors is laid up...hope it's nothing tragic! Get well soon! Rob SchnautZ (WMF) (talk • contribs) 18:38, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Rob, it's very kind of you to leave this message. Thank you! Tony (talk) 12:13, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Update on Tony's absence

I am in communication with Tony, and will pass on to him the expressions of concern above. He has undergone surgery a second time, and is in good care. Of course he is without internet access, and anxious to get back to Wikipedia. It seems he will be out of action till Friday at least, and probably till the weekend. If this changes I will post a follow-up note.

Thanks for letting us know, Noetica. Please pass Tony my best wishes when you're next in touch with him. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:24, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Wishing Tony a speedy recovery. I hope someone is watching after that lovely daughter pictured on the user page. :) Neotarf (talk) 19:04, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
SlimVirgin and Neotarf, thanks so much for your thoughts. Fortunately, a neighbour was able to mind my canine daughter – 26 kg of squirming muscle – at very short notice. Tony (talk) 12:13, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Elisha Lawrence (loyalist), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cardigan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:22, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. Hope your recovery is going well. Jenks24 (talk) 15:41, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Jenks, thanks for your kind thoughts and your fix. Tony (talk) 12:13, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Australian hospital, 2012

My heart-felt thanks to well-wishers, whose messages I heard about via a text-message from Noetica. My laptop wouldn't talk to the network device someone brought in for me, but in any case I wasn't well enough to do anything useful on WP.

I was discharged about 10 hours ago. So there goes a week of my life I'll never get back; and the expenditure of a ton of taxpayers' money—all unnecessary, since my emergency admission and operation last Monday could have been avoided had I been given proper instructions about warning signs after the first operation three weeks ago (which was straightforward and planned). You soon learn that the admixture of 19th- and 21st-century communications and record-keeping systems come at considerable systemic cost to both patients and staff.

This time, an extended stay in hospital allowed me not only to gaze at a million-dollar view from my bed, but afforded time to observe the worst and the best of what goes on in modern healthcare. There was the night nurse who took out her dislike of a patient who didn't want to be treated as stupid, stabbing a cannula into the back of my left hand with such apparently wilful sloppiness that the infusion machines played up when connected to it (the area is still swollen and painful). But some of her colleagues—perhaps a quarter—rose above the utterly humdrum low-grade duties of nursing to show that skilful engagements with patients, and medical knowledge and curiosity, can really make a difference. BTW, there was a gender skew among nurses that still approximates WP's 87–13% ratio, both of which I find strange and undesirable.

Unseen doctors and patients behind curtains conducted conversations that fascinated; lying in a half-awake state with all the time in the world, I got much out of listening to the interpersonal grammar of their dialogues, particularly as played out in their intonation patterns—only a language-nerd would do that! One doctor talked of "an exciting urine test", leading the bemused patient to ask who would be excited and about what. A man whose broken leg was chronically unhealed was told he risked losing the whole limb without an operation. I later hobbled over and encouraged him to take the advice of his doctors, having heard the tension in their voices. He was bed-wheeled back from the five-hour op involving multiple skin grafts. The orthopaedic surgeons sent up the junior anaesthetist, of all people, to explain the complex details of care to a nurse; but the ensuing doctor–nurse interaction of the highest imaginable professional standard on both sides showed that their delegation spoke to the junior's brilliance, not to their wish to get away early.

Now, just eight hours "out", real-life is losing its sense of bewildering novelty; but several phone conversations have already exposed the temporary damage to my working memory and lexical access wreaked by the general anaesthetic; I believe the effects last from two to four weeks. (Fortunately, the previous op involved only a spinal block after I'd huffed and puffed for that alternative.) Tony (talk) 12:13, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing! Thinking of you, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:29, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Having just gotten out of the hospital myself, I can sympathize. These things are never fun.
In the U.S., it has become quite common for hospitals to have an unsecured "guest" wifi that anyone can connect to. Useful if you are waiting for someone else, but if you are the patient, and alone, you dare not bring anything valuable.
I have never heard of any long-term cognitive impairment from general anesthesia. I myself don't notice any difference (but then I wouldn't if I was impaired, would I, ha ha.) The important thing is to get up and move around right after surgery and get your lungs to expand. During anesthesia the lungs move less and the anesthetic gas can stay in the lungs until you get the lungs moving again to exhale it. From what I have been told, the affects of general anesthesia last only as long as the drug is actually in your bloodstream. If you are feeling less than 100% cognitively, look to your pain meds, which you will probably need for a while. (But don't take my word for it, ask someone who has actual credentials in medicine.) My own strategy was to negotiate an earlier-than-planned-for discharge so I could get some sleep. I whittled the three days approved by the insurance company down to an overnight stay, but didn't get any fun pain meds.  :( Neotarf (talk) 13:53, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Glad to hear you're out and about again, Tony. Sorry to hear of your travails. Best wishes for your continuing recovery. Dohn joe (talk) 19:10, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 April 2012

Move Discussion

US Shortening discussion

Interested in your opinion. Judicatus (talk) 08:24, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Coordinate syntax

Just a note that replacing a hyphen with an en dash in negative coordinates, as you did here, makes the coordinates unparsable by GeoHack, which therefore displays the wrong location when the coordinates in the article are clicked on. It's not a good idea to do this. Deor (talk) 13:40, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Thanks, you're right. Replied on Deor's page. Tony (talk) 01:07, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Ryanair

Hi Tony1, I was quite surprised to see this edit despite Date and time notation in Republic of Ireland. WP:MOSNUM doesn't advocate MDY over DMY and the version used in the relevant country/ies is DMY, so is there any chance you can run your script to revert to DMY, unless there's a reason I've missed? Thank you, Cloudz679 16:19, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, that was unintended. Yes, dmy is correct, and I'll change it now. Thx. Tony (talk) 01:01, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Passion

He was despised - wishing you good recovery and spirits, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:05, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Gerda, it's a beautiful number from Messiah. Thanks for your kind wishes. Tony (talk) 12:13, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
How are you now? Are you ready for 10,000 Easter eggs (top of my talk)? Or is that too much of a good thing ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:40, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm steadily on the path to normal, thanks Gerda. The amount of chocolate looks huge. Tony (talk) 14:03, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Hope it's not too disappointing that they are made from eggshells and plastic! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:06, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Subra Suresh

Tony, I am new to Wiki editing. I have just completed "Subra Suresh" entry, having completely revised and adding a photo/portrait. However, the Question Book text at the top of the entry has not changed since my edits were accepted last week. Who edits this box and when? It is out of date with its reference to a lack of primary sources, etc. Thanks, in advance, for your help. --LeeHerring (talk) 20:13, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Signpost

Just a comment: you may wish to see this. Sorry for the confusion! :) Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 22:04, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 April 2012

Hi. When you recently edited Sparkling wine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page La Rioja (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:56, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

N&N

Hey Tony. Looks like we're really going to need you on this one—in short, I'm going to be handling E-in-C duties this week, but I'm not going to have the time to provide the "the buck stops with me" approach to N&N that most E-in-Cs do. In other words, any help appreciated, particularly this week. Thanks! - Jarry1250 [Deliberation needed] 19:25, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

It's a good week for me to put more time into it. I've left a note at NAN about the two stories I'm preparing. Tony (talk) 00:49, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Just realised I forgot to thank you for your hard work on this, much appreciated. - Jarry1250 [Deliberation needed] 14:45, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, Jarry—no problem. I'm not very good at identifying potential stories, I have to say. I've looked through the long list of links at the resources pages and found nothing. Tony (talk) 14:55, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 July 2012

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tony1/Archive_12&oldid=1138972508"