User talk:Tony1/Archive 4

Justify the damage you've done

All three aspects you've reverted: I'd like to know what makes you think you've solved some grammatical issues. Please justify, because in my professional opinion, you're plain wrong. Tony (talk) 15:19, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

"Damage"?

Actually, I restored the text to what it was before you decided to make the text more vague, and in at least one case, grammatically incorrect.

And by the way, per WP:BRD, the onus is actually on you to justify the "new" inclusion/modification. But whatever.

(And your "professional" opinion means almost as much as my "professional" opinion, or for that matter, that of any other Wikipedian. We're all Wikipedians here, after all. )

So please, enlighten me with how you feel "removed only on" is more clear, or is better grammatically than "only removed upon". Or how you felt that removing "as well", didn't create more vagueness? Or even the first edit that I reverted, where you didn't keep in mind sense and quantity. (Not to mention a lack of a sense of cadence in all of the above...)

Damage, indeed... - jc37 15:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

So I "decided to make the text more vague, and in at least one case, grammatically incorrect", did I? Sounds like an accusation of vandalism, if a deliberated decision was behind it all. Are you sure that's what you meant, or was it just that you couldn't find your way around the words. So if you don't have ownership issues about that text, you won't mind if I play the reverse role with every edit that you make, then, will you? Tony (talk) 16:08, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

While you were taking your time to respond, I did some reading of your recent history, and can see that you're probably not in the best frame of mind to discuss. So I'm going to "let be" your combative stance, and your (presumably redirected/misdirected) animosity.

I'll only mention that I have in no way suggested that your (presumably) good faith edit was vandalism. (While I am starting to wonder about WP:POINT...)

Incidentally (and this is wholly off-topic), but based on everything I'm reading above, you may or may not have been interested in this discussion. Though given your seeming current state of mind, I woun't pre-suppose. - jc37 16:18, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be making much of your hypothesis that I'm in a mentally crippled state. Not so, I'm afraid. The only thing that is crippled is my ability to spend much time on WP until late next week. Your "let be" seems to be a threat per se, so perhaps AGF applies there. When I have a chance, we'll take up the grammatical issues you seem to be concerned about in amongst your attacks on my mental state and accusations of bad faith and combativeness. Ownership of the text does seem to be a problem, but I may be wrong. Tony (talk) 04:51, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Except that I've changed my tune on Jc37, having read his recent (failed) proposal for admin reform. Well done indeed. Tony (talk) 06:31, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

nice

I read your proposal, which is coincidentally of great pertinence to the recent fracas, as you pointed out. Well done for trying; it was well designed, and may be included as an option for systemic change in the impending campaign. Tony (talk) 06:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words.

I dunno what you mean by "impending campaign".

But it's ok - I think I'm perhaps better off at this point not knowing/understanding.

I hope you're having a better day. - jc37 12:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Tennis expert

User:Tennis expert has apparently retired. Who knows, maybe WP:TENNIS will finally move on and be productive now. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:02, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

From a selfish perspective and that of readers and editors of tennis-related articles, that's great news. But it means I've utterly failed to win him over, which is a big minus. I'm also concerned about the effect WP can have on users who are passionate about issues, and he was/is passionately involved in what he cared about; he has done a lot of work for the tennis WikiProject. So I hope on a personal level that he's OK. That probably matters a lot more than wikipolitics. Tony (talk) 04:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipolitics have turned off many a user, including myself. You can't even perform simple copy-edits without some sort of political situation, whether it be editors trying to show up others by making followup copy-edits, or arrogant reverts. — Deckiller 06:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, you failed to convince me to ignore consensus. This was never about whether I liked or disliked date linking. I couldn't care less about that particular issue. It's a pity you never understood that. This was completely about the core principle of consensus on Wikipedia, where in my opinion, a handful of editors can never overturn existing consensus as demonstrated by the edits of hundreds, if not thousands, of editors. Consensus is not made just on an obscure (or not) discussion page, and it's high time you understood that. And then this whole thing became about the shocking behavior of some of you who tried to trash my editing, motives, character, and mental stability all over Wikipedia (trust me, I saw almost everything) and then used automated and semi-automated means to force their controversial date-unlinking agenda down everyone's throats. You really need to take WP:BRD to heart in the future. The one thing I agree with you now is the problem we're having with administrators. Tennis expert (talk) 18:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I think he would be interested to know that there is a push to bring 2008 Tennis Masters Cup to FA status. If he returns (which would not surprise me), I think that it would be beneficial to all parties if he helped out. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd be very pleased to see tennis make an appearance at long last in our featured content. It's a glaring omission. But it will have to satisfy the style guides, of course. .... Tony (talk) 14:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

By some accounts he was a valued contributor to the tennis project until he got too possessive about articles. What got me about him is the venom he threw at a number of us, and I couldn't resist having a dig at him back. Maybe User:MickMacNee got it spot on - it would not surprise me either if he made a U-turn and came back out of retirement, but he would first need to overcome the embarrassing amateur dramatics he subjected us to in his farewell statement. Ohconfucius (talk) 14:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I can understand your discomfort with facing the truth, Ohconfucius. Nothing I said about you, on my discussion page is untrue. Nothing. Contrast that with your continuing disinformation campaign about me. Tennis expert (talk) 18:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Tennis expert, I still wish to extend the hand of friendship in the vein of the my first post above; I wish that you, too, would take a more conciliatory line. Thanks for your supportive comment about the admin thing. Tony (talk) 04:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Since the phrase blind reverting has been bandied about more times than I care to remember, I was reminded of this, one of several reversions of his, despite my pointing out via an earlier edit summary that "Germany" was already linked in the infobox in the {{GER}} template immediately above. This couldn't possibly be the blind reverting of which he speaks, though... - Dudesleeper / Talk 12:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Who can you recommend as a good layout consultant, especially w.r.t. numerous images?

Tony, I’ve been working on cleaning up the Fighter aircraft article. I’ve identified two major areas that need serious clean-up work – flat lists and images – but I have little experience with the technical in’s-and-out’s of images. Given your experience with FARs, who would you recommend as good folks to ask for advice? Thanks, Askari Mark (Talk) 04:45, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Mark, I've asked Sandy for advice on this. Good for me to know too. Tony (talk) 08:01, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

We've lost Elcobbola, which is dreadful. Sandy thinks that Masem may have the expertise. Tony (talk) 06:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I didn't know Elcobbola, but after reading his way with words, I wish I had. Thanks for the lead on Masem. I'll contact him after our Thanksgiving break, and I'll keep you in touch. Cheers, Askari Mark (Talk) 21:04, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

In the "catchy title" department

... can you peek at Wikipedia:FCDW/WBFAN? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

When you get to it, there's a big jumble of numbers in the intro; maybe you can figure a way to make it less like an accounting article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:23, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe this got lost in your talk page? I'm still hoping you'll help me with a catchy title at Wikipedia:FCDW/November 24, 2008. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:56, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Dear Caesar

I did not mean to stab you in the back, but to fight fairly. You have, after all, been pointedly obnoxious to me, and reverted my editing, both within the last week. But I do not think more action needed - I did not quote this edit or many others - and you may be right that you had not, in this particular instance, earned a block.

We are a society of equals; you complain of being pushed around, perhaps rightly, yet you wish everywhere to set up Directors and "experts" and "regulars" to push others around. Please reconsider. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:56, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

"fight fairly"—but why fight in the first place? My reversions of your editing to MoS may have been frustrating to you, but I'm one of a number of editors who've been doing so. Tony (talk) 04:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Then how about a separate peace? If you say things like this, I shall call them attacks; resume flattering me, and I will return the compliments. Neither of us, I gather, wishes to emulate this politician. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:24, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The second link is the same as the first. Tony (talk) 15:06, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

My browser's been doing that recently; es tut mich sehr Leid.This politician. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:25, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Greek, Latin, German ... you beat me at foreign languages, for sure. Link: Interesting use of plural "media" in the headline—unusual nowadays, I think. Tony (talk) 15:35, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

• Depressingly so; ABC may have an interest in reminding the audience that it is only one medium.
• One reason I am cautious in adopting Chomskian terminology; much of it seems to have been derived from the consideration of the single problem of word-order in English, and often does not seem to fit more fully inflected languages. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:36, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Chomsky is a great figure, but I sometimes quail when I read his claims WRT to language. As I think you're hinting at, there's often an evidentiary problem. Tony (talk) 02:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Warning regarding unlinking of dates

As this practice (and the actual manual of style guideline) are currently in dispute, you should probably back off of unlinking dates until the dispute is resolved. Prior ArbCom cases have looked unfavorably on editors who attempt to force through disputed changes on a massive scale as you (and other editors) are doing. Specifically, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Episodes_and_characters_2/Proposed_decision#Fait_accompli, which I quote:

Editors who are collectively or individually making large numbers of similar edits, and are apprised that those edits are controversial or disputed, are expected to attempt to resolve the dispute through discussion. It is inappropriate to use repetition or volume in order to present opponents with a fait accompli or to exhaust their ability to contest the change. This applies to many editors making a few edits each, as well as a few editors making many edits.

— Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Episodes_and_characters_2/Proposed_decision#Fait_accompli

Continuing this behavior could be considered disruption. Please stop and instead participate in the ongoing discussions at WT:MOSNUM and elsewhere. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:19, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I am taking absolutely no notice of this attempt to bully and intimidate me into submission, by someone who is pursuing his own self-indulgent crusade. I will continue to assist editors to comply with WP's style guides. Tony (talk) 11:40, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with unlinking dates, but this kind of change of style needs to happen gradually rather than forced though en masse. We need to give time for people who did not already participate in the discussion to join in, rather than saying it has already been decided. I haven't been watching you edits so I don't know if this applies to you, just a general comment. --Apoc2400 (talk) 14:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your supportive comment. But ... "forced through en masse" is a bit spin-like; I'd say "editors are spared manual compliance with the style guides by supervised automation", and that there's no earthly reason to go slow in this. Does it frighten you? Tony (talk) 15:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I missed the dramaz, but this all is amazingly absurd. Must be delayed effect of the full moon. Gimmetrow 02:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Follow-up on previous warning about delinking dates

I invite you to have a look at this edit warring case. Edits like the one you made to the Bernard Jackman, Regina, Crown Princess of Austria, Nick Littlemore, James Morrison (singer), William Paterson (jurist), and University of Zagreb articles violate the previous warning and are inconsistent with the result of the edit warring case. Tennis expert (talk) 23:29, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Your "order" has be "violated"? You must be so upset. Tony (talk) 00:04, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Watch your back

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#Dabomb87 reported by Locke Cole, User:Locke Cole/Arbitration/Date unlinking. You could be next. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

• I feel greatly honoured to be in such esteemed company. Ohconfucius (talk) 14:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Who the heck cares. I keep on delinking the dates. --SkyWalker (talk) 15:02, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Threats, bullying and gratuitous orders flung around like confetti should be flushed down the pan immediately. Tony (talk) 15:04, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

He's had a go at me at here at WP:AN?Edit warring and failed. I think our two cases, taken together, amounts to a lack of endorsement for these attacks on us. Ohconfucius/Date delinker (talk) 01:57, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

It seems to be an increasingly desperate campaign, picking us off one by one. It's not working. Tony (talk) 07:26, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Yea desperate campaign, desperate people. --SkyWalker (talk) 08:58, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I sent you an e-mail regarding some clarifications. Hopefully this will clear up some misconceptions. seicer | talk | contribs 01:11, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Major depressive disorder FAC restarted

Note to all !voters on the original Major depressive disorder FAC: The FAC for that article has been restarted at Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Major_depressive_disorder. Cosmic Latte (talk) 02:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Your accusations of "vandalism"

Tony, please drop the nonsense about "vandalism" with respect to my post. I can't speak to the green box, as it was not my doing. However, you know perfectly well that a neutrally worded note about autoformatting is not vandalism at all, no matter how much you might choose to argue to the contrary. I'm surprised that you completely failed to even mention the availability of the software patch in your "RfC", despite being very aware of the discussion on Bugzilla (you've even contributed to it.) I'd like to assume good faith, as I cannot imagine why you would want to leave out information that is directly relevant to the questions posed in the RfC. I would think that the fact a software patch is available, that it addresses concerns expressed about autoformatting, and that the developer specifically rejected your own arguments against autoformatting would be worth noting. --Ckatz^chat_spy 19:11, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Stop me vomiting at the spin, which would do the Bush administration proud. It's the position of the commentary, not its existence, that is the vandalism. Tony (talk) 00:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Permission to certain people (who know who they are) to revert spam and destructive commentary on this talk page while my time is still restricted at WP. Tony (talk) 08:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Two kinds of dashes

There are two kinds of dashes enumerated afterward: em dashes and en dashes. Or, there are two kinds of dash, the en dash and the em dash. Mixing the numbers, "two kinds of dash, em dashes and en dashes", is cumbersome. —C.Fred (talk) 04:56, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

You're right; I failed to see the larger context. Tony (talk) 08:10, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

No problem. That's part of the beauty of Wikipedia: there's always another set of eyes coming back to look at the edit and proof it. I've been on the other side of the coin any number of times myself. —C.Fred (talk) 12:34, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I should probably start watching the discussions there, doubly since one of the things I have on my wish list this holiday season is the AP Stylebook. —C.Fred (talk) 12:40, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Your proposal

The only way that change will ever be effected is if someone is bold and makes the change. It is having someone respected enough by the community to create a new system and then getting that system recognised and respected. You will obviously face opposition from the "cabal" but that is to be expected. Your proposal on my talkpage looks good to me, and in theory no-one should have a problem with it. It is codifying what should already exist. I suspect the problem will come in finding "coordinators" active enough to monitor the page, and respected enough to not evoke sentiments such as "you have no authority, the arbitrary committee, biased" etc. You also have to make sure it doesn't turn into a stalking contest, or witch-hunt. I remember a few days ago, someone following an admin round disputing every A7 deletion that he/she made and putting them at DRV everytime. This process could force admins/editors ("good" and "bad") from the project because they feel they are being harrassed or that they are on the naughty step. So, in principle I agree with the need for some system, and I agree with what you propose, I just see some potentially troubling areas. Regards. Woody (talk) 16:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

We certainly don't want that to happen. The aim is to increase respect for admins, actually. Yes, you're right about those challenges. I can't put the time into designing and organising it yet (RL is horribly work-stressed at the moment), but will try next week. Tony (talk) 14:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

And when I do, I'll certainly ask for your advice on the draft design of the process. Tony (talk) 12:58, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you Tony for doing all the hard work required to finally get rid of the date linking. Either they will be de-linked, or the developers will finally (after two years of ignoring it) implement a less annoying method of auto-formatting. Either outcome would be largely because of your hard work on the issue. That said, please don't bite those who are used to the old formatting who will continue to show up and complain. Bot editing can be very bad as it disrupts the normal edit-revert-discuss cycle, since bots cannot be reverted effectively without using an other bot. Consensus, even when established, takes a while to spread through this huge project. Forcing it through only causes backlashes. Again, thank you. I always (for years) thought date linking was a bad solution, but I didn't take the effort to really do something about it. --Apoc2400 (talk) 10:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

You're very kind to say this. I don't know whether I can fully meet your expectations WRT the bot thing (I can't use a bot, of course, since I have a Mac). Thanks again! Tony (talk) 10:16, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

• Keep an eye on Cole: he's made another attempt at spoiling the RfC if not trying to sabotage it outright. I've just reverted him again. Ohconfucius (talk) 10:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I am actually not entirely against the use of bots here. But if they are used, hordes of people who doesn't know about the consensus will show up at MOSNUM and the bots talk page. They must be treated respectfully, explaining the reasons for the change, even if a gazillion others have made the same complaint before. I still have bad memories of the Betacommandbot fight (1-2 years ago, over fair use tagging). --Apoc2400 (talk) 10:58, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Lightmouse and Colonies Chris are our two bright boys who've acquired expertise in the use of bots for this purpose. What is striking is that both are unfailingly polite to anyone who has complained, and (particularly LM, who's more engaged in bot and script development) use feedback constructively. It's bot and script management at its best, IMO. Tony (talk) 14:18, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm willing to set aside a sliver of my WP time to do exactly that (explaining the reasons for date unlinking to curious users). Feel free to remind me that I volunteered :-)--Goodmorningworld (talk) 19:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I will; thanks, GMW. Tony (talk) 12:56, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Transclusion of your RfC

Hey Tony, some users (you could probably guess who they are) want to transclude the RfC that you started onto another page. It has been suggested that you approve of the transclusion first, so I am notifying you. Here is the thread: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Page_growth. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 00:19, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Quick question regarding record charts

I can't find this in MOSDATE and I recall it being discussed not too long ago. Is there a reason to prefer "number 1", "No. 1", "#1" or "number one" when discussing a hit song? Gimmetrow 07:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I have that memory too, but can't think where it might be. The middle two are fine by me; I don't like the lower-case n or the spelling out of the number. Tony (talk) 06:20, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

That discussion happened at either WT:MOS, or more likely, WT:MOSNUM, months ago, lost somewhere in those horrid archives. At that time, Tony said not to use # in prose, but to use it in charts, preferring No. 1 to #1 in prose, but accepting #1 in charts and tables. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:03, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Tony...

Hi Tony. Just a quick apology for the crap going on with regard your admin watch talk page. "tennis expert" has abundantly not retired and seems content to hit and run from any serious discussion including his bad reverts which remove maintenance tags and reintroduce redirects, bad markup and improper capitalisation.

On a lighter note, one week before I'm down under, looking forward to all that "culture"! It'll be a bit easier going than India I think.... All the best to you. The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 07:07, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I trust that you were not in Mumbai at the time. Tony (talk) 07:11, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Thankfully not, we'd left for Malaysia a week earlier. The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 07:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

In WA's time zone already? ... Welcome. Tony (talk) 07:24, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

All boxed in (not)

Yes! -- Hoary (talk) 07:09, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd forgotten you were in the "let's get real about infoboxes" faction. Hoary, where have you been all this time, during the most fiery phase of the date wars? Tony (talk) 07:19, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd just crawled back under my rock, O supereditor. I missed the date wars in one sense, didn't miss them in another. Actually I've long regretted my misstep in (resulting from a misunderstanding of) your earlier effort to have some new template for these date things. I'm also rather pissed off with the otherwise tolerable (London) Guardian for switching to the odd format MDY; if Youessians like this odd sequence then bully for them, but it seems bizarre to me (and actually I prefer the Japanese YMD). What with stuff in the real world and alarming rumblings here, I haven't been doing much here recently that's been very constructive; in my free time instead dawdling in the used bookshops and picking up far too many potentially write-uppable treasures, among them a lovingly assembled collection of the earlier work by this obscure figure, the kind of thing that gives vanity publishing a good name. (Yes, "BeeBooks" -- see also "Bee Books" -- is a vanity imprint; perhaps they'll put out anything, and the average is indeed uninspiring, but at their best the content is first rate, and a lot of their books are rightly shelved at the best libraries here.) -- Hoary (talk) 07:36, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I believe that Noetica recently had a ball in used and new bookshops in China: amazing variety of English-language books. Tony (talk) 08:07, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

about that RfC ...

hello Tony - that RfC you launched at MOSNUM wasn't listed at WP:RFC/A because it lacked a timestamp. i added one, and now it's listed properly. i thought i should let you know about that, since i'm not sure if you had some reason for omitting the timestamp, or if it got deleted after you posted it or what ... anyway it's listed properly now, which i trust is a good thing. Sssoul (talk) 06:59, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

• Don't see it. Ohconfucius (talk) 07:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I also listed it at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/RFCstyle/manual Ohconfucius (talk) 07:09, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

hm, curiouser and curiouser - after i added the timestamp it showed up at Template:RFCstyle_list, so why isn't it at WP:RFC/A?? ah the wonders of technology ... thanks for listing it manually, Ohconfucius Sssoul (talk) 07:16, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

ps: doublechecking the listing at Template:RFCstyle_list, the RfC Tony launched is currently the first "automatic" one listed, in addition to Ohconfucius's gallant manual add of it. but the link in the "automatic" listing leads to the MOSNUM talk page, not to the proper section for this RfC - that's not good, since the old birth/death-date RfC is still at the top of that page, so newcomers to the discussion might easily be distracted by that one. can someone archive that old one, and/or relist the new one so that the "section=" entry leads to the right place on the page? it would be a drag if anyone could later claim that this RfC "doesn't count" because it wasn't listed properly ... Sssoul (talk) 07:37, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for this: I'm a computer klutz, and very short of time for WP until mid-week. I see there that I need to make the wording of the "reason" much more explicit; it's terrible at the moment. Shall do. Tony (talk) 07:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've changed the "reasons" at the RfC on MOSNUM talk to "Three important proposals for changing MOSNUM with respect to (1) the linking of date formats, (2) date autoformatting, and (3) requirements for auto changes". But still the old "three things that are causing intermittent disruption" appears at the RfC style page. No big deal, I suppose, but it would be nice to broadcast the real content to the communicty! Tony (talk) 07:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Templates can take a while to update. I'll purge the cache and see if that makes a difference. --Closedmouth (talk) 07:52, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

the "reason" looks good now, and it's listed at WP:RFC/A as well - hallelujah. i've just amended the "section=" bit to match the real name of the section, and i hope that'll cause it to link directly to the right part of the page, once the bot catches up ... thanks everybody and swing on Sssoul (talk) 08:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

• What would I do without you people? Thanks! Back to my clients in a few minutes. Relentless until mid-week. Tony (talk) 09:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

• Sorry about that. I thought listing was of prime importance. Thanks for the fine-tuning. BTW, Cole and expert are going around spamming talk pages about me again. Ho hum... Ohconfucius (talk) 09:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry; I think I was stabbed in the back so much one night I nearly bled to death. No matter—I think they've discredited themselves well and truly. Tony (talk) 16:04, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

You beat me...

You seem to have beat me to delinking Lumos3's disruptive relinkings... Dabomb87 (talk) 15:24, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I think I got them all. I was expecting he'd given up, but no ... it's like a squash ball bouncing back at you. Tony (talk) 16:02, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Please comment on hyphens again

Please comment on hyphens again at Template_talk:Convert#Apparently_bad_use_of_hyphen. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 12:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Primate at FAC

Hello! As a previous reviewer of Primate at FAC it would be great if you could have another look at the article. The FAC has been restarted, and any comments would be greatly appreciated. Cheers, Jack (talk) 17:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

1910–12

I am disappointed in you.

I admit that 1910–12 can mean something other than the triennium, in the right context, but that's true of all of English; consider bear. The numbers have a normal meaning, and only mean something else in parallel with 1910–09 and the like. The argument that we should adopt novel formatting everywhere to avoid ambiguity in a handful of places is the sort of thing that's making Wikipedia look perverse to literate speakers of English; it should be discouraged, not coddled. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:41, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

To attract your disappointment, Anderson, is indeed a thrill. Tony (talk) 06:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

My pleasure is my power to please you, Sir. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

That's getting kinky. Tony (talk) 13:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Nice

Wikipedia:Tip of the day/December 2 --Closedmouth (talk) 11:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• recycling tips of the day... Someone should have words with the gang responsible. Ohconfucius (talk) 12:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Done. Tony (talk) 13:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

List_of_U.S._friendly_fire_incidents_since_World_War_II_that_have_British_victims

I would appreciate your input at Talk:List_of_U.S._friendly_fire_incidents_since_World_War_II_that_have_British_victims. There is a very small issue relating to renaming it to List_of_U.S._friendly_fire_incidents_since_World_War_II_with_British_victims ('that have' -> 'with'). You may also be interested in the other matters being discussed. None of which are a big deal. Lightmouse (talk) 17:12, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Are they friendly incidents that involve fire? A hyphen is required: "List of post-1945 US friendly-fire incidents with British victims"? Tony (talk) 00:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm pleased to see you support hyphenation, but this is another ENGVAR question, because American usage is clear: do not hyphenate. Which VAR is more relevant here is not clear to me, so should we fall back on leave it as it was? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

No, American language editors will insist on a hyphen here; the nominal group contains 14 words on the highest rank, and on the second rank, "U.S._friendly_fire_incidents" is a four-word nominal group. It's ambiguous without the hyphen, not to menion harder to read. Go see Scientific American. Tony (talk) 07:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I have. None of their three uses of "friendly fire" are in apposition. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Help needed at Talk:Lazare_Ponticelli#Date_links

Hi Tony, could you explain to a couple of editors why linking years, especially on a Featured Article, is not helpful and goes against a definite consensus. I would do it myself, but one of the editors seems determined to disregard whatever I tell him. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• I noticed that one of them posted a message with a negative gloss on Tony's advocacy of doing away with DA. Ohconfucius (talk) 15:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Now Mandrax is there causing trouble. He sniffs it out by stalking contrib. pages. Tony (talk) 15:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Nice theory; but in fact, I followed the link from this section. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, Tony. However, I feel that threatening FAR is a bit drastic and may be seen as a bit POINTY by some at FAR (it is after all, one year link). The important thing is that certain editors don't proceed to disrupt other articles. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Generational change at Washington? Now let's do it at ArbCom

I'm going to make an unashamedly POV statement: SandyGeorgia, who is in the key position to maintain and improve the standards of WP's articles, has provided a helpful Voters' guide for the upcoming election. Seven of the 13 seats are up for election, so this is a chance to put an end to the administrative incompetence and backchannelling that has plagued ArbCom during 2008. We need ArbCom to be more:

• open;
• respectful of contributors;
• engaged with what happens at the article level—especially in the writing of articles; and
• skilled at writing its judgements.

The future lies partly in your hands, so please consider the values that underpin the voting guide when you make your decision. Tony (talk) 02:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Canvassing?

Comments like THIS

[edit] Lazare_Ponticelli I see that Mandrax has sniffed out this location and is stirring up trouble by reverting back to the date links and autoformatting. Tony (talk) 15:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

smack of canvassing. "Stirring up trouble?" Have any mirrors around?Ryoung122 03:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

How is this canvassing? WP:CANVASS explicitly defines canvassing as "sending messages to multiple Wikipedians with the intent to inform them about a community discussion." This has nothing to do with a community discussion. Tony sent a friendly notice to me. There is no relation between canvassing and this. Please assume good faith. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

This is strictly limited distribution, thus I believe fails WP:CANVAS. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and apart from that, the people involved are in continual contact about such matters as this. Tony (talk) 04:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Continually apprising one another of disputes so you can mob up on the editor(s) on their talk pages does smack of canvassing. It would be fascinating to see these disputes unfold without the usual suspects showing up to weigh in. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

We all have a right to give an opinion. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Ryoung122, Tony's post is just a small part of a large, ongoing pattern of disruption and incivility that is wholly inappropriate for Wikipedia. Tennis expert (talk) 05:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Tennis expert, haven't you retired per your userpage? Please stop posting rude and disruptive messages - we're here to improve the encyclopedia, not just snipe from the sidelines. The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 05:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Depends on your definition of "improve the encyclopedia". Obviously our views are not shared or we wouldn't have these kinds of problems... —Locke Cole • t • c 07:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, so we agree to disagree on this. What are you trying to prove with this posting, then? Ohconfucius (talk) 08:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

That there's a disagreement over what constitutes "improvement". —Locke Cole • t • c 23:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• My repeated "friendship" requests of Locke Cole have hit a brick wall. I think this is a great pity. There are no two WPians who don't have something in common that might form the basis of rapprochement, or at least mutual respect so that we all might work without this sniping. Might that be possible? Tony (talk) 08:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• une folle éspoir... Ohconfucius (talk) 14:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• It's difficult to have mutual respect when you belittle and attack what I (and others) consider valuable. FYI, this also makes it difficult to want to be "friends". You must understand that changing something from a status quo after five years of it being that way will be met with resistance. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• But with nowhere near as much resistance as you present to the community. At some point you need to acknowledge that there were many thousands of alterations made by Tony (and others) that met no (or only minor short-termed) resistance. The overwhelming sentiments of the various RfC responses demonstrate why.  HWV 258  00:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• The only thing the community seems to agree upon so far is that dates should not be linked purely for the benefit of auto formatting. The community does seem to think dates should be linked in certain circumstances (thus this makes it impossible for any automated method to work: a bot doesn't know the intent of the editors who created the article or their reasoning). And a lack of resistance by the wider community should not be deemed an acceptance: that I haven't chosen to engage in mass scale revert warring over this is because I don't wish to be as disruptive as those engaging in those types of edits. I could, but what's the point when we should come to an agreement that automated changes are bad and clearly not what the community is endorsing at the Date linking RFC? —Locke Cole • t • c 01:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• The community has not agreed on what dates, if any, should be linked. The opinions range from once in a blue moon to "significant dates", in which significant dates, more often than not, have not been explicitly defined. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• Even if we take your reading, that implies that no dates should be delinked until the community has reached a consensus decision. It doesn't mean start delinking dates and hope nobody notices. —Locke Cole • t • c 09:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• "The only thing the community seems..."—sadly, no. I had hoped you would address the main point I raised, but this doesn't appear to be the topic conducive to that.  HWV 258  02:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• Look at the other RFC, which so far is painting a very different picture of what the community wants. I don't know what point you hoped I would address, but obviously it wasn't as important as the point I'm trying to make: the community has made only one clear decision in this RFC, and that decision doesn't support mass delinkings. —Locke Cole • t • c 09:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Candidate questions

Hi Tony, thanks for the candidate questions. Just wanted to let you know I am not ignoring them, just running low on wiki-time (my workload is right up there with yours). I will have them completed over the weekend. Thanks for taking the time to include them; this process has certainly been intellectually challenging. Best, Risker (talk) 06:53, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Sandy pointed out that it's rather late in the day for questions to be asked. Please don't spend long on them. I've asked quite a few of the candidates the same questions, and wonder whether they'll be stumped at how to address a messy part of a policy page that is relevant to a real-life case. Tony (talk) 09:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Featured picture Dispatch

Wikipedia:FCDW/TempFPreview showed up at the Newsroom, unannounced, with no discussion at WT:FCDW. It's rough. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:10, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

You mean someone copied the draft and posted it somewhere else? It's a very important article. Tony (talk) 09:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

No, the Dispatch was written and posted to the Newsroom without going through the Workshop and before I/we had a chance to work on it. I'd like to tune it up to our usual Dispatch quality before it runs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:05, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

You misunderstood me

I think you will be happy with the response on my talk page. I do not hold the view that you supposed I might.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 02:26, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Sneak Preview

File:Hoover Tolson.jpg

"Them", in all "their" glory

Nice job mate, the community needs something like this. I hope "they" don't try to shoot it down. Ryan4314 (talk) 17:15, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to see "them" try. They may get more than they bargained for if they do. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:17, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Goddam "them". Ryan4314 (talk) 17:51, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Sentiments I entirely agree with. But I just want to take the opportunity of saying that I'm full of admiration for the job that most admins do: they are absolutely essential to the project, and make it not just better, but doable in the first place. Tony (talk) 01:01, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but not sure about "most". There are certainly many who do great work in making this environment at least tolerable though. Which is why it is so important to draw attention to the bad apples who degrade the work of the best. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:11, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes brother, I too would like to take this opportunity to continue my pledge of compliance to our malevolent "administration". Ryan4314 (talk) 01:14, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

• There are many good cops and many ordinary ones, but there will always be some bad eggs. The checks and balances has been too heavily loaded against non-admins until now. Tony's move is an overdue move to call "time" on the hoodlums. As Tony said, it's all there, but he's formalising and institutionalising it. Ohconfucius (talk) 10:14, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Date formats

Please don't change the format of dates as you did to Suborbital spaceflight in 2008. Thank you.GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 11:44, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

My humble apologies. I don't make that mistake often when using the script (this was an edit from some time ago, I think). If you'd let me know, I'd have saved you the trouble of manually changing them back, with a click of the mouse. I've removed the long-winded, standard part of your message, which is for newbies, I presume. I've done a little fixing up at the top by way of apology. Tony (talk) 12:23, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

AdminWatch

I'm not sure what you aim to accomplish by AdminWatch that can't already be done through Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Stifle (talk) 13:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Tony1's response: I'm unsure that this is a better place to discuss the matter than the AdminWatch talk page. The aims of the process are clearly set out on the page. Briefly, it is abundantly clear that many WPians are deeply unhappy with the "official" procedures for encouraging admins to adhere to the policy governing their behaviour. There is widespread cynicism in the community at the difficulty of gaining a remedy for perceived breaches of that policy, particularly WRT the perceived unfair use of the power to block by a small minority of admins. This appears to be the single most contentious issue in the relationship between admins and non-admins.

The source of the policy is the Admin policy page and a number of ArbCom decisions, particularly from 2007. The policy is, inter alia, that:

• blocking is "a serious matter";
• admins should be "exceedingly careful when blocking, and should do so only if other means are unlikely to be effective",^[13] and that
• blocks should be used only to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia.^[14]

Tellingly, this unhappiness and cynicism—at least a generalised feeling that "something is wrong"—is shared by numerous admins; a good example is "the jc37 proposal" at the Village Pump last month, which was howled down by his fellow admins. There appear to be two hurdles to his notion of a two-tiered admin system in which most admins cannot directly block user accounts, but must apply to one of smaller group of admins in whom the power to directly block is vested. The first hurdle is that many admins believe that the votes of their supporters at their RfA were under the assumption that blocking power would be granted. Therefore, the argument runs, it would be a denial of that process to go against those assumptions.

Perceived injustice in the use of blocking power becomes a systemic issue when mature, conservative and respected WPs believe it's utterly useless to pursue the official dispute-resolution procedure, because the ultimate decisions are made by admins, and "the police have an inherent conflict of interest in reviewing the actions of their fellow police officers" (name withheld). Under these circumstances, claims that the assumptions of some RfC voters trump the need for systemic change need to be seriously questioned by the community. The same argument could be used to set in cement the current role and powers of admins for eternity; but this is a wiki, and the essence of wikis is their adaptability.

The second hurdle is that Mike Godwin, the WMF attorney has said he is not prepared to see the admin tools split into sub-packages; I've been advised that the reasons proferred concerned the possible legal exposure of WikiMedia. I hope I'm not misrepresenting Mr Godwin's views, but I do not understand why this would be the case, and I am disappointed not to be able to locate the detailed legal reasoning underpinning this opinion.

If WP could bring itself to deal with the problem—whether by adopting a form of the jc37 proposal or setting up an effective process for managing the blocking problem—AdminWatch might have been unnecessary. I want to remind users that the purpose of AdminWatch is not punitive, but to reduce the level of angst related to perceived abuse by admins, bring admins and other users closer together, and to improve WPians' respect for adminship. The process requires significant refinement to ensure fairness, consistency, the effective filtering out of unnecessary or unreasonable grievance notifications at an early stage. This is no mean task, but I believe we should try. If it is successful, I intend to recede from managing it.

Your continuing feedback is welcome. Tony (talk) 14:21, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Administrator Review

Hi there: Was it really killed off by admins two weeks after you started it? See User:Tony1/AdminWatch. Tony (talk) 09:48, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't remember the timeline, but sounds about right. I don't know that it was so much 'killed off' as it was just 'not accepted by anyone'. Is there a discussion related to this somewhere right now? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:30, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Not specifically related to your AR, but a new proposal. Tony (talk) 01:02, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I was unclear. Could you please provide a link? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 01:04, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

File:Christmas collage.PNG

Merry Christmas!

Click there to open your card! → → →

Dearest Tony1,

--RayqayzaDialgaWeird2210    18:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC) wishes you a Merry X'mas! Send this card to the other jolly users, even if it's a little early/late/your choice. Have a delightful Christmas and cheers!

Lazare Ponticelli

If you don't think that the article is an example of our best work, then why don't you fix it? ~the editorofthewiki ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 00:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

At the top of this talk page, it says that Tony has a real-life workload of 8.5 on a scale of 1–10. He doesn't have enough time to do that much. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:14, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Take a break then. Whenever I get that stressed out, I tend to be unproductive and/or irritable. ~the editorofthewiki ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 00:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I can't speak for Tony there. Anyway, also note that he does not normally copy-edit articles anyway. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

EOTW: I don't fix articles: I critique them. Tony (talk) 01:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment: It's a lot easier to tear down than to build up. Criticism should be thought of the way a gardener prunes a tree: its purpose is to shape the tree, allowing for a fuller regrowth. However, overcritism, like overpruning, can make the tree look ugly, robbing it of its shape and possibly killing it. Also, you should be able to take criticism yourself, not as some contest but because no one is 100% right, and the Wiki policy on consensus calls for reasonable compromise.Ryoung122 04:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Someone thought that there was consensus to link a year on Edna Parker also. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Ponticelli dashes

I don't know a thing about dashes - mind fixing them yourself? ~the editorofthewiki ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 16:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm not a contributor. Try this: User:Tony1/Know_your_Manual_of_Style#Hyphens_and_dashes. Tony (talk) 06:34, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

AdminWatch

Hi there—we spoke a while ago about grammar on the Admin policy page. You may be interested in this discussion. Tony (talk) 14:39, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice.

In reading the above, I'm not sure that a different proposal would find consensus. I think that the best that could be hoped for could be if it was re-worded from the outset, then perhaps some of the seeming confusion might be avoided. But I don't foresee such a discussion in the near future (as much as I still feel that such a change would be a godd thing). - jc37 20:07, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Your crusade

'From the look of all of these complaints here, you are the one on a crusade'

No, I'd say opinions differ. And what 'crusade', pray tell, would I be conducting based on your reading of my talk page? Be specific, as some factual comment above the level of 'I know you are, but what am I?' would be helpful. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 12:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, just look at all of the people you've clearly upset on your talk page. Ownership issues? <Yawn> Tony (talk) 12:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

• I see some very strong defensive-aggressive behaviour here. Painful though it may be for him/her to admit, CalendarWatcher is simply unable to chill out. It's far easier to throw up a defensive shield than to admit one's own mistakes. Ohconfucius (talk) 15:04, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, I think you're right; even the username suggests a problematic strategy to improving the project. But let's try to make peace; CW might come around to a less defensive attitude once s/he sees that there's no threat intended. Tony (talk) 15:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Am I allowed to do some tweaks/ copy editing/ clarification of your policy? No worries if they get reverted, but I wanted to mess wiff it. Let me know will ya? Gracias. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:02, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Keen for suggestions. Perhaps post some of your ideas on the talk page first? Tony (talk) 06:19, 9 December 2008 (UTC) PS Good copy-editing? You don't need to raise that on the talk page—just do it. Tony (talk) 06:20, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Contractions

Do modify any contractions you like, if you can think of no better use for your time. This quotation should probably be rubbed down into a summary fairly soon anyway.

For my part, I think the directness of the images' meaning won't be outweighs its informality; especially in Wikipedia space, where we are not bound to fake-Edwardian prose. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:19, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Admins and non-admins

I'm a bit surprised that with your experience that you don't feel that admins actually get better treatment/less likely to be bullied than non-admins. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 05:46, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Either I'm really, really tired, or that sentence makes no sense. --Closedmouth (talk) 06:24, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

If you mean that being an admin offers a degree of protection from bullying and unfair treatment, I'm afraid I think that this may be right as a generalisation. Clearly, however, there will be instances in which admins themselves are treated unfairly by their fellow admins; for this reason, it has been argued that they should not be excluded from the ability to notify grievances at AdminWatch. Tony (talk) 07:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

AdminWatch, pt. 2

Just a question (I apologize if this should go on the AW talk); would administrators be able to become coordinators? It seems like that would be a better way to enforce our will foster communication between the two groups. Cheers, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D} 02:30, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Good point, Master of P. I'm increasingly keen to have representatives of both groups in that role. I thought earlier that admins might not want to touch it with a barge-pole, but now that fear seems ungrounded. What is more difficult is (1) finding people in both categories who have the right skills (analytical, interpersonal and linguistic?), and (2) writing examples of cases that lie close to the decision-making boundaries, as a way of both inducting coordinators into the task, and of making the community think hard about what the admin policy actually means in its multifarious aspects.

I'm also concerned to do some thought experiments involving each of the listed "specific" policy aspects that complainants will be able to cite in support of their complaint (this is a prime method for filtering and focusing). Are any of these numerous policies cast too widely to filter out unnecessary/vexatious complaints? We don't have to include them all (we just can't make up ones that don't exist on the Admin policy page or in ArbCom decisions).

I won't have proper time to devote to this until next week, given the millions of dollars at stake with the current deadlines! But it's good that people care enough to provide feedback. The real crux will come with the details of decision-making, the hypothetical examples of difficult cases. That's where the community needs to engage on a more legalistic level with the mechanics.

Of course, part of the raison d'etre for this exercise is to show that such a process is indeed possible to develop, even though it might take dedication and skill to design and operate (not just on my part!). I hope that in the medium term, after trialling it in userspace, the community might think it's worth taking up in mainspace. It would, in effect, shift the location of the angst from individual WPians up to a systemic level, and at the same time significantly reduce the level of angst. That is what we need to get right after all these years. Tony (talk) 06:16, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I thoroughly agree. A few points, however;

I think that it would be beneficial if we "made up" some policies. I'm not talking actually created them, but explored the gray area that isn't covered in some of them to both flesh that out more completely and clarify that guidelines are only guidelines and not the Ultimate Rule. For example; the 3RR policy is all-too-often interpreted as a guarantee that if you edit war for less than 3 revisions you aren't even edit-warring by our definition. That should be corrected. I've seen this misconception rise up quite a few times at the 3RR board, with disputes going on for days on end with each side carefully making only two reverts a day or divvying up reverts between a group so that nobody gets hit by 3RR. Stuff like that needs to be redefined, as right now the leash is way too long. A great way to do so would be through this project, I think.

Anyway, the rest is great. A way to cut down the drama would make everyone breath much more easily. :) Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D} 06:56, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

The Admin page is policy, which trumps guidelines. I think the policy itself would need to be changed, and that AdminWatch should be based entirely on its current state. Concerning the definition of 3RR, yes, there are a number of contradictions on the WP:3RR policy page, and a clearer, more detailed definition of the rule (and that for disruptive editing are required. For example:

"The following actions are exceptions to the three-revert rule, and do not count as reverts under the rule's definition. Since edit warring is harmful, these exceptions define narrow situations.

[Long bulleted list, starting with self-reverting.]

Such actions may be controversial or considered edit warring."

So you can be blocked for self-reverting, or for reverting the posting of "child pornography"? Hello?

Another issue is that some admins have been putting about the notion of "slow edit-warring"; but this is ill-defined (although present by implication on the policy pages), and leaves open a window for the abuse of users. I myself have fallen victim to this for merey changing a tag above a clause at MOSNUM from "in dispute" to "under discussion", once if you please. Tony (talk) 15:05, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. While I don't think too much defining should be done (we want things to be as freeform as possible to make work easier), there are definitely things to be cleared up. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D} 09:27, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes; it's up to the community to do this; AdminWatch can't change policy, although it might be placed in the position of interpreting it (that itself may put the spotlight on several wordings on the policy page, and might make the smooth running of the process difficult in a few cases). Interpreting policy is what ArbCom does, but ArbCom has shown itself to be less than effective and prompt at doing so, I'm afraid—no wonder, when the admin/tools/edit warring/disruptive editing policy pages are in a state.

I'd be pleased if a solid group of admins and supportive non-admins coalesced who are interested in cleaning up the policy pages—nothing radical, but:

(1) a few contradictions need resolving (such as the explicitly mentioned possibility of blocking for self-reverting);

(2) several other inconsistencies should be cleaned up;

(3) some policies need to be defined a little more closely (such as examples of what might count as "slow edit-warring"—where are the boundaries?And what exactly does it mean by "breach of privacy"?); and

(4) the micro-expression and organisation of the Admin page needs a good massage (it's unnecessarily hard to distil policy rules; cf. the list of "Specific policy requirements" now on the AdminWatch page.

I'd like to frame this as a separate although related issue to the establishment of AdminWatch; both may be necessary for improving the relationship between admins and non-admins and reducing the level of angst on the project. Tony (talk) 10:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

10

I see you are busy to the max, but wanted to wish you a White Christmas. I discovered White through The Burnt Ones while in the outback. More recently it led to writing the article. Then (through Noetica) I see you are a fan. Will the group get going again sometime? May you have the time to kick back and enjoy white things at that time. Best, Julia Rossi (talk) 23:44, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Image captions

Hey Tony, I wonder if you could give an openion on the usefullness of long image captions on The Lucy poems. I generally favour self contained and if needed lenghtly captions if the body of the article is sufficient developed to hold them (ie no scrunching of text) eg half way down the page of this. I'm being reverted from this to this (look at the Coleridge caption) on the basis of per:MOS. Sigh, from "too long" to: nothing. What? Your input would be appreciated, either way. Ceoil (talk) 15:28, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Couple of them look on the long side, but length has been contested at FAC, and the result was that it's not a deal-breaker. I have no prob. Looks beautiful—must read when I get time next week. Tony (talk) 07:02, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Ceoil (talk) 21:13, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom questions

Hi Tony. I've finished answering the questions you asked me. See here. I've also made several general points about concerns raised by the opposers. See here and here. I realise it may not sway you, but I thought you would like to know. Carcharoth (talk) 17:08, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Wishing you a Merry Christmas ... and hope your frenzied "10" reduces to a more manageable level. I see there is a lot of good discussion about WP:MOSNUM dates with what appears to be a consensus to greatly reduce the linking of dates. I know we've had some disagreements over this ... you finally won me over and I delink dates as I patrol (if there is some other reason to edit the page). Thanks for your efforts. Truthanado (talk) 16:06, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

To win someone over is a gift indeed! Tony (talk) 16:38, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Adminwatch

Hey Tony. You might be interested in this development. We're likely to have some respectable academics around and about - we currently don't seem to value our academics at all as far as I can see - so it would be nice to at least have the skeletons in the closet before their arrival. Good luck with Adminwatch. --Joopercoopers (talk) 13:14, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your support, Jooper! On the RNA project, hmmm, that's an interesting turn of events. It will be a challenge for those scientists to write for a more generalist readership (at least to paint the big picture at the opening, even if they are technical later on). I should imagine the results will need significant massaging. I wonder whether they want (1) high google rankings; and/or (2) practice at communicating their findings to the public and policy-makers. I say that scientists need to take the second one very seriously, more now than ever. User:Tim Vickers may be closer to this move. Very good for WP's reputation. Tony (talk) 14:45, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Potentially yes if we get our house in order, but also a potential PR disaster if we don't. Off the top of my head, issues that need resolving as I see them are:

1. We need to finally decide whether articles are intended for a general readership or whether specialist language can be used - I think as long as we're linking technical terms the latter probably should be appropriate. Let's get the best academics here and some may well take up the batten and produce Introduction to general relativity types of articles as a sideline. v. good for the project.
2. The last thing we need are 16 year olds, fact tagging bits they don't understand and demanding inline citations for every sentence. That said debate is good and communicating to the initiated is undoubtedly good for them, perhaps we should encourage significant discussion on talk pages before the 'anyone can edit' creed is taken onto the mainspace of these articles.
3. We should make these guys feel welcome and wanted somehow - perhaps we can hide FAC/FAR from them for a while :-)
4. Pseudoscientists - proven to piss scientists off more than a contaminated petri dish. Perhaps we need to look at how to get WP:FRINGE into policy proper. --Joopercoopers (talk) 15:02, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Is there a page for scientists et al. on how to write for WP? If not, it is desperately needed. Yes, as you're hinting at, scientists need to decide on whether, within a given range, they pitch their text. There is some leeway already (look at some the maths articles; and then look at the articles on a few animals and birds). Beyond that, the lead still needs to let us all into the topic, and at least some of the technical terms should be explained; I can think of three ways just now—brief glossing by parenthesis, the use of a non-technical term instead, or fuller explanation of the concept. It's not difficult to show them how to make these choices. Pseuds ... hmmm, a role for assigned WikiProjects? FAC ... you heard the WikiMedia speech about language fussiness? Tony (talk) 15:19, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I was sceptical of your Admin Watch project at first, but it's looking good. About scientists, I think an important part would be lowering the requirement of Wikipedia-knowledge. An expert should be able to edit and be respected without knowing all the templates and policies. --Apoc2400 (talk) 15:05, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your support, Apoc. It will be a challenge to create a good process, and to convince some admins that it's not a hate club. I wonder whether the almost-million-dollar fund for WikiMedia research might look into how to make it easy for specialists to write in WP ... Tony (talk) 15:19, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

PS That comparison between the WP and the Nematode article needs a good look. A concerted effort to develop advice on WP science writing may require a dedicated page. Tony (talk) 15:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Mercifully not being in academe, I can't offer much by way of suggestions really, but user:Markus Poessel (Author of Intro to GR, above) really impressed, and he's still active. It would be good to get his input into the WP/science interface and his experiences. "you heard the WikiMedia speech about language fussiness" - no, but was it along the lines of Peter Cook (architect)'s quote - "There is of course an ever-increasing plethora of guidebooks available to the (architectural) traveller: pretty quickly the blandness of Wikipedia or that unsatisfied feeling that you get from websites has to be replaced by something that you can pore over." I'd enjoy the link if you have it. --Joopercoopers (talk) 15:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

"The quality of scientific articles on the English Wikipedia". Dr Bill Wedermeyer. Hots up after about 10 or 15 mins. See my archives for the link. Tony (talk) 15:43, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

FYI

[1] rootology (C)(T) 20:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't quite see why you're drawing my attention to this, here, and now. Tony (talk) 02:41, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Support for User:Kwamikagami

I'm not sure where to express my support of User:kwamikagami and I really didn't understand what your message on his talk page meant. I have read the comments made by middayexpress both on the talk pages and on the admin pages where he complains and have noted several items. 1) He is rude and offensive on the talk pages, resorting to calling every other editor names and demeaning them, but he is polite on the admin pages where he complains about kwami. 2) He does not engage in constructive dialogue with other editors but resorts to reverts and name-calling instead of putting forward constructive, referenced arguments from a position of knowledge of the subject matter. 3) He is manipulative and his comments on the admin pages are clearly game-playing in order to get his way on the pages he edits. His comments about kwami's actions were not, in any sense, legitimate or designed to improve Wikipedia. I do not always agree with kwami at the beginning of a discussion, but we are civil to one another and we come to a position where we understand and respect the other point of view. Sometimes his position is stonger, sometimes mine is, but he is a fair and intelligent editor and reasonable administrator. He is the opposite of middayexpress. It would be a travesty if kwami's reputation is colored by the events on the Swahili language page and the real perpetrator and manipulator (middayexpress) is "rewarded". (Taivo (talk) 05:40, 18 December 2008 (UTC))

I read above about how Wikipedia needs to be "nicer" to academics who come here. I am one such academic. It is editors like middayexpress who really give Wikipedia a bad name among academics who come here and are subject matter experts. There is nothing more unreasonable than to invite academics to come here and expect them to spend their time in an edit war with an uncredentialed editor like middayexpress with an axe to grind. I'm stubborn enough to stick it out, but others will continue to avoid Wikipedia if such behavior is allowed to continue and kwamikagami's good-faith efforts at controlling it are quashed. Kwami is in the right here. He should not be punished, but rewarded for trying to make Wikipedia academic-friendly and not middayexpress-friendly. (Taivo (talk) 05:54, 18 December 2008 (UTC))

I understand what you're saying, and have suggested above that middayexpress re-examine his modus operandi when it comes to content disputes; something is clearly wrong in that department, and I'm beginning to feel sympathy for you and Kwami (without properly acquainting myself with the whole scenario). Ironically, that is why we rely on admins; but they must and can operate entirely within their policy requirements to do this (like ... not edit-war, and get a third-party admin to lock the page—simple as that). When they breach policy requirements, as happened in this case, people are quite entitled to complain; otherwise, it's a slippery slope towards abuse. We need to separate the issues. Tony (talk) 08:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

• Without passing judgement on the qualities or otherwise of User:kwamikagami or entering into detail into the case, it appears that he may have acted unwisely in entering into an edit war with middayexpress. I do not know if a case for him has been opened, but you will have your opportunity to express your view if and when it does come to pass. In the meantime, kindly read User:Tony1/AdminWatch. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks, Ohconfucius. Actually, I'd rather hoped that the design of the AdminWatch process would exclude the opinions of parties who are not involved in the immediate scenario. I do not want it to be swamped by irrelevant facts or assertions, or huge amounts of text, or a raft of people siding with complainant or admin. I wanted to constrain the discussion to the facts. I'm almost sold on the idea that coordinators might strip back comments to those that are strictly admissible. The whole idea of AdminWatch is to deal with one set of requirements alone. It's not about users' behaviour. You could be the nastiest, meanest, most destructive editor around, and have behaved appallingly in the scenario, but we'd be concerned only that the WP:ADMIN was adhered to in your treatment by admins. In that respect, it's one-sided but simpler in its goals and process. We rely on admins to use their powers (according to policy constraints) to stop nasty, mean, destructive editors in their tracks—that is an entirely different matter, and admins have our wholehearted support in that respect.

Back to the admissibility of third-parties' comments: any way you or others can think of to to this without blowing the process out into a hard-to-control mess? I can see that some comments would be very valuable. Hard to filter them ... Tony (talk) 08:06, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

• I know exactly what you mean - there are concerns that this could be the dumping ground for all manner of complaints against the actions, justified or no, of administrators. So, I agree that this should be restricted to facts, and stripped of all opinions. I had perhaps misunderstood the 'evidential requirements'. Need to think about the chaff filters, certainly. Thinking caps on... Ohconfucius (talk) 08:54, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Re:AN/I

Hi Tony. Many thanks for the helpful and fair comments you left over at AN/I. I think your offer to use the situation in question as the first case for when AdminWatch launches in a few weeks is most sensible and necessary. Please count me as interested. Kind regards, Middayexpress (talk) 12:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

That's exactly my feeling. The offending administrator hasn't shown anything even approaching regret or even simple acknowledgement that he's in the wrong. Instead, he's still attacking me on my own talk page, and left this most disingenuous response to an admin's post on his talk page. It's absurd. I will be more than happy to file whatever necessary complaints or notifications I have to file (including owning up to 3RR) if it means sparing another editor the tyrannical 'bad cop' behavior I have had to endure. I want this so-called administrator to know that he can't get away with abusing the authority that has been granted to him, and I'm beyond thankful that there are actually fair administrators out there who also take exception to his behavior. Middayexpress (talk) 13:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. I'll give the process a go now. You can be sure I'll contact you if I mess up somewhere! lol Cheers, Middayexpress (talk) 14:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Will do. Middayexpress (talk) 14:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, it took a while but here it is at last! Let me know what you think. Middayexpress (talk) 17:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Just saw the vote. I can't believe any editors would even question the necessity of a process such as AdminWatch. One look at my travails with that other so-called 'administrator' ought to have been enough to lay most doubts to rest. Luckily though, commonsense appears to have prevailed and its a keeper. I agree that it's beyond obvious that the police can't be trusted to police themselves. If we were to allow that, the Kwamikagamis of Wikipedia would get away with their abusive behavior every time. Administrators are editors too, and they also need to be held accountable for their actions or else they'll start to think that they're above the law. They'll then do literally whatever it is they please no different than real-life cops. The measures in place therefore need to be independent, documented, and consistently enforced so that they have a lasting impact, and no other editors and/or articles are subjected to the tyranny of rogue administrators. I'm confident the aptly-named AdminWatch does all that, so I would still be most honored to be the first case posted. Middayexpress (talk) 07:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks. However, quite apart from the issue of the breach of admin policy by Kwami and the whole AdminWatch thing, may I offer some strong advice: people are upset with how you've handled the content dispute. The challenge is to engage with him while minimising the emotional content (something that is hard to do when you feel passionate about a topic; I've been guilty of not doing so a number of times). I urge you to seek formal mediation or the opinions of third parties if content is a continuing problem; that is why the admins find it problematic. If Kwami had done the right thing and simply got an WP:UNINVOLVED admin to take the action, I'd be having nothing to do with this. Please explore ways of dealing with content disputes that don't challenge WP's policies (and pillars). Tony (talk) 08:14, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

The content dispute is over as far as I'm concerned. The other two parties involved are quite clearly idealogues, and as such, are not amenable to reason and honest dialogue. All I'm really interested in at this point is ensuring that the rogue administrator in question does not get away with his abusive behavior, and that all steps are taken to make sure that he is unable to repeat the same stunt with other users. I also wanted to let you know that that IP complaining about me on said administrator's talk page is actually a sockpuppet of an editor I reported about a month or so ago. He's kinda been following me around since, expressing his sour grapes and whatnot, the poor sap! lol Take care, Middayexpress (talk) 08:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

But please moderate your language. "Idealogues", "rogue", etc. is just what we need to avoid, whatever our perceptions. Keeping the language polite at all times is one of your most powerful tools for dealing with disputes. Hey, these people are worth engaging with, even if you don't agree on everything. That is what you should enjoy about contributing to WP. The admins are going to get upset if you use immoderate language or edit-war: that is their job. Can you agree to interact with them differently? And Kwami made errors, yes, but let's wait to see whether s/he might acknowledge this. Give some psychological space, yes? Tony (talk) 09:03, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I guess you're right Tony. It's just sometimes difficult to conceal one's disgust when another abuses their privilege to get their way. I'd just like to point out that the other parties in the dispute have also been quite rude, with one user even venturing to the other's talk page just to insult me. I don't take too kindly to that sort of thing. I'd also be lying if I said that I'd be satisfied with just an apology. I'm not sure that that's enough to ensure that such a breach of policy won't happen again. Whatever the case, I have faith in your judgement as an actually fair administrator to do what's best. Middayexpress (talk) 09:27, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Soooo, you can take the moral high-ground by calming them down and leading them in stripping back the emotional surface that has led the discussion in circles. Moderation in language is the first step; encouraging some kind of mutual trust is the second step. Problem is, it takes time and effort. But that kind of leadership will earn you respect and ultimately enable you to do more. We're tribal, social animals in the end, even when it comes to intellectual matters. Tony (talk) 09:35, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Slavic scripts

Hi Tony.

User:Xenovatis has violated 3RR on Glagolitic alphabet and Early Cyrillic alphabet‎. The issue is that he takes the common legendary view on the origin of these scripts, which is repeated in the EB and numerous lay publications that mention the subject tangentially, as fact, and the more nuanced scholarly view referenced in Daniels & Bright (The World's Writing Systems, Oxford, 1996) as "fringe". He demotes the latter to an afterthought in the section, after stating the legendary origins as fact, and when challenged he just produces more lay pubs that mention the legend in passing and reverts to his version, essentially arguing that quantity trumps quality.

Could you protect the page or block him or something?

Thanks, kwami (talk) 11:42, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your post, Kwami. I'm not an admin, but if you may not be WP:UNINVOLVED as an admin, and believe that there's a prima facie case for admin action, I'm sure that User:Black Kite, User:EyeSerene or User: Sarcasticidealist would be happy to oblige. Cheers. Tony (talk) 11:51, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Yup, BK got it. Thanks. kwami (talk) 11:55, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

xt color

Tony, what do you think of using a 39.2% green, which is precisely the same as your signature. It does so using the following span code: <span style{{=}}"color: #006400; font-family: 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 108%;">: Editors should write 5 cats and 32 dogs or five cats and thirty-two dogs, but do not write five cats and 32 dogs. Greg L (talk) 16:31, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Here is your signature: Tony
Here is 39.2% green:   Tony

Greg L (talk) 16:31, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

• Greg, to me it's much nicer than the reddish one, no matter how dark. What do you think? Tony (talk) 17:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

• I am totally fine with it. I think it looks more restful. The thing to do now is see if Headbomb thinks it is too dark. His experience may be a rather common one. Greg L (talk) 17:31, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Clerks

Hi Tony1! I really think that you need to think about clerks or others with permission to look after your new process. I'd like to talk about this, as would others, but you moved the discussion to the talk page of a subpage of my userspace. That, to my mind, is too obscure a place for us to discuss this matter. Please can you nominate a page - obviously it would be best if it was one related to your project! - and I'll move the discussion there and get others to comment if they wish. Thanks! ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ takes life at five times the average speed 00:25, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

It did look ingenuous, but I accept now that it wasn't. Personally, I don't think others should be messing with the text on the page. A notification will need to be reviewed by a coordinator immediately before a decision is made on its relocation. Why would we have another level of bureaucracy to do a quick cut-and-paste? Even if I thought this would be useful, I don't believe the matter is appropriate to add at this stage to an already complex discussion about bigger issues. I clicked on your "five times" link, reasonably assuming it was your normal talk page. Tony (talk) 00:44, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Tony1/AdminWatch

User:Tony1/AdminWatch, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Tony1/AdminWatch and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Tony1/AdminWatch during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. MBisanz ^talk 17:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Difficult to do when you're asleep. Thus, it violated one of the two key tenets of natural justice. And no forewarning or discussion; just action. You are bound to engage in suitable communication beforehand. I'm surprised to see that this was posted before my post above. Perhaps I just didn't look at the display view before going to bed. Tony (talk) 02:41, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, he should know better than to template a regular in such a fashion. It's not even a civil expression of disagreement, but more like a pre-emptive strike. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:31, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

• Unless good reasons are put forward here, I intend to reinstate the notification by User:Middayexpress concerning a number of breaches of admin policy tenets by an admin. As much as Midway's at the article in question looks as though emotion should have played a much smaller role (and there have been policy breaches by him, too), AdminWatch is concerned only with admin breaches of admin policy rules. All else is irrelevant. No longer relevant Tony (talk) 03:41, 18 December 2008 (UTC).

Thanks for the notice on my page about elections etc. Sorry I didn't contribute to this MFD, I didn't know it was on (I'd turned off my watch of the article whilst u was working on it), for future reference I'd like to make it clear to everyone that I'm asking Tony to please inform if this project is put up for MFD again. Ryan4314 (talk) 11:28, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Kudos

I just read the first four paragraphs of your User:Tony1/AdminWatch page. Outstanding prose. Some of the best I’ve seen. Bravo! Greg L (talk) 02:29, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

<Blushes> Thanks. But really, some of it is just an improved version of the opening to WP:ADMIN. Tony (talk) 02:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Meanwhile, back at the ranch. Prose at FAC is dramatically declining in your absence. About that footprint? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:54, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings

Tony, I though you might appreciate this. Its worth a few listens, it really grows. Good holidays to you. Ceoil (talk) 22:21, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Ceoil, and to you! Very interesting music—original. Had not heard of her. A quite large WP article on her; this work is from 1996. Tony (talk) 02:31, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I request your comment

I have encountered an anon user who needs to be channeled in the right direction. This person is an excellent prose reviewer like yourself. I asked this person to review the Alan Kulwicki article which failed FAC. S/he did an excellent job and I agree that all suggestions were improvements. I wish I had comments that helpful during the FAC. This person did an unsolicited review of The Holyland (Wisconsin) article that I worked on today and helped improve it too (diffs). While I am satisfied with this anon's reviews/edits, other veteran Wikipedians aren't satisfied with the anon's actions and there have been strong conflicts. I hope it's not a case of WP:OWN from the veterans. What areas would you recommended to this enthusiastic anon so that his/her skills would be appreciated? S/he always edits from an IP address that begins with 12 and does not want to register for an account. The anon watches my talk page (and probably my edits), so your response there would be greatly appreciated. Thanks for your thoughts, Tony! Royalbroil 03:16, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Left message on your talk-page. Tony (talk) 06:28, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

If you don't mind

Tony, would you mind taking a look at a few articles and letting me know what you think of the prose? I have a couple in mind that I would like to nominate at FAC, but given your excellent eye for prose, I figured you would have some helpful suggestions. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^{Happy Holidays} 03:33, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Which ones? Tony (talk) 06:30, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Hurricane Hernan (2002), Effects of Hurricane Noel in the United States, and Tropical Storm Hermine (1998) in particular. –Juliancolton ^{Happy Holidays} 14:08, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Delinking dates & formatting

Hi Tony; thanks for your comments. Wouldn't Dutch related articles be classed under Europe and, therefore, have international date formats? -TonyW (talk) 09:17, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, not under current rules, although there has been an RfC to this effect—still in progress, so why not have your say? Gene is in the right, although his tone could do with softening, couldn't it.

It's great that you're operating the script. Here's the quick-sure method I use to check which format (dmy or mdy) is should click on:

1. Is it a US-related article? Is so, must be mdy, except that some US military articles want international (check the existing format).
2. Is it Canada-related? 98% US format already (so why the big fuss about how they use either?)—retain current or majority formatting.
3. Other anglophone countries: must be international.
4. Articles not related to an anglophone country: Keep existing format; if inconsistent, go with the majority.

It's best to hit the mdy for the last category (and Canada). Then the raw formats that have been altered by your action are highlighted in red in the diff. If you then need to reverse your decision, simply hit "All dates to dmy" (or "mdy") above in the list. Save.

The aims are to (1) adhere to the rules, (2) not upset editors, and (3) make each article consistent in the main text.

Tony (talk) 10:26, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Citation templates

Hi Tony. How are you? I haven't spoke to you for a while. I have a question: I've already looked at WP:FOOT, WP:CS, WP:CITET and a couple of other places but didn't get an answer. Is it okay for an article to partially use citation templates? I was under the understanding that just as {{tl:Citation}} shouldn't be used in the same article as {{tl:cite web}}, an article shouldn't include both manually formatted references and templated references. I can't find where it says it though. Any ideas? Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:50, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Prison Break (season 2). If isn't written anywhere, how important is it that they be in one format? Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

It's the consistency you're looking for. If they manually format the refs and they are identical to the ones created by the template, there is no reason to worry. The problem is that most folks can't consistently format references... Ealdgyth - Talk 15:31, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Delinking nationalities

I am told you have developed an automated script that delinks nationalities indiscriminately. Can you show me the mandate for such mass delinking of nationalities on biographical articles? Thank you. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:44, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Wow, since when do we decree mandates? --Closedmouth (talk) 13:49, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

--I meant User:Lightmouse developed the script, but I believe you were closely involved Tony1? Although I've been using this for a few months now, this is the second time I've recieved objection this month. I suggest something clearer is made in WP:OVERLINK or else the script is abandoned. Thoughts? --Jza84 |  Talk  13:56, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Mandates are what corrupt policitians typically claim.

Why abandon the whole script over just one of its functions? I try to avoid such delinkings where thy may seem indiscriminate, but you haven't provided evidence by which to judge.

I believe the text you're looking for is at CONTEXT: "[An article is likely to be overlinked if it contains] items that would be familiar to most readers of the article, such as the names of major geographic features and locations, historical events, religions, languages, and common professions." And at the MoS (central): "Make links only where they are relevant to the context:... [Links] should add to the user's experience; they should not detract from it by making the article harder to read. A high density of links can draw attention away from the high-value links that you would like your readers to follow up. Redundant links clutter the page and make future maintenance harder." Seems clear to me. Tony (talk) 14:23, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

It's worth considering that editors may, rightly or wrongly, have much stronger feelings about a link to a country's name than they do to silly date formatting inconsistencies though. Always manually check that links you are removing will not interfere with the utility of our readers, it should go without saying. --John (talk) 23:01, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I considered, and rejected that notion long ago. WP articles are not vehicles for flying national flags in bright-blue, or other such drum-thumping. Tony (talk) 01:51, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Sure, and I agree with you as a good Wikipedian and an internationalist. My intention is not to support these people but to highlight the very real passion that people seem to have for links to their pet nationalities or ethnicities. I agree it is somewhat silly, but those (including myself) who remove these links need to be aware of this factor. --John (talk) 19:35, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Date homogenization

Dear Tony, I agree with you that separate month-day and day-month numeric formats used indiscriminately intermixed in articles, such as Plug-in hybrid, are bad. Given that the first production plug-in hybrid has gone on sale in China, what is the correct approach?

1. convert all dates which are not of the format D-M-Y or Month, Year to one of those two formats; and
2. convert ambiguous dates into just the year (e.g., uncertain ISO in the refs' access dates)?

Thank you for your advice. 69.228.83.93 (talk) 19:52, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi 69.228... I searched through the history of the article and found that on this revision, the first editor to input a full date put in linked dates with both formats! What to do here? Since most of the dates in the current article's prose are in American format (Month Day, Year), I changed the other dates to follow that format. Thanks for your input. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:54, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Wonder Stories

Tony, could you take another look at Wonder Stories? You opposed recently at the FAC and recommended a copyedit; Brian Boulton has done a copyedit since then, and I hope has fixed the problems that caused you to oppose. If you would update your comments and let me know what else needs work, I'd appreciate it. Thanks -- Mike Christie (talk) 20:20, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

The Socratic barnstar

		The Socratic Barnstar
		For your concise and to-the-point outside view in the RFC I filed. I was impressed. Law Lord (talk) 00:32, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Comma or semi-colon as separator in conversions

Hi,

The convert template was using a slash separator for multiple conversions such as nautical miles into kilometres and miles. Such as:

• 10 nautical miles (19 km/12 mi)

Most of us now think that separators should not be any character that could itself be part of a unit term. The current suggestion is a comma but somebody has suggested a colon or semi-colon. One of the issues is how the conversion looks when the line wraps. Your thoughts would be welcome at: Template_talk:Convert#Separator_punctuation_in_multiple_conversions_e.g._x.C2.A0nmi_.28x.C2.A0km.2Fx.C2.A0mi.29. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 11:30, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

And now, for Fvasconcellos' traditional nonsectarian holiday greeting!

Wherever you are, and whether you're celebrating something or not, there is always a reason to spread the holiday spirit! So, may you have a great day, and may all your wishes be fulfilled in 2009! Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:49, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Is this a combination of my Christmas greeting from 2006 and my New Year's greeting from last year? Why, it most certainly is! Hey, if it ain't broke...

unitarian greetings

• a fine Xmas message for all of us to be mindful of.... hehehe. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:01, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy holidays

Thanks for making 2008 an interesting and enlightening year for me; our paths have crossed and I've found your comments amusing, helpful and at times thought-provoking—I'll let you guess which were which!

Wishing you and yours a joyous holiday season, and happiness, health and hopefulness in 2009. I trust you'll enjoy this little token, a favourite performance of Baby, it's Cold Outside, for your holiday amusement.
Best, Risker (talk) 00:49, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Nevado del Ruiz

I noticed your oppose in the FA nomination of this article. I admit that you are right—the prose is not ideal and needs some work. I am not a major contributor to this article, as I am only trying to help Ceran to push this article through FAC. I noticed that your workload is currently 3 (not very high). So, may I ask you to help with copy-edit? I am not exceptionally good at 1a criterion myself. Ruslik (talk) 20:18, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I tend to spend the time reviewing more articles rather than copy-editing one. Please locate copy-editors who have a feeling for the topic. Tony (talk) 03:47, 26 December 2008 (UTC) PS There's also an issue with the topic; how much of the main text is related to the title of the article? Tony (talk) 03:48, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

your writing guide thing

Hey there, I was just wondering if you could add a section on the proper use of various past tenses (aorist/simple past, present perfect, etc.) to your guide. I've seen a number of cases where an editor used the present perfect, when in fact, the simple past should have been used. Here's a fictional example: "India has declared independence in 1947" (as opposed to "India declared independence in 1947"). I'm fairly convinced that, since most of the articles I watch are Chinese-language pop artists, editors who come by tend to pay little attention to the differences in the use of these past tenses. Ideally, I'd like to use it as a personal reference, but it would probably be useful for ESL learners as well. Pandacomics (talk) 20:34, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Proper use of sourced material.

Tony-- I am interested in your thoughts on when, and under what circumstances, lightly-paraphrased material can be used in FACs. I have started a discussion here. Regards, Kablammo (talk) 16:12, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: your thoughts?

Daniel: I suspect you have a grasp of broader Wiki-procedure of the kind that I lack. I still have a little flesh to put on AdminWatch, including election procedure, but the basics are there already. I'm encouraged that many admins accept—even support—the general concept.

I now realise that my original plan to have it operate (trial) from my userspace with coordinators of my choosing, hoping to move it to public space later, is not the way to go. I believe that by early January, with a few more tweaks and more feedback on the talk page, a more public move should be made. Have you suggestions of the best way to do this? One option might be to:

1. move it to WP:ADMINWATCH and put it to an RfC on its talk page, widely advertised (asking either one broad do-you-approve-or-not question, or seeking approval of / comments on a series of detailed aspects, like the staged process, the method of election, etc);
2. run an election over about 10 days;
3. start it, open to further feedback/review/tweaking.

Your thoughts? Tony (talk) 07:05, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Hiya Tony, I'll hopefully answer this on Dec 26 (my time) when I have some more time to sit down and write up my thoughts. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 01:52, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Ultimately, this concept doesn't require a consensus of the community to stay alive; it merely needs a consensus not to be deleted, which is a massive difference. It can operate even if 90% of people dislike it, although it's effect may be diminished. To that end, in contrast with some other proposals which qualify as "power-grabs", this one has a distinct advantage in that it can operate within its few pages without anyone getting upset about the fact that people are overreaching their "authority". To that end, I really don't think you need to discuss its existence much; maybe call for comments on the process and then shortly afterwards ask for candidates (is that a job offer? :D). The support you've received on the talk page at the user subpage is clearly sufficient to survive any MfD attempt, and that's all you really need as a base line of support to function.

With the election, I'd suggest keeping it as simple as possible, and maybe consider using approval-only voting to keep acrimony to a minimum, although it will make for a popularity contest. Set low-ish boundaries for qualifying to vote (just enough to keep out socks - maybe 50 edits by the date the election starts or similar), consider not having a questions page, etc. etc. - keeping it simple to avoid screaming about bureaucracy. Clearly specify how the winners are decided, and also make a final decision on the number of admin and non-admin seats before it goes ahead - unlike ArbCom, surprises for this wouldn't be as much fun :)

With regards to advertising the concept and the election, I don't think a watchlist notice is the way to go, as this isn't anything official and a watchlist will likely appeal to the wrong people. I think the best places will be WP:AN, WP:VPP, as well as WP:CENT.

Cheers, and hope you had a good Christmas, Daniel (talk) 12:57, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Wrong FAC?

At Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Over the Edge (1999), you double-supported, but neither seems to be for that article. The second support should go here, and I don't know what article the first one is for. Please correct this when you get a chance. It's great to see you back at FAC, by the way. Giants2008 (17-14) 16:45, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

You added comments to the above FAC, but the comments you left does not match the revision of the article and it may have been added to this FAC by accident?--SRX 18:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Resolved by myself, although you may want to delete the irrelevant comments on the Over the Edge FAC. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Multiple

Tony, I responded on my talk. Also, see User talk:SandyGeorgia#Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Over the Edge (1999)

Happy New Year, Tony! Wishing you a year of health and happiness, Always, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:03, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Problems

I'm not trying to stifle your views—they are simply better communicated in more appropriate places on WP.

Problem being, there are no appropriate places on WP, or at least none that are not so frequented by corrupt admins that a fair airing will be impossible. I take the fact that MBisanz not only disagreed with me, but proceeded to issue an incivil threat against me quoting a "policy" segment that was separate and contradictory as proof that my concerns are genuine indeed. WhoWatches (talk) 16:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

WhoWatches, I see that you don't like the current process. That part of your message comes across loud and clear. The part of your message that hasn't reached me is the change that you would like to the process. What do you want? Lightmouse (talk) 16:45, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, I don't see why this was in any way necessary. WhoWatches (talk) 00:09, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Who Watch: I see that you're intent on not answering Lightmouse's question. Tony (talk) 00:12, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I've answered Lightmouse's question already on the other talkpage, thank you. WhoWatches (talk) 00:14, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Chevrons

		The WikiChevrons
		Thank you for adding the Date ranges section to the Military History WikiProject's style guide. Hopefully, this addition will help people to remember that endashes are needed... :) Cheers! —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 07:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Scene7

Tony, care to revisit the nomination? Gary King (talk) 16:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Naming the project and the officers

I kind of like The Spanish Inquisition (Monty Python) as a title for the process and the officers could be called Gumbys. So would you prefer I now lock myself into the Stocks or the Pillory? CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 04:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

		Civility Award
		I am not at all sure how you remain civil throughout all that page but you do, so I thought I would force this barnstar on you. "You're a better man than I am" CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 04:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

AdminReview

Just a note that I have semi-protected both User:Tony1/AdminReview and User talk:Tony1/AdminReview for the time being following vandalism by a series of TOR Proxy IPs. Kind regards, --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 07:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

State Route 74 (New York – Vermont)'s FAC

Care to revisit? We worked on your issues :).Mitch32^{(Go Syracuse)} 17:28, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Solved. I don't understand. Why do you want to limit what articles we get to FAC? Isn't that imposing big brother on FACing articles?Mitch32^{(Go Syracuse)} 14:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

script-assisted date/terms audit on British Airways Flight 38

When you go through an article stripping out date formatting like you did on British Airways Flight 38 can you please make sure that the dates are left in consistant formats, including those in the references - you made the one in the body of the text consistent but not those in the references, which were left in a mix of formats. Thank you.Nigel Ish (talk) 15:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid that that inconsistency is what your readers have been exposed to for many years; the application of the script made that aspect neither better nor worse. MOSNUM states:

Dates in article body text should all have the same format. Dates in article references should all have the same format.

I hope this solves the problem for you. Tony (talk) 16:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Nigel Ish, good on you! Actually, Tony's edit was an improvement as it rectified some of the American formatted (mmm dd yy) dates, replacing them with British format, leaving only ISO formatted dates. I see you finished the job manually. There is no easy/automated way of dealing with ISO formatted dates. We have found that universal conversion of these dates applied all articles leads to undesirable conversion of dates which have been so deliberately formatted, so it has been abandoned. I am aware there is still a problem, which I also go around fixing, but it is a relatively minor one by comparison with the overlinked dates. We will think more about the problem and maybe there will be a solution n due course. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• Tony, Lightmouse and I could do with your input here, please. Ohconfucius (talk) 15:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

AdminScourge

Tony, I've stickybeaked into the first part of your AdminPersecute page; hope I haven't fcuked anything up, but anyway do please look carefully at what I've perpetrated.

And now, off to bed. IFF my fiddling was, on balance, for the better, then I'll continue it within the next couple of days. -- Hoary (talk) 16:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• I would say the changes were for the better. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree. Methinks Hoary is in a different time-zone at the moment. Ohconfucius, we need to sort out the individual vs group approach to judgements, here. Tony (talk) 02:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your offer

First, you should be aware that whoever was hitting your page and other spots last night, it was definitively not me. Using IP-sockpuppetry would, and the false accusation did, defeat the purpose of my ever posting. It was either other abused editors who felt the chance for some revenge or some mischief, or else it was an administrator(s) using TOR and IP sockpuppetry as a WP:ROLE account. I personally suspect the latter, as it wouldn't be the first time that abusive administrators had used a False Flag operation in order to consolidate power, make supposedly "necessary" changes that would otherwise never gain consensus because they have only power-consolidation and imbalancing as their purpose, or simply to justify abusing an editor (e.g. "see, he's using sockpuppets, throw the book at him"). Please notice that even now, I'm not interested in cussing at people (why would I be?). If I ever did cuss, you're more than welcome to point it out from my contributions. The abusive administrator(s) poorly impersonating me, by contrast, seems to be a true example of this theory in action.

As regards your offer to communicate via email, what real assurances do I have that it would remain "confidential"? Wikipedia history is replete with examples of "confidential" emails not remaining so. For that matter, I actually did try clicking the "email" tab from the previous, only to find out that an admin is abusive enough to have clicked up the "deny email" button (I suspect, given his abusive and incivil history, that he simply does this by default whenever issuing a block).

As regards "a pitiful fool", I don't consider you such, but either you're hopelessly naive or you have never been on Wikipedia's IRC channel (or the administrators' channel), or you would know better than to trust this or the people involved in it.

Final point: I received a "was it you" email, obviously BCC'ed to a large number of people, to my main account's email early this morning. You'll forgive me if I consider my concerns about receiving abusive emails and phone calls on this topic 100% justified now. WW, QuisCustodio (talk) 19:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

You'd just have to trust me. There's little incentive for me to break confidentiality in this case, and considerable risk in doing so. Tony (talk) 01:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC) PS I wish you'd avoid (1) whole-class comments on admins, and (2) accusations of admins by name. If you've never met a hard-working, skilled, professional, NPOV admin, perhaps you should get to know some. Your blanket accusations are unfair and lack credibility—at the very least, I recommend you constrain the scope of your negative remarks to a section of the class in question. Accusing people by name is unacceptable on my talk page, for obvious reasons. You will immediately find that your comments gain greater traction if you give people a little lattitude; that is what you need from admins, so you could do no better than offering quid pro quo. My offer to correspond by email remains open. Tony (talk) 02:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

We seem to have a little problem then, since you have given me no reason to trust you and plenty of reason to distrust you so far. And there is plenty of incentive for you to break confidentiality, involving the "goodwill" of any number of abusive administrators who I am 100% sure would love to get their hands on anything that might "lead" them to my main account at this point. They've already begun trolling emails (and I bet a few checkusers were run, not that normal peons get to see when they are unless our so-called "beloved leaders" deign to say so), to see if they can find me.

If you've never met a hard-working, skilled, professional, NPOV admin, perhaps you should get to know some. - I've met them before. The problem is, the good ones have already left the project being sick of what was going on. The behavior of the rest has gotten worse and worse over time, as places like WP:ANI have turned from being actual places for the work of the encyclopedia to get done, into echo chambers full of nothing but corrupt admins and game-playing wannabes who trade "support" of bad administrator actions for protection of their own bad behavior later.

I knew five good ones who quietly hung up their hat after the whole "Wheel War Policy" nonsense went down, because they saw precisely what its real purpose was; to further put up bureaucracy roadblocks in the way of stopping bad administrator actions from being undone. Unblock requests used to be somewhat effective, before the Wikipedia:Wheel_war policy. After that point, the good ones on Unblock patrol left the project, leaving us with the abusive types and newly-cut "admin from wannabe" WP:ANI hangers who "cut their teeth" by walking around, not investigating anything, and leaving decline notices like "this doesn't actually specify a reason for unblocking" or "declined because you said something bad about the admin" to users who point out that their blocks are unjustified via policy, then lock the page or extend the block just for spite.

You say, contradictorily, "I wish you'd avoid (1) whole-class comments on admins, and (2) accusations of admins by name." Functionally, you can only have one or the other. Either they're collectively guilty (in the terms of "this is how administrators do X, Y, Z") or else I have to bring up a specific case. More often than not, these discussions have fallen into the administrators' favorite wikilawyering game of "your complaint is too generic, bring a specific case", followed by picking at the case like a murder of crows until they've completely threadjacked it, then following up by accusing the bringing user of "disruption" for "wasting their time" and throwing on a punitive block simply because that's how they behave. Either I speak generally about how the system works and is set up in practice with policies that have been tweaked to be completely tilted over the years by just such False Flag behavior as they did to me, or you want someone to spend their time looking for specific examples, but specific examples (like LessHeard VanU's abusive "default 31 hour" blocking procedures, which he has already said he has no intention of giving up) will naturally require naming names.

Now, if you believe this threat list is any help, if you really believe the argument that "I do not believe that anyone will be more or less apprehensive of opening a complaint against an admin because their name is listed here," you really need to rethink yourself, especially since it was LessHeard who placed it. Every other project in the same scope as yours previously was derailed either by direct abusive action, or by co-opting it and twisting it into uselessness, and since a sizable majority of your "contributors" are themselves administrators and they're doing their level best to keep anyone else out who's willing to actually give your proposal the teeth it needs to work, you are already 9/10 of the way down that path. Take a look, such as when Wikipedia:Admin recall was torpedoed and then Wikipedia:Administrator recall got the corrupt arbcom added as a further bureaucracy blocking step before it was again torpedoed anyways. Wikipedia:Adminship_renewal was killed for the same reason; it would have helped weed out the bad ones, the "sleeper admin" POV-clique protectors, and so forth. WW, QuisCustodio (talk) 17:51, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

QuisCustodio, your unhappiness is clear. You don't need to repeat yourself. It doesn't matter if 100% of admins acts badly, or if 0.01% of them acts badly. AdminReview is an attempt at improving bad administration where it occurs. You go to a lot of effort to predict our impending doom. We can't work with non-specific phrases like "you really need to rethink yourself". Frankly, I think you are being unfair to suggest that other people should fix the world for you. You have a chance to influence the process if you can make yourself understood. Right now, all I understand is that you are unhappy, think we are all doomed, and you are losing your audience. Try to shorten your contributions and offer an active positive suggestion for the future process. Lightmouse (talk) 18:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh please.

We can't work with non-specific phrases like "you really need to rethink yourself". That was directed squarely at the LessHeard-started "scare list" and the fact that Tony has let it sit, as well as Tony's credulousness with administrators in general. Were I to WP:AGF and apply Hanlon's Razor I would be forced to conclude that you are reading what I write and really not getting it; otherwise, I would be inclined to believe you are being deliberately obtuse and pulling things out of context to irritate me.

You have a chance to influence the process if you can make yourself understood. Funny, all I've gotten is abuse in return and the direct statement from at least one administrator that I am being persecuted in this way because of my views. Anyone else who stood up for me got threats and abuse as well. Given the sheer wikilawyering, and the nonsense about claiming that I should have "no fear" of posting from my own account even as they're engaging in hunting activity trying to find me, I am 100% justified, but that still leaves me (not to mention anyone else who might have wanted to contribute coming back to Wikipedia) now blocked off from contributing thanks to their False Flag (not to mention incredibly poor) impersonation of me and subsequent page-protection racket. WW, QuisCustodio (talk) 18:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Your first instinct is right 'I am reading what you write and really not getting it'. You have just posted another complaint about how awful your world is. Please try and contribute something other than complaints. Do you have an active positive suggestion for the future process? Lightmouse (talk) 19:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

You appear not to understand the inherent danger of the number of admins who are now stalking the renamed AdminReview for the purposes of harassment, intimidation, outright threats, and the enforcement of groupthink. The difference between a toothless proposal (which this currently has been twisted into) and no proposal at all, is very, very small. Start with the FAQ, "Complaints that have even the appearance of vexatiousness will be removed promptly. Countdown to an admin-coordinator (or just an admin themselves) removing legitimate complaints and then blocking the complainer for "disruption" in 3...2...1... WW,QuisCustodio (talk) 21:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Your use of the word "stalker" is inflammatory, and your apparent ability to foretell the future "... for the purposes of harassment, intimidation, outright threats, and the enforcement of groupthink" is little less than astonishing. There is no doubt in my mind that the majority of administrators do as good a job as they can, and that most of them would be just as happy as anyone else to see the few bad apples rooted out. And believe me, I have no reason to be soft on administrators. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Harassment, intimidation, outright threats, and enforcement of groupthink have already occurred.

There is no doubt in my mind that the majority of administrators do as good a job as they can, and that most of them would be just as happy as anyone else to see the few bad apples rooted out.

I, on the other hand, have witnessed the few good apples leave wikipedia already because they judged it impossible to reform the system even with the powers of an administrator. My "apparent ability to tell the future" is a mere knowledge of the past, and the fact that those who are unaware of the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them. WW,QuisCustodio (talk) 22:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I tend more towards George Bernard Shaw's view on the matter: "The only thing we learn from history is that we learn nothing from history." Also, perhaps unlike you, I do not share the view that there are no good apples left in the barrel. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

If there are any good apples left in the barrel, they're not speaking here or on User talk:Tony1/AdminReview. WW,QuisCustodio (talk) 00:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• Quite a lot, and paradoxically nothing, seems to have happened while I slept. We are told to 'watch out for the reds under our beds', yet there is nothing new nor concrete. Sure, we will take a look at the various initiatives which have been derailed and hopefully we will learn something. You (WW,QuisCustodio) seem to be well-educated, very conversant with the way WP works, you infer that all the admins who have had their names listed as watching AdminReview as corrupt, yet you offer sod-all evidence as to their [individual] wrongdoing. You appear to be completely paranoid - you may have good reason to be, but again, would you kindly put up or shut up. Yawn. I am sure you have heard of McCarthyism. I am quite tempted to blank this section out as completely unconstructive, and verging on the disruption or harrassment. Tony has offered his ears, and you are not only downright sceptical, but bordering on insulting him. If you are so distrustful of Tony, I really don't know what you are doing here. I suggest you took your complaints elsewhere, because you have exhausted your share of vested credibility, and our indulgence, IMHO. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• Yup, I'm starting to yawn deeply. I've gone out of my way to accommodate your right to a voice, but I'm desperate for more succinct, positive entries. We're all tiring of the constant accusations and conspiracy theories (perhaps you are an admin in disguise, trying to derail our AdminReview process? Ahem ....). Tony (talk) 02:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• The thought of an agent provocateur had crossed my mind. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Fine. Here's a starter list of succinct problems I have with the current version and the talkpage.

1. - I do not find the "list of admins watching this page" created by LessHeard to be helpful. On the contrary, I believe it to function as a coercive scare-tactic to keep people away. It will function in two manners; first, to tell abused users whether or not they can expect retaliation (should the admin or his friends' names appear), second, it gives a list of names that an abused user will likely consider all to be on "friendly" terms with most or all of the coordinators. Even if the administrators don't mean it this way, that is how many users trying to find a place to get a fair hearing (especially if reaching AR only after being abused elsewhere) are going to see it.
2. - Complaints that have even the appearance of vexatiousness will be removed promptly. - This much resembles the common WP:ANI line, and over at WP:ANI any complaint about an admin at all (no matter how well founded), save for those filed by other equally-connected admins, ever is viewed as anything other than "vexatious." Lacking a guideline on what a so-called "vexatious" complaint is, this becomes a clause to be abused at will.
3. - AdminReview may decline to take on a case, with or without the provision of a reason for its decision. - A reason should always be given. Part of the problem with abusive administrators is that their abuse often comes with either directly misleading, unhelpful, or nonexistent communications. I know several who, prior to the WP:BADSITES debacle, actually taunted blocked users to "go complain on wikipediareview.com they like your types there." Failing to communicate why a case was refused gives no input to the filing user as to what is going on or how they could improve their case for refiling. This is counter to the principle that AdminReview is supposed to be about "communication."
4. - Relevant policy pages - This section needs to more clearly delineate the difference between actual policy pages, and mere essays. Far too many people treat "essays" as having the force of policy.
5. - Likewise, for purposes of these procedures, any policy reference and decision needs to be made on the basis of the policy as it was written at the time of the user action(s) the admin claims as policy-based reason for the block; there are plenty of examples in the past in which an admin unilaterally changed a policy (adding/removing something to the policy page), and then issued a block based on their new change.
6. - Comment from Laizulasher: "In Lazulilasher's dream Wikipedia: a process is created which is chaired jointly by administrators and regular editors. Given that I (and most petitioners I will suspect) have absolutely no trust in any administrator, because administrators fall far too high on the "power" scale and of course, absolute power corrupts absolutely, I do not feel comfortable with much involvement of administrators as coordinators at all, much less 50% or higher involvement. He/she states "I would feel more secure in judgments rendered by an impartial board with access to the highest possible amount of information", and I submit that given the "godlike" power granted currently to administrators (analogous quite easily to "the power over who lives and who dies"), no board featuring admins in a heavy role will ever be "impartial" in dealing with other administrators.
7. - "AdminReview aims to address the perceived lack of effective process for reviewing admins' actions and applying disciplinary remedies where the actions were unreasonable and/or in breach of policy, particularly as a block on a user remains permanently on their record even if the block is found to have been unjustified.'' - Followup notes: first, not only do "blocks" remain on record permanently, administrators make a practice of "unblocking to lengthen" or "unblocking to shorten", and then considering the reblock as a new block when counting up the user's number of blocks for the scarlet letter harassment technique. I've seen editors leave the project because they'd only had two "blocks", but were given ten "blocks" on record (with an accompanying eight "unblock to modify" insertions), and nobody would ever take them seriously again because they were now "a user with ten blocks in a month." How is this to be addressed? IS there some method within the wikipedia system to address this that users can actually be steered to, or not?
8. - Are there basic standards that AdminReview insists on as supported by policy, or not? For example, WP:BLOCK lists the following notations:

1. The community expects that blocks will be made with good reasons only, based upon reviewable evidence and reasonable judgement, and that all factors that support a block are subject to independent review if requested. - as if.
2. Administrators must supply a clear and specific block reason which indicates why a user was blocked. - usually an unreadable template or worse. Templating a comment field is particularly nonsensical, but excessively common.
3. Block reasons should avoid the use of jargon as much as possible so that blocked users may better understand them. - see above.
4. incidents of disruptive behaviour typically result in 24 hours blocks, longer for successive violations; -- as per earlier discussion, many administrators already completely disregard this one and implement much longer blocks than necessary. Would a complaint about this be "vexatious"?

How do we go about dealing with administrators who completely disregard policy on these points, to name just a few? What about administrators who insist (one of whom has already insisted so on AR's very talk page) on continuing non-policy abuse?
9. - Users are regularly admonished to avoid wikilawyering, often even blocked for "disruptious wikilawyering" by vexatious administrators. How, in this process, are both sides to be held to the same standard for that? A common response on WP:ANI is that a user is being "vexatious" pointing out that something wasn't done according to policy, with things like WP:IAR or "the spirit of the policy", or even the old saw of "well we give administrators wide latitude so just suck it up." How do you intend to avoid this kind of problem (which makes it obvious to abused users that they're not being heard in anything resembling a fair manner)?
10. - Wording limits on filings are counterproductive. Some people are more verbose than others. Some disputes are going to take more time and description (how many diffs? how many instances of problem behavior to list?) than others. I would really hate to see an otherwise valid case rejected merely because someone needed 300 words to state their case.

Well? There's some starter points. Your response? WW,QuisCustodio (talk) 07:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Also: Stage 3 will decide and write judgement on simple majority. A 'hung' verdict will go in favour of the Admin. - This should be reversed: a 3v3 tie between 6 coordinators should be a vindication for the editor that the administrator's action was not justifiable by review of policy. WW, QuisCustodio (talk) 07:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

Now, we appear to be going somewhere. I will not address all of your points, but would offer my personal view on certain points only:

• 1/I cannot help your feeling intimidated by it: your cup is half empty whilst mine is half full. You already see the process being corrupted by their involvement; I see the list as an indication of support of some admins, which we need in order for the project to be seen to be fair.
• 2/ Vexatious complaints - you must not dismiss the possibility that vexatious complaints will ever be completely eliminated. The mechanism, therefore, is an important one which balances the prima facie qualities of a case and the administrative burden. I have a feeling that having a guideline of what constitutes "vexatiousness" is just bureaucracy, and would get the process bogged down on technicalities and Wikilawyering.
• 3/ I do take your point. It is a "we reserve the right to.. " sort of clause, but I fully imagine that, in practice, a reason will be given for declining a case, however, it may not be as detailed as you may like.
• 4/ Not within the scope of this to define or delineate policy areas. However, I have sorted the list and removed the essays.
• 6/ Depends on what you might call "heavy role". You will note that the composition of the 'board' will be skewed towards non-admins. If you want them not to have a role at all, it's likely to be a deal-breaker, IMHO. I do not believe this project is some exercise of people power. For it to work, the whole community must work together, so we cannot have admins (as a group) disenfranchised.
• 8/ Then it would be patently obvious, and the coordinators are likely to find against the admin in question.
• 9/ the process would rely on fact and not arguments
• 10/ Nobody's going to stop reading when the wordcount gets to 300, but I do not expect case-handlers to have to wade through War and Peace, The Iliad, or The Odyssey to gain a basic understanding as to the complaints.
• Stage 3: the burden of proof and the presumption of innocence are fundamental tenets of justice. Also, the full panel may not always be an even number. Ohconfucius (talk) 08:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Response by Tony1:

• (1) Stop the paranoia, please. While I'm not familiar with some of the names, those I know are fine people. Moni3 is highly respected at FAC, and something of a language guru. Black Kite does tremendous work protecting WP's pillar concerning reproducibility, specifically as it concerns our WP:NFC policy—I mean, highly skilled work that would do a top attorney proud. These are just two examples. I'm pleased that ?12 admins have come forward, some of them explicitly to support the page. What are you talking about?
• (2) I will tone down the wording to "Complaints that appear to be vexatious will be removed promptly". Filtering out unreasonable complaints is one of the challenges of the new system, and the demands of natural justice ("everyone is entitled to a hearing" and "justice must be not merely done, but seen to be done") must be balanced against the need to be fair to admins, who can easily be unreasonably accused, and of a system that might otherwise be swamped.
• (3) OK, I'll change it, but I don't want to impose unreasonable procedural burdens on coordinators by having to respond to every nuisance complaint.
• (4) I agree; Ohconfucius has changed the wording.
• (5) I agree; it's a finnicky point, but probably worth adding. Indeed, I foresee that policy will change more often in response to a proper process of review.
• (6) Ohconfucius says it all.
• (7) I do believe that the block log system needs a process of review and appeal, although it is not currently within the scope of AdminReview. Give the system a chance to evolve and gain acceptance; then we might see about recommending further changes. First things first. AdminReview is already a major step, even though no one is claiming that it will achieve its goals fully or immediately.
• (8) "The community expects that blocks will be made with good reasons only, based upon reviewable evidence and reasonable judgement, and that all factors that support a block are subject to independent review if requested." AdminReview will inevitably be called on to provide such independent review, although not retrospectively. As for the other clauses you cite, I think these need to be codified and referenced in the "Specific policy requirements" on the AdminReview page. Remember that the whole process is about gaining trust—of non-admins, admins, and the community as a whole. Please stop throwing around the word "abuse" quite so often; it's unhelpful. Moderate language is more effective in this context.
• (9) See Ohconfucius's response.
• (10) And huge, verbose statements are also counterproductive; this is one of the problems in other WP processes, and it causes backlogs, tardiness, and makes processes less accessible to many users. It is a useful exercise to self-edit a statement down to a word limit: the result is usually more persuasive. I make no apologies for allowing coordinators to edit down statements and rejoinders if they contain irrelevant fluff. It's called helping users to be relevant, and serves the narrow legalistic judicial framework that underlies AdminReview. That framework is there to protect all parties, as much as some people will inevitably criticise it as being bureaucratic bloat. However, I'll consider writing in some wriggle-room on the word limits. Tony (talk) 12:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

1. -"Stop the paranoia, please." - after everything you've seen me put through, including the bad-faith and poor impersonation of me in someone's lame False Flag operation, you call me "paranoid"? Right back at you, "What are you talking about?" Similarly, Black Kite's involvement/work on WP:NFC has no bearing on his ability (or from my perspective, lack of same) to be an honest admin. I also take it very seriously that the very person who declared his intent to continue issuing extra-long "default" blocks, deliberately flouting the blocking policy as notated above is the one who started the Threat List.
2. -must be balanced against the need to be fair to admins, who can easily be unreasonably accused,, as opposed to normal editors who not only can (and regularly are) unreasonably accused, but then unreasonably abused because they are seen as peons or worse and lack any power to fight back.
3. -If they think it's a nuisance complaint, it should be simple enough to point out a diff or two and say "we do not believe this case should be taken."
4. -I had no objection to essays being listed (they do offer at least a perspective on how some policies might be read). I simply did not like seeing them listed as policy rather than as essays. I'd rather when Ohconfucious had sorted the list, he'd done a sort and placed them in a "relevant essays" section. I'd do it myself, but thanks to the bad-faith False Flag protection of the page, I still can't directly edit it.
5. -It's not a "finicky point." Protection of users from ex post facto "policy changes" is important.
6. -"You will note that the composition of the 'board' will be skewed towards non-admins." - hardly, as the discussion from several admins on the page (now that they've half-locked the discussion) keeps wanting to push more and more admins into the coordinator circle.
8. -"Please stop throwing around the word "abuse" quite so often; it's unhelpful." To paraphrase one of the most nonsensical phrases bad admins love to use, "if you don't like being called abusive, don't be abusive."
9. -I can hardly believe this would be the case. Where policy is involved, "interpretation" of policy is involved. Admins love to wikilawyer while simultaneously yelling at others for "wikilawyering" in response.
10. -Editing down is one thing and I have no objection to it; rejecting a request because someone's writing style is more verbose than another's is where the "hard limit" caps make for bad policy. I'm glad to see you are willing to soften this policy.
WW,QuisCustodio (talk) 16:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Stage 3's pro-admin bias and the burden of proof and the presumption of innocence are fundamental tenets of justice. If admins collectively ever followed these, AdminReview wouldn't be needed in the first place. Presume the person not in a position to be corrupted by power is innocent for once. WW,QuisCustodio (talk) 17:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

to your points:

• 1/ Use of terms such as "Threat list" is extremely unhelpful and is an extension of your paranoia. We part company there, please don't keep bringing it back.
• 4/ I will put the essays back under its own heading.
• 5/ I am firmly of the school which believes that laws should not apply retroactively. However, I also believe that loopholes should be plugged as soon as practicable. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Basic question

Fine, here's a basic question for you: who is to receive the benefit of the doubt in these proceedings? I say that if the admin gets "the benefit of the doubt", then this will quickly devolve into a WP:ANI-like situation where "the benefit of the doubt" justifies incivil behavior or worse, and it will accomplish nothing. WW,QuisCustodio (talk) 01:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

If we were talking about an outcome of 3:3, split along user/admin lines, then I would tend to agree. However, I have proposed that the decision mechanism will always have an in-built majority of non-admins as a safeguard. That being the case, I fail to see how it "justifies incivil behavior or worse", and would say without hesitation that that is where the benefit of doubt should lie, per my comments above. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

New point

From the newly-worded FAQ: "May I complain about past incidents? No; only admin actions or behaviour on or after [start date] may be the subject of a complaint. Complaints may only be lodged on actions which took place within [2] weeks of the date of filing"

I suggest that this be amended to read "Complaints may be lodged on actions which took place within [2] weeks prior to the date of filing, or within [2] weeks after the expiration of a questioned block." Users permablocked will have as their "only" option communicating via email, but it's certainly possible that other users either won't feel comfortable communicating via email, or otherwise may decide to simply wait out their block; letting them file 2 weeks after expiration (giving a full "2 week" time from the end of the admin action, given that blocking has a timeframe while other admin actions are "instantaneous") is only fair. WW, QuisCustodio (talk) 06:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Coenred copyedit

Tony, per your request at the Coenred FAC, qp10qp has done a copyedit on the article. Would you mind taking another look? Thanks. Mike Christie (talk) 04:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for not trashing me in the RFC. It is quite clear that if I remain, I will no longer be allowed to participate in FAC. However, I have enjoyed seeing your professional work and attitude. And I wish you the best. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 04:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Help!

• I think the texas page needs a lot of pretty obvious Strunk and White style tightening and a couple places need better logic in the statement.
• I found the Autism page hard to read and not engaging. Some imprecise complaints and discussion here. It's obvious that the editors care about the page a lot and put a lot of work into it, but imho are not making it reader friendly. Please take a look, see what you think and advise on that page: Talk:Autism#poor writing style. TCO (talk) 07:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

These are both pretty long articles. I don't normally copy-edit. I'll have a quick look at both. Tony (talk) 06:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

No sweat, but then a comment like I see what you mean or you are out to lunch would still be helpful. TCO (talk) 01:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Sunderland A.F.C. FAC

Hi there, cheers a lot for your review of the Sunderland A.F.C. FAC. I think your comments raised have now been addressed, and if you could have another look over it, that would be great. Thanks. Sunderland06 (talk) 21:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Reply

Tony, I replied to you here. Regards, Lazulilasher (talk) 03:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Has everything changed?

Has everything gone weird on Wikipeida i.e. the headings are no longer bold and the font's changed, or have I bugged up my options some how? Ryan4314 (talk) 05:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeah it's fixed now, should've removed this message. Turns out Firefox has some sillyness, where you can shrink the text just by using the mouse lol! Ryan4314 (talk) 13:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Food for Admin Watch

Tony. This “admin” needs to be watched… carefully: ANI over censorship. And more childish, confrontational crap here on WT:MOSNUM. Is this suitable for a test case? I doubt he will create more problems, but I can tell that if I hadn’t have been very proactive, he would have spiraled out of control. Greg L (talk) 04:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• I’m not going to let Ryoung122 get by with his stupid little post. The principle here (censorship) is too important and I’m not about to laugh it off with “oh well, we just got a little hot”. See the ANI for the latest entertainment and your viewing pleasure. Greg L (talk) 15:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Dispatch thanks

Thank you, Tony. [2] Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Merge of WP:CONTEXT, WP:BUILD, and MOSLINK

See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)/merged and its corresponding talk page. Regards, Dabomb87 (talk) 22:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

As an aside, the usual crowd seems to be getting more anxious by the minute. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration

I've requested arbitration over this date delinking situation and the conduct of those involved. You are named as a party. Please see here. Thank you. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not kidding at all. I would rather eat fruitcake than unwatch Tony's talk page, even though I'm not a particularly close friend of his (not enemies either; just mutually aware/hardly even nodding acquaintances). I say that because, really, only following TFMWNCB provides more humorous diversion.. and TFM is intentionally humorous. Tony's page is hilarious 'cause folks just drop by to say "Hello, You're in Content Dispute" over... the tiniest things. I mean, I'm really trying not to be obnoxious. Really. I mean it. But. ArbCom over date delinking??? I thank you for brightening my day. Unintentionally, I'm sure, but even so. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 03:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

the "the"

On the "the", Tony. -- Hoary (talk) 12:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Years

In 2009, WikiProject Years developed a essay for the inclusion of events "recent year" articles.

Important policy discussions took place in January 2009 at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) and at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years.

Deilvered by §hepBot (Disable) at 01:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC) on request of Wrad

Patent misinformation: it is not the year-articles themselves that are regarded as trivial (although they have big problems), but the links to them from articles in general. Tony (talk) 01:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Go Man Go

Hey there, Tony, I'm having a discussion with someone about the capitalization of Thoroughbred and Quarter Horse as the names of breeds. When you did some copyediting on Easy Jet, you left them in upper case, and that's always been my understanding, also. Would you mind weighing in? GMG's going on the main page on Wed, so I'd appreciate it being in the best shape it can be! First horse article on the main page, ever! Whee! Ealdgyth - Talk 17:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Lower case would be more common. Maybe Tony left them uc, because they started that way. Not as an endorsement. I mean are we going to start capitalizing blonde and redhead and negro and caucasian and man and ape and dog and poodle and tabby and spider and chair and toe and bed? TCO (talk) 13:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Re

Tony, I'm not sure if you've read all the recent discussion on the years project talk page, but there has been an attack on year articles. A few editors have proposed deleting all year articles. I noted that on my message in what I believe was a neutral way. I took no position in the message I wrote even about the outright deletion of year articles. I agree with most of the stuff about delinking on the MOS talk pages, so please don't overreact. I think it is accurate of you to think of the deletion of all year articles as an attack, but I didn't say it. I merely relayed the discussion. Don't you think that such a discussion is something year project members should know about? Wrad (talk) 02:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Years#A_proposal. Here is a more direct link to what I am talking about. Someone left a message on the project talk page suggesting all year articles be split and deleted. It was a part of the discussion on MOS that I linked in the newsletter. Do you not agree that such a proposal on our talk page is a big deal that everyone in the project should not about. I did not misrepresent anything here. If you feel threatened, I'm sorry. Wrad (talk) 02:48, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Is it the word "trivial" in there that bothers you? I guess I didn't realize that it would be touchy. I kind of agree that year articles are trivial and should be linked less than they are. I've asked StepShep to transclude it so we can change the message quite easily before most people see it. Wrad (talk) 02:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I've changed the newsletter a bit. I took out the word trivial and provided a more specific link to the discussion on deletion. Wrad (talk) 03:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, but the pre-existing messages won't change ... Tony (talk) 03:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

StepShep is changing the messages so that they are transcluded. They will then change as we change the original. Wrad (talk) 03:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

• Sure, but the general attack on the existence of the year pages is quite different from the linking issue: your normal punter may have trouble distinguishing the two unless it's made crystal-clear. Tony (talk) 03:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
  • They're actually very closely related. Persons X and Y believe that Year articles should be deleted since delinking will eventually orphan them, in their view. If there's one thing that's true about this mess, it is that all editors are not of one mind. It's difficult to summarize a discussion like that. Maybe you'd like to try your hand over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Years/Newsletter? Wrad (talk) 03:25, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
    • User:Dabomb87/Summary of the Date Linking RFCs—As the proponent of smart linking and the currents of changing our ideas on linking chronological items, I would like your opinion, especially on the draft of proposed guidelines on linking chronological. Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 22:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Orval Grove

Hey. I believe I (well, mostly Giants) have answered all of your concerns regarding this article at FAC. The only one that may not be completely done is the he transitions. I changed some as I went through the article, but another editor felt i overdid it so i rv'd most of them. Hopefully the article is now in a good condition for you. Wizardman 04:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Just pinging you again, since its passing or failing is up to you at this point, as you are the lone opposer left. Wizardman 02:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Odexed 3

Hi Tony, Odex's actions against file-sharing is at the final stages of peer review. Previously you have raised concerns in its two previous FACs. A few new and old editors have worked on it extensively for the past few weeks, and I would like to kindly invite you see to briefly judge if it now meets the requirement of 1(a) "brilliant prose", as if it were on FAC. If it meets your requirements I'll send it off for FAC straight, or extend its PR for a few more weeks otherwise. - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 13:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Admin actions

I was just wondering if you knew about User:JamesR/AdminStats? Might be a useful link for AdminReview. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 14:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Good link, you're likely also aware of the similar admin stats template which contains a simple box. All of the admin stats for that particular admin are listed. Here are mine. Lazulilasher (talk) 14:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

No I didn't but I've added it now and will wait for the bot to appear and work its magic. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 16:37, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

You guys are kind and helpful on that page, and I'm much appreciative. Just now, I'm kinda in a frenzy about this ArbCom case and significant injustice being done to me at an early stage. I'll get to those links you've provided soon. Tony (talk) 17:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I wouldn't worry too much about it; I think, here, that Cambridge & I happen to be using your talk page as a common discussion forum. Apologies! :) Lazulilasher (talk) 19:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Weasel Words

Tony, as your king of the English language ;) Could you tell me what the collective name is for words like "very" and "even" etc, that are used before a fact to give it more gravitas/emotion i.e.

The damage to the hospital was very bad.

Even the ship's captain condoned the action.

I always assumed these were "Weasel Words", but after after reading the article about it, obviously not. Would I be right in saying this sort of language is normally frowned upon on Wikipedia, and is normally seen in article's where there is some sort of political agenda by the editors. Ryan4314 (talk) 16:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

They're generically called intensifiers. As their intention is to affect the way that a reader feels about the information being presented, they're generally going to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia article. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the term is, but I recall Strunk & White frowned on "very", "really", and their ilk. There is no method to differentiate "bad" from "very bad"; therefore, they serve limited usefulness. I do not think they are appropriate for an encyclopedia (just my opinion). Lazulilasher (talk) 19:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Temporary injunction in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking

The following temporary injunction has been passed in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking;

Until this case is decided or otherwise directed by the Arbitration Committee, all editors are instructed not to engage in any program of mass linking or delinking of dates in existing articles, including but not limited to through the use of bots, scripts, tools, or otherwise. This injunction is entered as an interim measure and does not reflect any prejudgment of any aspect of the case.

For the Arbitration Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 11:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank goodness I can always fall back on television.  HWV 258  22:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates#FACs requiring extensive third-party copy-editing

Hi Tony, I know that you are busy with real life, the arbitration case and Adminwatch, but I thought that the above thread might be of some interest to you. Thanks for all you do, Dabomb87 (talk) 02:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC) P.S. We need you back at WP:FAC!

Also, Wikipedia:Featured article review/Lazare Ponticelli needs a revisit; the nomination seems to have stagnated. One reviewer has claimed that there are no more prose problems; is this the case? Dabomb87 (talk) 23:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Improving syntax in lead sentence for ~9,000 protein/gene pages

Over at WP:MCB, we're trying to fine-tune the introduction of about 9000 bot-generated protein/gene articles. A few suggestions have been made for better wording, but I thought to ask for your help in working towards an ideal lead sentence for the articles in question. Regards, Emw2012 (talk) 04:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

On this day - just curious

Hi Tony. I'm sure we are all tired of the discussions about wikilinked dates and autoformatting. I am curious though. Do you know if the "On this day..." section of the Main page relies on wikilinked dates to locate things that happened on a specific date? If so, the Main page gurus may have to find a new method as more and more wikilinked dates disappear from articles. Maybe just use the search engine? Cheers. Truthanado (talk) 23:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The Main Page OTD links to a date and several years, typically. In those articles, there's a navbox at the top for the same month–day in other years (usually plus linked month–days heading each line, which I disagree with), and in the year articles a navbox for other year articles. Why would the search engine be required? Tony (talk) 01:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Admins: why don't far more of them go nuts?

When I look at the ritual self-abasement that editors are expected to go through to become admins these days (and not in my day), I start to wonder why such a small percentage of them go rouge. I'd rather expect the fruits of this process to go around blocking people for months at a time just for their own amusement or because God told them to, or otherwise go batshit. My latest thoughts. -- Hoary (talk) 16:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

An eloquent support which I largely agree with. My own pet hate is the oppose which begins "... checking the contribution history I see no participation in admin areas." Err, yes, well, might that be because the candidate isn't an administrator? --Malleus Fatuorum 00:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Sir. I was rather sleepy when I vented; a little later, Pascal Tesson put it better. AfD seems to have slowly developed toward a kind of mass (or anyway micromass) hysteria. My inner sociopathologist is blackly amused. -- Hoary (talk) 00:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I guess you meant RfA, not AfD? Sorry, my inner Freudian psychotherapist just had to have his say. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 00:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes, right, RfA, elsewhere in the alphabet soup. -- Hoary (talk) 13:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I am going to hazard a guess that you and I have vastly different opinions of what constitutes "abusive" or "batshit" behavior. Plenty of administrators already do institute "default" blocks of far greater than 24 hours - perhaps not "months at a time", but longer. Plenty of administrators play the game of teasing and torturing their now-captive target (kind of like a sick, twisted kid pulling the wings off a fly) trying to get a reaction to justify an even longer block or a talk-page locking.

And just as equally, I think part of the problem is that the selection of new admins comes solidly out of a pool, not of actual editors who really represent the community, but of admins and admin-wannabes who are looking for more people to support just the kind of behavior as seen above. The phrase "I see no participation in admin areas" means "I didn't see you supporting my abusive block on AN/I last month", nothing more. WW,QuisCustodio 02:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not certain who you were addressing your comment to as "you", but if it was me, then you really couldn't be further from the mark. The current system stinks, and what stinks even more is that so many are afraid to admit that it stinks. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Amend: I am going to hazard a guess that Hoary and I have vastly different opinions of what constitutes "abusive" or "batshit" behavior. WW,QuisCustodio 03:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if it stinks. It's certainly bizarre. I start to wonder if some of the more vociferous participants haven't just landed from some other, usually invisible, Shandean planet. They certainly have their hobby-horses. -- Hoary (talk) 13:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

While capitalism collapses and the permafrost melts, you're caught up in this meta-date-linking silliness. My sympathies, Tony. The RfA process is a lot nearer the latter than the former in degree of importance, but still ... you were working on AdminWatch till interrupted, and just today I came across something possibly related to that (or anyway to my whine that sparked this section) that amazed me. Try this and then this and then this. I'm not quite sure what message to draw from it, but it merits sustained attention and thought. -- Hoary (talk) 14:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd ask all of you to consider that many editors have off-wiki contact with each other. Husond's oppose wasn't because he was an admin, but because of off-wiki contact. There's not a method by which someone can provide evidence from those private contacts that would support a serious oppose for adminship, even if the opinion could be entirely justified by the content or nature of the (not able to be posted to Wikipedia) communication between the two parties. If you read these entire threads, you will note that Ecoleetage was indefinitely blocked not because of the RFA, but because he tracked down and telephoned the employer of one of his opposers to "report" him for using Wikipedia during business hours. AGF is important, but it's not a suicide pact. Risker (talk) 17:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I have to say, that whole fiasco has disturbed me greatly. That this can result directly in this is a pretty severe indictment of the RFA process and the community as a whole at the moment. And people wonder why we have so many admins quitting. Sheesh. --Closedmouth (talk) 14:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

People often say they are more afraid of wasps than bees because the latter die if they sting you. If admins were more like bees than wasps, their actions would be more focussed. Here are some thoughts:

• Most like a bee: each time an admin blocks an editor, they get blocked themselves for the same period.
• Less like a bee: if they block you, they lose their admin powers for the same period.
• Hardly like a bee but still contains a death of powers element: each admin power comes with a budget for a particular time period. Once the budget has been exceeded for that month (or other time period), the power lapses.

Lightmouse (talk) 14:44, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I've commented on the implications WRT admin policy at that page. Thanks for all your comments. Tony (talk) 15:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Um, but Mr Mouse, while I'm quite happy not to block anyone -- and indeed haven't blocked anyone for days, or anyway hours -- WP is unfortunately well stocked with people who have just enough alcohol/testosterone/racism/whatever swishing around their brains for their enforced short-term (and sometimes long-term) disappearance to benefit an encyclopedia. So somebody has to ban them. I think we need more admins as well as more watching over admins. I thought Tony would be good and ignored his "no I don't want to be an admin" notice and invited him, but then I realized that he was busy doing other stuff. And, as noted above, the process by which people do or don't become admins is now so hyped up that I really can't be bothered to do all the skeleton digging needed in order for me to recommend anyone I don't know as well as I know Tony. And I don't suppose I'm alone in this. (Plus I've probably screwed up my chances of nominating success thanks to the combination of my poorly proofread outburst linked to at the head of this section and the preternatural memories and appetite for diff-sleuthing of the voters there.) -- Hoary (talk) 16:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

RfA is shockingly bad for morale, encourages character assassination (as do ArbCom hearings), and worst of all, is ineffective at filtering out users who are likely to turn out to be bad admins. It needs to be mediated and more tightly controlled—otherwise things get out of hand. But I believe the time has come to completely revamp the system. I'd say a Board should be appointed to assess applications for promotion to and demotion from adminship, including the handing out of suspensions and the removal of certain powers where indicated. The Board might be appointed partly by ArbCom and partly by WPians at large. Anything's gotta be better than what we've got now. Tony (talk) 16:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

And thanks for your kind encouragement, Hoary; I'm too much a language and policy nerd to want to do the fine-grained stuff. I agree that we need more admins (good eggs) and more oversight of them. Tony (talk) 16:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand your response to me, Hoary. You write about the number of admins. I said nothing about that. Lightmouse (talk) 16:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm an admin. I block usernames and IPs. On rare occasion, I even block them for months at a time. Even in retrospect, I think that an overwhelmingly high percentage of my blocks are justified. (But I would claim that, wouldn't I?) I'm reluctant to disable myself as often or as long as I disable others, because I like to think that: (i) aside from the occasional misunderstanding (which at least in principle and often in practice others will find and correct) my disabling of others helps the encyclopedia, and (ii) my contributions to the substance of the encyclopedia are on balance positive. Thus if, beelike, I were to block myself as often and as long as I blocked others, this would not only cripple my own editing/adminning ego (sniff) but it would also be a minor loss to the encyclopedia. If this were just me, no big deal: I'm expendable. But I'm probably a pretty typical example of a set that's not expendable: if each of us were to disappear for months at a time, the encyclopedia would I think soon suffer from a huge excess of blockworthy editors. Of course there are arrogant and unscrupulous administrators, and I think some administrators should not be administrators (even while I think that charges of "incivility" and the like against them, as against others, are often petty). A good, clear deadministratorification [?] procedure is probably needed. But it should be radically unlike RfA, an arena that seems to encourage near-hysteria, that probably doesn't produce enough admins, that's certainly an extraordinarily inefficient way of adding to their number, and that conceivably even helps screw up their heads while they are being produced. -- Hoary (talk) 02:08, 18 January 2009 (UTC) ......... PS I've just noticed that my latest addition to the Itsmejudith RfA debacle adds precisely 666 bytes. So my horns and forked tail are now in public view. -- The Beast 02:29, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The current situation is that all admins have an unlimited budget. If you are on a computer game or a B-movie with a gun that never runs out, you can shoot as often as you like. If you have a limit, you have an incentive to be more careful. You may justify a large budget or even an unlimited budget. I am merely suggesting that the community would benefit if some admins had a budget that is lower than unlimited. Lightmouse (talk) 11:52, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there's something in that.

I don't think I'm a particularly good judge of my own mental states, but my impression is that the more of certain kinds of administratorificizing I do, the darker becomes my view of human nature, and the more likely I become to see the worst in everything, which I suppose would color my blocking habits. Back in the days when anybody and his dog could merrily create new articles, there were periods when I'd take a quick look an average of a dozen or more new articles every day. (Of course thousands were being made, and some people were routinely checking fifty or more.) The great majority were horrible: they weren't decent stubs but instead for the most part unsupported assertions, often transparently about the author, his best buddy, his big brother, etc., and otherwise typically about the most trivial or ephemeral non-subject. Of course a number of these articles had the germs of the kind of thing that Nicholson Baker eloquently expounded on in his New Yorker piece, but these were rare. Why did so many people feel so compelled to aggrandize themselves, and why were so many lives devoted to this or that computer game? My mood got bleaker and bleaker, and it's likely that this aggravated my view of people making iffy or worse changes to legitimate articles. So I stopped this "new article patrolling" and felt a lot better.

Actually my empirically unsupported hunch is that administratifying in quantity is bad for the "soul", and thus that people should not be encouraged to do too much of it. But for this not to result in collapse at the hands of exhibitionists and sociopathic drunks and teens, a lot more admins are needed. And RfA in its present form can't produce many. -- Hoary (talk) 01:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you make an exceptionally interesting point. "Administratifying" isn't something that anyone ought to aspire to, but instead a chore that some need to take up. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes; my experience of the Recent changes page showed a striking proportion of rubbishy stubs, and that our admin resources are severely stretched in dealing with them. As well, Hoary is right, that too much of that work is not good for one. I loathe and disrespect that current RfA process; as in other areas, WP lacks expert boards/committees to do such things as appoint (and suspend/sack) admins. More admins, and cowboys screened out, is an imperative. Tony (talk) 02:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

We should be grateful for admins and for the fact that some of them are willing to take on the "chores" needed to keep this show on the road. It is rather like a janitor, great that they are there, cleaning up, but then again, they have the keys to the building. I personally would rather have to humbly ask for the key when I have forgotten mine, then to spend all the time admins do cleaning up. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 02:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Our gratitude for the good ones ought not to blind us to the need to eliminate the far too many bad ones. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Our preoccupation with the bad onces out not to blind us to the wonderful goodness of the work most (many) of them do. —Mattisse (Talk) 02:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I've never been good at sycophancy, so I'll decline to comment on "wonderful goodness". What ought to be clear though is that the impact of a small number of bad apples far outweighs their numerical inferiority. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear, I forgot the rules and said something nice about admins. And it was POV on top of it! (By the way, I have noticed that you are quite good at sycophancy - depends on the target - don't under rate yourself so much!) Ought not to be thankful for anything, you are saying? Show me the stats to prove your points. —Mattisse (Talk) 02:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear indeed. But this is not the place for you to further demonstrate your distaste for me. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear, but you can of me? Right? (I'm afraid I've never been good at sycophancy, so I'll decline to comment on "wonderful goodness".) You are just better at the fine points than I am. So, I will take this page off my watchlist. I get the drift. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 03:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Well-received

In Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Date_ranges, you wrote:

I wrote a brief section into the style guide at the MilHist WikiProject, which was well-received.

I am puzzled. There is no mention of that section on the article talk page or your own and it does not appear to be under review. How can one then gauge if such a change is well-received? May it be assumed when a change is noticed but not dissembled in a day or two? Does this only apply to high-visibility pages? May it be inferred once someone has built upon your edit but only made minor changes? I rely heavily on explicit acceptance and go out of my way to seek it. I have trouble understanding implicit acceptance. :)--Thecurran (talk) 21:26, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Here and the archives of the WikiProject: but they're under some other heading I can't recall, and the archives—unfortunately—are thematised; always a bad idea. Probably in December, not November, somewhere there. Tony (talk) 01:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you; that was informative. :)--Thecurran (talk) 09:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Vanity capitalization

More crapola. -- Hoary (talk) 00:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Not sure whether I can add anything useful there. I did like your thematic equative "What mystifies me is the contrast between ...". Tony (talk) 12:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Charges of "sycophant" on your user page

Did you not notice that I did not call User talk:Malleus Fatuorum a sycophant. He indirectly called me one on your page. [3],[4] So I quoted his words. That is what you are blaming me for? I quoted him from his words right above on your talk page.[5] This shows me how hopeless it is. I hope you understand why this persistent misconstruing of everything I post is totally undermines my good will in this and other related situations. Others can call me a "sycophant" on your page and you defend that person. I no longer edit FAC and I have taken your page off my watchlist. I hope this end it. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 04:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, sorry: I got it wrong. Tony (talk) 11:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Isn't that rather a selective reading? Here's what you actually said: "I have noticed that you are quite good at sycophancy - depends on the target - don't under rate yourself so much!" I wouldn't want to have to live on the difference between that and saying "You're a sycophant". I, on the other hand, made no personal comment whatsoever. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

My little piglet

A prize piglet—cute, don't you think?

Rather than intending any offence, I do wish we could move on from the mud-slinging campaign at the ArbCom page. In a moment of frustration, I told Tennis expert he was "making a pig of [himself]"; however, I'm sure there's common ground, between him and me, and—as I've pointed out three times already—with Locke Cole. I'm rebuffed every time I hold out an olive branch; this is a great pity. Tony (talk) 14:58, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The great pity is that you denied calling me that name until the irrefutable diffs were provided and the RFAr was started. Here is but one of your denials. Notice that I responded about 20 hours after your denial with the diffs, only to be met with silence from you. A person who truly intended no offense would have replied graciously and quickly. Tennis expert (talk) 13:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

But I didn't call you "a pig"; I said "you risk making a pig of yourself". It's two steps less: first, it's a figure of speech (as in "eating too much food", or here, just generally making things difficult for your colleagues); second, "risk" was a deliberate attempt to soften the remark. Risking is not being—far from it. Now get over it and move on. Tony (talk) 14:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest that you quit Wikilawyering about it and apologize for all the incivil stuff you have said about me all over Wikipedia. Tennis expert (talk) 15:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I do indeed apologise if I upset you. Remember that your actions have upset quite a few people, including Colonies Chris, The Rambling Man and me. We believe that you went far beyond your brief as a member of the WikiProject Tennis, or of any editor, in conducting a campaign against our reforms. This has lost you respect among many editors, and you must expect that people will treat you differently because of this. Please do not use exaggeration as a technique to amplify your points; it immediately gets people's backs up. Here, it's "all over Wikipedia". It makes it hard to communicate with you on an even keel. Tony (talk) 15:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I asked you many times to stop with the incivility. You either ignored me or denied that you were acting in any way but properly. Stomping on other people's opinions, character, egos, and feelings was all a big insiders' game to you, or at least that's how I perceived it. So, I'm sure you'll understand why I now take your apology with a humongous dose of salt, especially given the microscope and pressure you're under now.

All the crap you've written about me is all over Wikipedia. On discussion pages. On talk pages. On MOS pages. I'd be hard pressed to find an area where the name calling directed towards me by you and a few others does not exist. And trust me, I always look hard to find it because it is being used against me by people who have never interacted with me before.

Once again, in your last post, you are spreading misinformation about my position. As I have told you many times in many ways, I believe that a local consensus, as evidenced by actual editing practices by hundreds of editors, overrides a general guideline like the Manual of Style. I also believe that the Manual of Style was never intended to be the club that a few editors can use to change millions of articles against the will of the editors who have toiled over those articles for years. My beliefs are based on clear Wikipedia precedent and have nothing whatsoever to do with my personal opinion about whether to link dates for autoformatting reasons. The exact circumstances under which this issue has arisen in Arbitration is completely and utterly irrelevant. I couldn't care less about your campaign for linking reform. I'm a lawyer. What's important to me are rules, process, precedent, consistency, protecting minority views, and respecting others. I believe that you and certain others have intentionally disparaged my opinions and my character, both in direct dealings with me and in conversations (what I call "gossip") with others. You and them have poisoned the atmosphere. You and them have run roughshod over what you believe are minority views. You and them have attempted to use technology (scripts, bots, and semi-automated editing) not only to impose your opinions on everyone else, but to make resistance futile and moot. I hope something meaningful is going to be done about all this during Arbitration. I am going to do everything possible to promote that goal. Tennis expert (talk) 18:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Quite moved to tears—until I got to the end. No matter what you would like to believe, they are "minority views", and it is not just Tony's opinions in effect. They are the opinions of (at least) thousands upon thousands of editors who have welcomed the delivered scripted changes to WP. If they hadn't been welcomed, there would have been edit wars all over the place—and that demonstrably didn't happen.

You say things like "rules", "process" and "consistency" are important to you, but then are happy when a localised issue "overrides a general guideline like the Manual of Style". However, there can surely be nothing less tennis-related than whether dates are linked. As you have now suggested that date-linking on tennis-related articles to be a matter for "local consensus", could you explain why it is more important for dates to be linked on articles to do with tennis than (say) articles to do with music (an area where the removal of date links has been accepted wholeheartedly)?

I also don't believe there has been your hoped-for "local consensus" in the tennis "court" (neatly addressed here).  HWV258  21:44, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Sarcasm does not warrant a response. Tennis expert (talk) 11:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Tony neglected to mention that you upset me a lot too, so much that my nerves are in tatters and I have to keep the light on to get to sleep at night. This is due to the emotional trauma you caused me by repeatedly hauling me through ANI and AN3. You kept responding to me all this time although I may not have felt like talking to you at times, so I guess you never took anything I said to be even mildly sarcastic. I would never have taken you to be a lawyer - your unforced errors are so numerous that I'll gladly take you up on a game of tennis, anytime. ;-) Ohconfucius (talk) 15:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

"Sarcasm does not warrant a response"—well that explains why you wouldn't respond to the first four words, but what about the facts pointed out by the rest? I suspect we all know by now why you won't respond to those.  HWV258  21:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

bearing in mind that vast majority of articles is frequented only by a handful of editors, "local consensus" appears to be some sort of bullshit shorthand for 'whatever rules I feel like adopting". Let us get this straight: there is no such thing as 'subsidiarity' here on WP. Ohconfucius (talk) 15:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• • Tennis expert, if you are a lawyer, I'm surprised your text is so bloated and repetitive. A key skill lawyers learn quickly is to filter out their clients' irrelevant, emotional claims; yet these appear to be the basis of your seemingly endless diatribes.
  • Again, my olive branch (an apology, just what you asked for) is spurned and met with accusations; forgive me if I'm becoming cynical about interacting with you when you fling my apology back in my face. Now that's really nasty.
  • Ignored you? How? It was impossible to ignore your aggressive actions. It's not adult behaviour. Let's deal briefly with a few of your points:
  • "all around WP"—well, convince me this is true; I'm suspicious of the vagueness of the accusation, to begin with. And if others have have written about your aggressive actions concerning tennis articles (against the wishes of many of your colleagues at the WikiProject), it's not my fault—I'm not responsible for what others say, and perhaps you gave them reason to say whatever they said.
  • Please don't use bad language ("crap" etc) on my talk page.
  • Please moderate your language and avoid hyper-exaggeration: "stomp", "insiders' game", etc.
  • I'm "spreading misinformation about [your] position"? Um ... no, we've all been aware from the start of your line that somehow your interpretation of Tennis WPr. guidelines trumps all. It's a little hard to find people who agree with you, which is why yours been a one-person campaign, largely, to the irritation of a few other tennis regulars, including admin and FLC Director The Rambling Man, hardly a hot-headed fellow.
  • "Minority view": you sure are right about that. It doesn't sound like a minority when thousands of shrill decibels are being pumped out at so-called judicial processes as ArbCom, but a tiny minority it certainly is. The fallacy of those RfCs demonstrates this, in part.

I just don't have the time and energy budgets to do this circular carousel thing with you. I believe you are being ungracious and belligerent. However, I'm willing to bury the hatchet and develop a harmonious, even productive relationship with you. Read my lips. Tony (talk) 13:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to Ohconfucius for removing piglet's last post, in which the apology he'd demanded of me was thrust back again in my face with the comment that it would never be adequate. OK, so it's just a mud-slinging match you wanted here? A little trap in which to engage me? Sorry to be cynical, but it's not adult behaviour. I was hoping for a meeting of minds. The offer of friendship is still open, though. Tony (talk) 16:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

My, your, our, its, etc

Tony, I've a hunch that you, as somebody who actually knows stuff about language, find editing articles about language as frustrating as I do. Still, you might enjoy a short break from your other wikipreoccupations. And so:

This edit popped up on my watchlist, an edit to one of en:WP's stupidest-titled pages. Coffee deficiency led me to half-correct it, complete with embarrassingly wrong edit summary. Luckily I noticed the edit summary just after I'd perpetrated it, and thought I needed to make some edit to the article if only in order to provide a pretext for a new edit summary.

This is of course one of those articles that long ago fell victim to, not even conservatism, but to "Everything I need to know I learned in primary school (from an amiable dunce who didn't know what the fuck he was talking about)" ism. Of course you don't need to be a hardcore "Minimalist" or similar to reject the notion that these are "adjectives", I don't think anybody who's thought hard about them since at least as far back as Jespersen has so considered them. (I suppose some eccentric linguist could call them "adjectives", but that writer would then need to qualify this immediately with an explanation that they weren't really adjectives. Occam, where are you?)

Granted that they're not adjectives, what are they? This of course is where we start getting into trouble. I'd call them pronouns, I'd call pronouns a class of determiners, and I'd call each of "my brain", "me", "the article" and "Tony" a determiner phrase. However, I realize that this analysis is contentious. So, in a revision that followed my goof, I shied away from calling them determiners, instead settling for "weak possessive pronoun", as used by works that I don't hold in particularly high regard but that are intelligent.

With your informed but very different perspective, you might take a look. -- Hoary (talk) 02:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Our language in linguistics has been misleading. A pronoun sounds like a noun and is treated as one. A possessive pronoun sounds like a noun but is only treated like one when you use "This is mine/ours/yours/hers/his/its/theirs". On wikt:my, "my" is called a determiner and the word, "pronoun" does not show up in the English section. I have seen determiners like in "This is my/our/your/her/his/its/their thing" called possessive pronouns but they are treated like adjectives and are not substitutions for any nouns, so the term possessive pronoun is a misleading appellation best avoided for the second set. Signed, :)--Thecurran (talk) 21:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

First, I haven't a clue what you might mean by your first sentence. Possibly it's "The treatment of our language [sc. English] by linguistics has been misleading." If so, that's a potentially interesting idea, but you're going to have a hell of a time persuading people that every ambitious descriptive grammar since at least as far back as Jespersen has either summarily rejected the notion that these are adjectives or dismissed it as too silly to entertain. (These aren't even linguistics books; they are descriptions written by linguists [with widely and wildly divergent ideas about language] for the more intellectually curious aboard the Clapham omnibus.) And although I think I can parse the first half of your second sentence, I've no idea what you mean by it: I can hardly believe that you think that monosyllabic "it" sounds like polysyllabic "undercapitalization"; if you don't mean this kind of thing, then I don't know what you mean. If I'm talking about, say, a book, then mine in This is mine is most certainly not "treated like" a noun, because (meaning aside) I couldn't substitute "book" for "mine": "This is book" is syntactically unacceptable. Thus the pronouns of English are not substitutes for nouns, although if (like many linguists) you reject determiner phrases (or functional heads in general) you can say that they are substitutes for noun phrases. I'm sorry, I find it hard to believe that you have digested the article in question, let alone the relevant part of any serious descriptive grammar of English. -- Hoary (talk) 00:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, something has to be done about that article, but I see that Anderson inhabited the talk page, so nothing much will be possible without a fight. Hallidayans class these words as deictics (not a good article at all)—words that orient the noun they qualify in the here and now (the spatial–temporal axis). The, a, this, and my all do this. This train, that train, my train, a train, the train. Some reference needs to be made to this. It may be a case of starting a new article on this function and/or cleaning up and adding to the current article, the title of which is misleading and possibly POV. I find the information in it hopelessly jumbled; the word-class boundaries it tries to make are not useful, and highly unlikely to help anyone to understand their function. The fixation on creating hard-and-fast boundaries between word-classes are one of the big problems in trad. grammar. Mostly, that's all that trad. grammar is, and deals only with idealised written sentences. Tony (talk) 02:57, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Woo -- my extremely limited understanding of your approach to linguistics had led me to expect that you'd disagree with me, but not quite so radically. That's an interesting point about deixis, but me and my more or less "trad."/Chomskyan [great pairing!] grammarians would point out that deictics such as here wouldn't fit, and that it's useful to explain why it wouldn't fit yet my and the would. Your description of trad grammar seems harsh but in its way fair. Well, I was deliberately bending over backwards to be trad, in the hope and even belief that while, um, certain parties might argue against newfangled works such as Huddleston and Pullum's, they could hardly argue against a consensus among Huddleston, Pullum and chums; Biber and chums; Quirk and chums; and even Jespersen.

Aside from my pretheoretical stance to this article, and talking about my RL mind, I'd say that creating hard and fast boundaries, and not the fixation on it, is the problem. I'm well aware that you won't like this. If I may impertinently recommend a book to lead you to at least reconsider, it would be Newmeyer's Language Form and Language Function. You'll probably hate it, at least at the beginning, but I've a feeling that as a thoughtful sort of chap you'll gradually come to have at least a grudging respect for it as you continue. -- Hoary (talk) 04:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Something called a pronoun sounds etymologically like it is meant to stand "for a noun". Personal pronouns like I/me/you/he/she/her/him/we/us/they/them, pronouns like it/this/that/these/those, and possessive pronouns like mine/ours/yours/hers/his/its/theirs may be used quite like noun phrases, such as proper nouns like Elizabeth, specified nouns like "the Queen" or "the queens", or generalized nouns like "a queen" or "queens". These may be used as subjects, direct objects, or indirect objects.

Good: Mine sent me flowers. I sent you mine. I sent mine flowers.

They may not be used to modify nouns or noun phrases, like adjectives can.

Bad: This is (the) mine book. This is (the) mine book on Geology.

If you think that a common adjective like "pink" can be used as a subject, direct object, or indirect object, you are actually using the abstract noun sense of the word

Good: Pink encourages me. I adore pink. I make posters for pink.

When one uses my/our/your/her/his/its/their, it, like an article or determiner like this/that/these/those, acts like a specifiying adjective phrase and may be placed before a noun or generalized noun phrase but it may not act as a subject, direct object, or indirect object. When linguists or grammar teachers call my/our/your/her/his/its/their a possessive pronoun like mine/ours/yours/hers/his/its/theirs, they do their students a disservice as the former is a determiner (a specifying adjective phrase), the latter acts as a noun phrase, and the term "possessive pronoun" intimates that it stands "for a noun", which is clearly not the case. As such, "possessive adjective" or even "pronoun possessive" is didactically more appropriate than "possessive pronoun". I hope this is coming across more clearly now. It may be confusing because this/that/these/those thing(s) (determiner sense) is logically equivalent to this/that/these/those (pronoun sense). :)--Thecurran (talk) 12:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, I hardly know where to start.

You say: Something called a pronoun sounds etymologically like it is meant to stand "for a noun". Yes it does. Well, that's [apparent] etymology for you: proverb looks as if it's something that's meant to stand for a verb, but it doesn't. Even if we're discussing genuine and not folk etymology, the meanings of words change over time. (There's probably some marvelous Latin term of rhetoric for the fallacy of an argument from etymology, but if so I can't think of it.) More importantly, the understanding of syntax changes over time.

A lot of linguists reject "proper noun" and would term each of "Elizabeth", "the Queen", "a queen" and "she" a determiner phrase, "queen" being a noun and "she" not being substitutable for "queen". However, this is a contentious area: Andrew Radford and Robert Van Valin (writers of introductory theoretical books from very different points of view) might come close to exchanging blows over it (yet each would make good arguments first).

You say: When one uses my/our/your/her/his/its/their, it, like an article or determiner like this/that/these/those, acts like a specifiying adjective phrase I don't know what you mean by "specifying adjective phrase", but none of these is an adjectival phrase. How are they not? Well, it's past my bedtime and this is anyway the kind of thing that is explained very well in grammar books (whether descriptive or theoretical, and whether the theory is MP or LF or something else). I really can't be bothered to summarize it all here, even if Tony would be happy for me to do so. It's clear that you're keen on language; do please get hold of a copy of Huddleston and Pullum's A Student's Introduction to English Grammar (ISBN 0521612888) a simple and pretheoretical guide to English morphosyntax designed for the bright and energetic beginner. And please digest it, free of notions such as that a word means what its presumed etymology suggests that it should mean, or that your childhood teachers actually had a particularly good grasp of what they were talking about. -- Hoary (talk) 16:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I am clearly not as well-read as you and applaud your ability to quote your sources on the spot, leaving me in the dust. I wish they were online sources so that I might digest them properly and get back to you. I still contend however, purely from an educator's standpoint, that my/our/your/her/his/its/their should be labelled as different parts of speech than mine/ours/yours/hers/his/its/theirs. I find it illustrative that Wiktionary notes..

• My and mine are essentially two forms of the same word, with my being used attributively before the noun, and mine being used in all other cases; hence:

  No, that's not my car. (attributive use)

  That car next to it isn't mine, either. (predicative use)

  Mine is the one over there, on the far right. (substantive use)

  Mine for only a week so far, it already feels like an old friend. (absolute use)

..but just the attributive use is enough that my is called a determiner and mine is called a pronoun. Perhaps, my grasp is not as great as yours, but when I exclude my/our/your/her/his/its/their every pronoun I can think of, possessive or otherwise, works like a noun phrase. Despite the importance of not tying oneself down to etymology, I would rather give up "my" as a pronoun so that all pronouns share more features than give up the etymology to allow "my" to fit. As such, I have no problem with "my" being called something like a possessive determiner and "mine" something like a possessive pronoun, so that they may both be called possessives; I just feel that some demarcation is necessary. :)--Thecurran (talk) 10:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Never one for trad. grammar word-classes, this shows up my limitations, since I don't know the systemic functional grammar explanation of the my/mine thing. I'll try to locate it in Halliday's Introduction to functional grammar, 3rd ed. 2004. Noetica and Hoary are good on this type of question. Tony (talk) 10:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Curran, the secret of my (sporadic) ability to come up with books is that I buy and possess lots of them, living as I do in a garret, dressed in rags; please sell your car and worldly possessions and start stocking up with dead tree, first among them H+P's little book. It's even wonderfully stocked with puzzle-like questions. If you're rich and have capacious shelves, consider buying their big book, which will not only impress all your friends and relatives but which in the hands of a fit grammarian can double as a shot. -- Hoary (talk) 15:27, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Just wondering...

... how you envisage Admin Watch dealing with a complaint such as this? If an editor brings a complaint like that to the Admin review page, how would it be dealt with? What do you think about the block? I am just a bit curious... Regards, Woody (talk) 02:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

• IMHO, it's a clear cut case of vandalism. What is there to do but placing a polite notice on the plaintiff's talk page to the effect? Ohconfucius (talk) 02:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree; I'd be neither polity nor impolite, but rather firm in tone to the vandal, dismissing his/her case. AdminReview Coordinators will probably not take kindly to examples of "gaming the system", and the process can reject complaints on any grounds it wishes (see FAQs).

But Woody has raised an interesting point that I first thought might need to be addressed at a higher level than AdminReview. This concerns the need for an exception to be written into the WP:ADMIN policy—specifically the WP:UNINVOLVED bit. But upon consulting it, there it is, in broad daylight:

If a matter is blatantly, clearly obvious (genuinely vandalistic for example), then historically the community has sometimes endorsed any admin acting on it, even if involved, if any reasonable admin would have probably come to the same conclusion.

However, it's very poorly worded, even if it almost certainly covers this situation;. "sometimes" is a problem; the poor admin acting in Woody's example is beholden to a "sometimes"? And linguistically, what is a "blantly, clearly obvious" matter? Vandalism is given as an example, but really, the scope of such matters is loosely cast and needs to be tightened up. Such improvements to the policy wording are what AdminReview might recommend from time to time, arising from cases that are brought to it. So the "sometimes" needs to be binned and admins need to think of what situations should be included. Looks as though vandalism is a no-brainer, but are there any others? Tony (talk) 08:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Watch out, here comes Britannica 2.0

User:HWV258 pointed me to this warning that WP must continue to adapt and improve. A big part of this involves openness to the reform of process. Tony (talk) 10:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

It'll be very interesting to see how that develops. A properly run environment without the continual threat of bullying and harrassment from testosterone fuelled teenagers masquerading as administrators might well tempt away some of our best editors. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

If it's anything like Knol, it won't be a problem... –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 13:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Knoll falls at the first hurdle though, by allowing multiple articles on the same topic. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the more you look at the possible niches in which competitors might position themselves, the more you see that WP has miraculously evolved a brilliant infrastructure (mostly ... it's our job to remove a few residual rough edges, though). Tony (talk) 13:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey, Malleus, equal opportunities please. Spare an unkind word for testosterone-depleted old farts like me masquerading as administrators. I feel discriminated against, and if I get more miserable I might block you or something. -- Hoary (talk) 16:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm qute accustomed to being called ageist by those who are not yet old enough to choose their own bedtimes, yet believe that they have what it takes to become what's laughingly called a janitor on this site. Never been accused of being ageist by someone who is though ... still it's sticks and stones Hoary, just sticks and stones. I've been blocked before, I'll survive. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum 16:21, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Kalimpong

Hi Tony, can you have a look at the prose in this article. I'm afraid I ran into a bit of a spat with one of the article's defenders and should perhaps stay away, YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 05:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Very quick single sentence conundrum....

this struck me as an interesting conundrum....and probably applicable to many other articles of folkloric critters too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:48, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

addendum, actually I came up with a way of writing it, I think the plural works quite well in softening the definition too, ad can be argued that it applies to the wide variety of spirits and legends subsumed under the term "ghost". Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:58, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Formatting edits to 2006 in Canada

Hi Tony, I like what you were doing with this year-in-topic article, but you need to look over your edits a bit. I just finished a rather large cleanup job after your bolding. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I hope you did it in Word (find and replace). But I don't like it at all: the colon, to me, belongs as part of the lead item and should be bolded too. That is the way I always do it. Tony (talk) 00:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh no, I had to do it by hand; I didn't have access to a word processor at the time. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about the colon. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Help might be at hand in the form of a script. This would be most welcome if we can iron out false positives, and your comments have helped to move this forward. The relevant WikiProjects desperately need to agree on a standard (perhaps not mandatory) format for these countless pages. This doesn't seem contentious where there's no blue-wash for the month-day lead items; where there isn't, as in the article in question, the opportunity is provided to change to a superior formatting. The blue-wash probably inhibited a proper formatting solution because it does at least highlight the date in these points; but it dilutes the links in the substantive information and, critically, often creates two adjacent links, which spoils the highlighting of the date in the first place. Arthur Rubin, BTW, suggested the colon, over my initial formatting that used an en dash. I think the colon is better. Tony (talk) 08:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Request

Tony - can you take a look at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Swimming Hole? Awadewit is asking for an uninvolved copyeditor to look through that article. Raul654 (talk) 21:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Awadewit has requested notification on her talk page when you finish. Raul654 (talk) 21:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. Tony (talk) 14:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Help on a FAC

Hi Tony. I know you have really high standards on prose and I have been trying to raise my own level (with a lot of help from other Wikipedians!). I've been told that the prose on this FAC is not that great and there are parts that are not comprehensible, perhaps because I am too close to it. It has gone through a peer review and a copyedit by Awadewit, but it still does not seem satisfactory. I know your busymeter setting is pretty high, but would you be able to take a look? You can leave comments on the article talk page, my talk page, or on the FAC itself if you prefer. Thanks. --RelHistBuff (talk) 14:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Allans book

No, I don't have the book published by Allans; I'm not even sure which one you are referring to. I created an entry for Allans, and just added hyperlinks on a couple of pages that referred to it. Two of those were (different) books, but I don't know anything about the books themselves. Yes, I agree that it would be nice if references to books included page numbers. Cheers, LachlanA (talk) 11:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Ahh... I finally realised that "Aug 6" meant "Augmented sixth chord", not "August 6" :) I have no objection if you delete the reference; as I said last time, I don't know anything about the book.

Edgar Speyer

I've been critical of the prose at Edgar Speyer's FAC, and been somewhat shouted down. I'm not asking you to take part in the FAC, but I'd appreciate your thoughts on whether I'm being to harsh in my opposition because of (what I think is) poor prose. I understand that you're busy though, so no sweat if you haven't got the time. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Nobody listens to me, but they get their arses in gear when you speak. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 02:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Tony

I haven't seen you around lately. I just thought I'd pop in and say "hello, how are things", and noticed your RL workload is close to "frenzied". Hope things calm down a bit for you! Best, Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 02:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Same here. I have a request though: Whenever you can, can you pop in at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2008 Humanitarian Bowl? An editor does not understand why believes that the noun + -ing sentence construction is not ungrammatical. (no need to review the article) Dabomb87 (talk) 02:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you both; 4 March is the deadline. Then ... BLISS. Tony (talk) 03:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for stopping in to leave your thoughts, Tony. Dabomb, this is not a lack of understanding on my part (and the assertion is a little condescending). As it stands, no one has been able to show that this grammatical construct is actually incorrect. Are there better ways to phrase something? In many cases, absolutely. Sometimes, though, there are not clearly better alternatives, in my opinion.

I am neither a linguist nor a grammar expert, although I do feel I have a respectable grasp on the English language and its rules. It appears, though, that it is a matter of personal preference and so-called "noun plus -ing" is not technically an "error". If any one can show otherwise, please do so for my benefit. (As for the FAC, I'm not going to further comment on the issue, as it is now irrelevant there.) Strikehold (talk) 04:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

There was debate about it, so I asked for an opinion from Dr Gary Symes, a lexicographer and grammarian (rather more traditional in outlook that I am). He was quite clear that noun + -ing is not technically correct.

Apart from the technical issue, it's usually very easy to rephrase, is easier to read, and has a more formal, "correct" feel. In oral mode you might not bother though to be as fussy. Tony (talk) 05:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

For the record Strikehold, I rephrased my original comment. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I know you're busy but something has come up overnight at FLC. Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of FIFA World Cup finals is a current nomination that has received some opposes on the grounds of content forking. There is a discussion also at Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates#Content forks. This all may have a knock-on effect for many already-featured lists, and future FLCs. Would you be able to come by and comment, please? Regards, Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 03:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Various comments

Tony, thanks for your comments in various locations across Wikipedia. What a mess the whole thing has turned into. I am indeed enjoying the rambling, thanks! Hope your RL stress level gets below 8 before long! The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 15:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar‎

		Home-Made Barnstar
		For all your good work, especially on the seemingly minor details of keeping our links focused onto useful targets, and for your endless patience in discussing seemingly minor changes which actually have a huge impact on the utility of our project. Keep it up, please. John (talk) 04:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Some input please

Hi, websites in infoboxes issue has arisen again so I'm asking for feedback at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Proposal to standardize official websites in lede infoboxes. I have no idea where the ultimate language should go but I'd like to stop the madness sooner than later. Any insight appreciated. -- Banjeboi 04:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Tony1, I have rough consensus that this may indeed meet with approval. As you have done some outstanding work in improving MOS, would you please suggest what next steps would make sense? -- Banjeboi 13:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Piggy

This user believes date-autoformatting is like lipstick on a pig.

Tony (talk) 12:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• Well, I'm chuffed to bits. Thanks for the compliment. And while we're on the subject of pigs, you might get a chuckle out of this. Ohconfucius (talk) 13:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Snort snort.

Squeal squeal.

Grunt grunt.

Tony (talk) 14:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/SS Kroonland

Hi Tony,

Hope things are all right in real life, and that you are not affected by the horrible wildfires. Just pinging you about Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/SS Kroonland, where you commented on the prose. Maralia has completed a copyedit of the article; please revisit when you get a chance.

Thanks, BuddingJournalist 18:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposed at ArbCom

(Perma-link)

Proposal to end this all

Greg L (talk) 04:31, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I enabled my email. I am generally paranoid about giving out any kind of personal information over the Internet. I solved this problem by creating a dedicated wikipedia email. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:40, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Overlinking

Hi Tony. Thanks for your feedback. Please feel free to delink. I'm just trying to work very quickly through the wikification backlog so am likely to make some errors. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)