Loading AI tools
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hello Tony. First of all, a lot of thanks for your comments in the Hindu-German Conspiracy FAC which unfortunately did not work out. However, I worked through article quite a lot today, taking into account the comments in the page, and think I have done a (half-)decent job editing it. Do you reckon you will have time to look at the article in the future and give me some more comments on where it might fall short on an FAC. I gathered language was the main (if not only) problem that stopped it from getting promoted. I plan to renominate it sometime soon. RegardsRueben lys (talk) 00:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Meteorological history of Hurricane Ivan passed FAC last month with a poor quality review there. I have concerns about 1(a) and my attempts to get it looked at have been stonewalled. I know there is some flawed writing such as "...the cyclone intensified to tropical storm status early on September 23, based on Hurricane Hunter reports", but I don't really have the skill required to go through it properly. Therefore I'd appreciate it if you could have a look at it and either post a review to its talk page or just copyedit it directly. Thanks.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Since you've shown interest or made some contributions to Vasa (ship), I'd like to notify you that it has been nominated as an FAC. Your insights and comments would be much appreciated there.
Hi Tony. In the above FAC, I do not understand what this means-->"small- star" errant space. I have fixed the other issues you brought up. thanks for your time.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 21:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Tony, can you please revisit Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Altrincham? Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
This article, which been through a 2 month FAC nightmare, was recently copyedited by the League of Copyeditors. Do you feel it is ready for FAC again? User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi Tony - you will perhaps be dismayed to hear that another Scottish island is nearly on its way to the FAC room. It has been copy edited, but I am concerned about one fairly brief section St Kilda, Scotland#Origin of names. I am not sure I have quite grokked the 'words as words' protocols and the combination of this usage with Gaelic language words has led to phrases like " …it is a combination of the Gaelic and Old Norse words for 'well', i.e. 'well well') " & " the islanders pronounced the 'H' with a "somewhat guttural quality" making the sound they used for Hirta "almost" Kilta " that have had me pausing over the apostrophe button in a catatonic state for hours at a time. If you would have a quick read through and let me know of any howlers I'd be grateful. Ben MacDuiTalk/Walk 22:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Many thanks for your assistance with this. The article has finally passed the FA muster. I made one or two rather testy remarks about this op cit business at the FAC and time permitting I shall ask MOS to be more specific. I notice you have had various things to say on other MOS matters that are of interest to me of late (the 'on' word, UK metric/imperial etc.) I am sure wiser heads than mine have looked into all this, but it strikes me as dysfunctional at best that MOS can say quite conflicting things on different pages because of the complexities of reaching consensus on two or more fronts. As a result I suspect that FACs are much more complex than they need to be as there is, in effect, no straightforward way of resolving the issues raised. Has anyone ever suggested a MOS committee of some kind to adjudicate? ( I hasten to add that I am neither qualified nor interested in such a position, but I'd rather have a clear result to work to, even if was not my ideal solution, than the current guddle). Regards. Ben MacDuiTalk/Walk 14:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Major, certainly. Important also. I am not knowledgeable enough to do much more than propose or provide some persistent support for such an idea, but if any serious attempt should come to your attention I'd be happy to do so. Have a good Hogmanay. Ben MacDuiTalk/Walk 10:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for stopping by the FAC. In a day or so, could I ask you to give it another flypast? Am keen to address any 'oppose' issues and would like to hear if you have any further comments. I'm afraid the copyed got a bit 'hot under the collar' about some of your comments, hope that doesn't colour any subsequent review. Cheers Dick G (talk) 09:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Just checking; I think you meant to strike at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates#Francis Harvey? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Hey there Tony. I've responded to most of your comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Internationalist (album), and have questioned a few that I'm not sure on. Thanks heaps for reviewing the article so far - if you could possibly take another look at the FAC and possibly clarify on areas where I'm a bit confused, it would be greatly appreciated. Cheers, — Dihydrogen Monoxide (Review) 05:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Intercoursing ridiculous! -- Hoary (talk) 15:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello. Earlier this year you voted to demote this article from featured status. I have recently been working to improve it and re-nominate it as an FAC. Please take some time to review the article's current form, as any feedback for further changes would be greatly appreciated. Harro5 22:31, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
As suggested by User:SandyGeorgia could you please check that your points brought up on the FAC have been met, many thanks Seddon69 (talk) 23:54, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Just wondering if User talk:SMcCandlish#Optional autoformatting remains an open issue/discussion/thing. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:25, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
They make trying to sort out commentary unnecessarily time consuming, and renders the original reviewer's commentary unintelligible gibberish. But I really don't want to rock that boat just yet; perhaps this miserable Done practice of
Not done peppering text
Done and making the original
Not done commentary practically unintelligible
Done will slowly disappear
Not done if I make mention
Done of the problem
Not done here and there. I'm more concerned about the unactionable opposes right now and other issues which contribute to the backlog, and I'd rather tackle that more pressing issue. And I'll be slow tackling anything until I make the transition to this Stupid GawdAwful TouchPad on my new computer. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Thankyou for your contribution towards the FAC for the above article, it has now passed. Your attention here was gratefully recieved. Regards.--Jackyd101 (talk) 11:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Just one sentence has nearly derailed things and veered unhealthily toward an edit war. I'm torn on this one but thought you may want to have a laugh...and see what you thought:
here.
cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
PS: I have tried to minimise the in-universe feel of it and found some great books on psychodynamic and cultural origins of the folklore which we've have tried to incorporate into it...(I saw you hate supernatural religions..) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Tony, would you have time to read this short article? I would value your opinion. Best wishes --GrahamColmTalk 16:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi Tony, the article Lead(II) nitrate was recently demoted from FA, for reasons pointed out in a FA review of its quality. The status of the review was misunderstood, and recommendations were unfortunately unhandled. One of the recommendations for improvement was yours. I have now taken up the challenge and adjusted the article in line with the recommendations, with the intention to bring it back up to spec. Would you please be so kind as to give it a look again, and provide some feedback about the article's current state? Your suggestions will be highly appreciated, both for the article and my personal education! Wim van Dorst (Talk) 22:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Boeing_747
Thanks for your comments. I'm trying to improve the article not argue with you. After discussion with SandyGeorgia, it was suggested that I contact you and see if your concerns for FA have been addressed. If so, please change your "oppose" conclusion. Fnlayson and I, as well as others, have done a lot of fixing since your comments. Your change of heart regarding FA is essential. Thank you. Archtransit (talk) 22:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for removing the oppose. You can be sure I'll continually try to improve it. Archtransit (talk) 20:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi Tony, thanks for your note. I'm keeping a close eye on it. Looking at the histories (and I've not looked at everything yet), I'm hoping this was just a series of misunderstandings and personality clashes that escalated because everyone was upset. If it was more than that, that will show itself over time, and I'll deal with it at that point. But I hope in the meantime everyone will try to AGF and help to turn the heat down. In that spirit, I've asked Zeraeph and SandyGeorgia to try to avoid each other, and not respond to posts about the other one. Hopefully that will go some way to calming things down. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 07:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
You said: "Oh, that damned convert template: I'd support it if it could convert every instance logically and consistently with MOS: it can't, and it's just as much work, in other ways, as doing it manually."
I agree that the convert template is not fast on its own. But the template is very compatible with script tools (such as wp:AWB or my unit and/or date script). I am sure that this is a major factor in the popularity of the template. I have not done a speed test but I suspect that my script can add conversions to articles at a rate that is an order of magnitude faster than a manual method.
I agree that it does not support all instances of units but the only one that I can think of is ranges. If you have other instances in mind, I would like to know. Certainly, the majority of instances are single unit (e.g. "97 ft") and it converts those exactly as I expect.
As a principle, I prefer the edit mode of articles to contain raw text rather than templates. If I knew of a simple and fast way to add raw text conversions rather than template conversions, I would consider modifying my script to do it. There are many people that support the addition of metric units but manual methods have only ever had a small effect on the prevalence of unconverted non-metric units. Script/template combinations have had a much bigger effect. As with 'monkey see, monkey do' copycat effect of year linking or not-linking, I now believe that some non-metric editors add metric conversions where they would not have done in the past.
In summary, I think the template is a 'good thing' rather than a thing to be damned. Regards. Lightmouse (talk) 10:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Please look at the history of Wikipedia:Manual of Style. I do not understand what is going on following your edit. Can you take a look at the edit summaries and the edits please? Lightmouse (talk) 19:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Punctuation, particularly in the US, was standardized quite recently (i.e. the last 150 years) and mandatory use of the serial comma arose as a consquence of foolish consistency more than the accurate notation of spoken language, the Oxford style manual not withstanding.
As a reference work Wikipedia must evenhandedly put forth the opposing positions, but in its own recommnded usage may do as it (i.e. its Wikipedians) prefer, and the ultimate test is ambiguity and lack thereof.
Further, en.wikipedia.org is the English language Wikipedia, not Wiki USA, and should reflect worldwide use, which runs against the serial comma. Proposed, then, to use a serial comma when doing so eliminates ambiguity and not when it does not.
NB I am advocating not using the serial comma under most circumstances; in many cases it makes no difference whether it's there or not, and I say, "When in doubt, leave it out!" Robert Greer (talk) 03:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
About your WP:AIV report, instead of blocking the IPs, I've semi-protected the page for a month. The protection is a bit longer than normal because of the large gaps between vandalism. Hopefully the person will lose interest. A fellow Australian doesn't like him very much as almost all of the edits are using the iiNet service. However, two of the edits were made from a computer at the University of Canberra. Academic rivalry perhaps? -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 08:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Tony I've copy-edited the lead(II) nitrate article from the Chemicals wikiproject, after it was recentely demoted from its FA-status. Last time around, you contributed to the voting process, and this time you contributed worthwhile recommendation in the pre-process. Would you please be so kind as to provide feedback in its now running FA re-candidacy? Wim van Dorst (talk) 19:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC).
Hi Tony. You may remember a while ago you provided very useful feedback on an article I nominated for Featured Article status, Riverina. I have collaborated on another article, Sid Barnes, that is now at FAC and would appreciate your comments. If you are not a cricket aficionado, all the better. We are trying to ensure the article is intelligible to people with no interest in the sport. If you can spare the time to leave your thoughts on how the article could be improved at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sid Barnes it would certainly be appreciated. Cheers, Mattinbgn\talk 00:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Eats shoots and heaves? Well, bleurgh! (A book ably dismissed by David Crystal, as any fule kno.) What the intercourse are you doing on that page, Sir, when you could instead be adding your wit 'n' wisdom to this? -- Hoary (talk) 08:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
You Opposed this articles nomination a while back due to it's prose. I wondered if you could give it another look when you can find the time. Would it be worth re-nominating. Buc (talk) 11:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Ok that's great, thanks. Do you think you could do the rest of the article when you can find the time? Buc (talk) 12:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
At [] I suggested: The "style guide for the style guide" should not mandate autoformatting.
Some parts of the MoS have date links and others do not. It is all a bit random and unrelated to the purpose of the guide. What do you think? Lightmouse (talk) 13:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Lutoslawski Symphony 3 excerpt.JPG. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 21:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Tony. Malleus Fatuarum has helped me with a bit of copyediting on the Jim Bowie article, and I think I've addressed the other issues that you brought up at its FA candidacy. If you have time, could you revisit the article and see if you it is now in a state that you could support? Thanks! Karanacs (talk) 21:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks very much for your comments at the Ian Svenonius FAC. I believe I've addressed most of your concerns, though some of your comments were a bit confusing, so I asked for clarification on a few of them. I also did my best to give the article a good copyedit, but I imagine alot of these minor language things would require a second set of eyes to notice. Anyways, I was hoping you could give the article's nomination another look, and update your comments however you see fit. Thanks again! Drewcifer (talk) 10:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Back in November, following your inability to look at The Preuss School UCSD both SandyGeorgia and Unimaginative Username saw my comments and were able to make suggestions. I have since been able to implement, however, it would seem both users are now on wikibreaks. If you are still too busy it is understandable, but if not I would really appreciate it if you could have a look at it. Thanks, SorryGuy Talk 21:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Tony, I have a few things to say. If I'm honest, I actually see the need to move to a gender-neutral system, especially given that Lloyds do. That being said, the manner in which you decided to start your crusade is abhorrent. First off, insulting anyone with some semblance of tradition, is really quite unneccessary. Second, using an FAC as a platform for this outburst is disrespectful to the nominator. There are plenty of forums for your discussion, namely WP:MILHIST, WP:SHIPS or WP:MARITIME not to mention the myriad of MOS pages. I find your recent actions shocking to say the least. Woody (talk) 20:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Tony:I think the use of gender-neutral pronouns is inappropriate. I believe that its use is based on a notion of male dominance (? insert your point here) and that some female readers may find it offensive. Could we not use a gender-neutral pronoun? I understand that some readers may feel that it is a deep-seated tradition but the modern reader would be used to something a bit more neutral.
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Greatest Hits (Lost) again, please? –thedemonhog talk • edits 22:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your support in my RfA. It was definitely a dramatic debate, that landed on WP:100! I paid close attention to everything that was said, and, where possible, I will try to incorporate the (constructive) criticism towards being a better administrator. I'm taking things slowly for now, partially because of the holiday season and all the off-wiki distractions. :) I'm also working my way through the Wikipedia:New admin school and double-checking the relevant policies, and will gradually phase into the use of the new tools. My main goals are to help out with various backlogs, but I also fully intend to keep on writing articles, as there are several more that I definitely want to get to WP:FA status! Thanks again, and have a great new year, --Elonka 07:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Please accept my apology for my poorly phrased 'vitriol' comment that has clearly given offense. It was intended as a characterization of the entire thread, in which a lot of people have said things in a regrettable fashion. I should not have tacked those last two sentences onto a paragraph beginning with "Tony," without clarifying that they were addressed to the entire audience. I'm sorry. Maralia (talk) 00:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I wish to inform you that I am not at all happy that you have turned my FAC into a forum for your public service announcement. Having said that, I will reluctantly concede a point that the issue should be settled once and for all, so here you go: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Military History Manual of Style amendment. My argument and your argument have been (very simplistically) summed up there, and as the title suggests, I seek and ammendment to the MILHIST MoS to settle this once and for all. As a gesture of fairiness and of good faith, I leave the link to the discuss here directly and your talk page since you were the first to bring the issue up. I wish you luck with your argument in the forum, no matter how it turns up. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi there tony. You left comments about the grammar and formatting in the above article. This article has been nominated to the League of Copyeditors but nothing has come of it as of yet. I have throughly gone over this article in the best of my capacity and i was wondering whether you'd be willing to see if i have met your suggestions as much as possible and whether you feel you are now able to support this nomination and if not what further problems you see in the article, as i do not want this nomination to become stagnant. Thank you for your time Seddon69 (talk) 01:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
The article received a second copy edit to remove excess comma's. I was wondering if you could possibly take another look at the article to see whether it is FAC ready. Seddon69 (talk) 19:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Tony. I believe I have addressed your concerns left at the FAC page for the above article. If you wouldn't mind, could you take another look and let me know if you have any more suggestions. Thanks for your comments, they have improved the article immensely. -- Mattinbgn\talk 08:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
User:Noetica/ActionMOSVP/StableProposalSummary
– Noetica♬♩ Talk 09:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
The Simpsons Movie, I'm hopful I can get this to FA status. Thanks in advance. Buc (talk) 21:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Tony, sorry I didn't thank you for the copy edit on the painting article earlier. It was very gratifying and much appreciated. Best Ceoil (talk) 09:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Tony. Hmmnn, I forgot about Canada. There's no fixed data on the usage style of the format, but I do know that in the EU, the DD/MM format is preferred in short form.
In India, a date such as 06/05 is always in DD/MM format. In the long form, for example 17 December is popular, but December 17 is also common, especially by media publications such as the Times of India.
As far as the Commonwealth being an arcane institution, and editors unwilling to categorise themselves under this umbrella; that would be unnecessary as such an affiliation is done at the political level, not user level.
Yeah, we can add the examples. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, the example is clearly a fragment and does not need a period, and should be exercised by all editors. To MOS, the guide is clear that periods are only used after a full sentence; but why they asked about it? --BritandBeyonce (talk) 08:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
In the first Prairie Avenue FAC you mentioned I need to get fresh eyes to copy edit it. I have finally gotten the help I needed in this regard at Talk:Prairie Avenue#FAC Comments. I have also greatly improved the article with thousands of new great words (if a picture is worth a thousand words). What do you think about the articles current viability for FA now?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 16:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Meetup/Sydney/January 2008 - could be fun for a while...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Hey Tony,
You and I have had a pretty good relationship so far, when we've met up here in Wikipedia, and I'm hoping that we can Talk now about something more difficult than we've discussed in the past. I think everyone here respects and agrees with your commitment to good writing and clear expositions for the average reader. I totally agree with you that we shouldn't write only for scholars, since hey! they don't need us anyway to tell them their business. ;)
I'm writing because I'm thinking that you might have formed a mistaken impression of Awadewit's motives. I don't think that she's trying to make a end run around the requirements for clear, accessible and brilliant prose, or that she's failed to appreciate the criteria for Featured Articles. My sense is just that she has a different interpretation of those criteria, and honestly believes that she's living up to them. If you agree with that, then the next step forward for you would seem to be gentle persuasion, trying to convince her (and others) to change the article and their standards to match yours more closely. And true to that old saying of Solomon, you might find that easier with softer words than with imperatives; sometimes the quiet voice of reason gets lost in a hurly-burly, no? But soft, patient water can wear away stones. :)
Even if you don't agree with me that Awadewit deserves the benefit of the doubt, I think it might be helpful and more efficient for everyone to keep the debate focused on the material and not on the people, don't you agree? No need to provoke commentary on what she or you did/said, when there's work to be done, eh? It can't be very agreeable to anyone, I'm sure, and both of you might accidentally come across to others differently than you might wish or imagine. Really, let me convince you that it works best for you to highlight your professional concern for the article and its improvement, esp. your concern for its intelligibility to the average reader. If the debate seems as though it's just a personal conflict, it might be ignored; I fear that we'd be impoverished of your insights, and you of your chance to improve the article. Earnestly and hopefully, Willow (talk) 22:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I was wondering, when you have time, if you could help out with Winston Churchill. We're trying to get this article about a historical figure to featured article. Awadewit says you're excellent at reducing redundancies and shortening an article, and any assistance that you can give, whether it is by editing or giving advice on Talk:Winston Churchill would be much appreciated. I understand if you feel that the project might be too time-consuming, or if you are unwilling to work on it for a number of other reasons, but please reply here with the decision. Cheers. — DarkFalls talk 06:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Just a swift note to say how much I appreciate your sometimes slightly off-the-wall usage examples :) --ROGER DAVIES talk 11:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.