User talk:Tony1/Archive11/Archive 11 (19 January – 30 March 2008)

Macau FAC

I can bet my life, definitely this time you will vote oppose to this article a bit later for sure; no exception, as you are quite nit-picking for non-Australian/British articles. But would you please kindly give me some concrete opinions for improving the article instead of vote? Coloane (talk) 19:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a serious accusation. I don't know where you got the idea that I favour articles from certain places. Nominators from the UK and Australia think I'm hard on them. Tony (talk) 01:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll be happy to second that. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me for butting in but, in my experience, Tony has one set of standards which he applies equally to all articles he reviews. I have seen no hint of bias at all. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 08:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Whatever, from what I have seen is, this person (I very carefully observe this person for more than 1 year) only gave very superficial reasons like incorrect use of tenses, vocabs, etc that could be fixed in few minutes. No matter how much correction have been done by nominators, he wouldn't re-consider his vote or objection for sure. When someone asked him how to improve their articles, he might simply said he is not obliged to do so or not be able to help to fix up (please refer to his conservation - Russia FAC that he just archived). Although you tried to defense him and deny everything, I am sorry but I do think his work is not coterminous with that of FAC here. Coloane (talk) 21:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I think reviewers are not supposed to edit. Nominators are obliged to do whatever suggestions have been given. --BritandBeyonce (talk) 07:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Reviewers are not obliged to edit nominations, but can if they wish. "Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make an effort to address objections." Heavens, Coloane has certainly built up a head of resentment over the past 12 months. I'd never heard of her/him. Tony (talk) 11:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The original spirit to give comment is mainly to improve articles in general. Reviewers are not obliged to give their opinions as well or even come here to logon according to your way of ridiculous thinking. Well, something I didn't bring it up here is when the nominators bring back their articles to re-nominate, their improvement are sometimes contradicted to what they did. This is the most laugable thing but I just feel sick of it. That is why I don't support this way of nomination. Contructive criticism is a vague term and debatable. There is no strict guideline to scrutinize anyway. You can basically do whatever you want. Coloane (talk) 13:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

So get the gigantic chip off your shoulder and stop the personal attacks. Tony (talk) 13:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, most people abuse these concepts: bad faith, personal attacks, etc. These are not excuses to protect yourself and conceal what you are doing. When I try to waste my time and write something here, of course I have my own reason. You should politely accept and make your own self-review but not deny it right away. Otherwise, you can't find out what's wrong going on and limit yourself to improve. Regards! Coloane (talk) 13:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I won't be self-reviewing. Yes, you're wasting your time here. Go away. Tony (talk) 14:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

See your arrogant attitude and speech above? I am not completely wrong. Coloane (talk) 14:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Tony, what you need to know about User:Coloane is that he/she will personally attack anyone they believe stands in the way of their precious Macau article being promoted to FA status. Revenge attacks are another favorite tactic of Coloane, so if you make any negative comments about the Macau article, expect Australia to be quickly nominated at WP:FAR. More details available at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive354#Ongoing_harrassment.2C_vote_rigging_and_sockpuppetery_by_User:Coloane and Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser#Coloane. An administrator needs to do something about this editor's ongoing problematic behavior. (Caniago (talk) 17:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC))

Caniago, nobody paid attention to your false accusation on the notice board. Go back to improve your article Indonesia and make sure I won't take that to FAR. Coloane (talk) 19:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's one of your previous comments about Tony I managed to find: This system will surely eliminate "Tony", "Shiva" and other people who are similar with low quality in education (Australian education is bad and I don't respect this) and little work experience. [1] I wonder what is your motive for being such a despicable individual with respect to the Macau article? Are you being employed by the Macau government or a commercial enterprise to try to get some cheap publicity by getting Macau on the front page of Wikipedia? (Caniago (talk) 20:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC))

Excuse me Caniago, I really don't want to argue with you on Tony's talkpage so this is my last comment here. Yes, I personally don't like his work, but I think he is quite diligent and make a lot of contribution to Wiki. Again, this is my personal opinion, nothing related to personal attacks. Actually I didn't nominate Macau and I just want to help josuachan a bit. I am not interested in putting the article Australia on the page of FAR according to what you mentioned. It is entirely ridiculous. Unlike Indonesia, Macau is pretty famous and I don't think wiki can help a lot. Most tourists would like to click the info related to hotels with casinos and restaurants in which wiki can't provide. Regards!! Coloane (talk) 22:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind at all if the article on Australia is nominated at FAR/C. I posted a notice I'd do it myself, about nine months ago, but someone fixed it in the meantime. I'll approach the Macau nomination at FAC in an even-handed way, as usual. Tony (talk) 23:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Nominators should respond and take all the suggestions constructively. Anyway, if you do not see any good about it, ignore it. You can ask other to review. Tony isn't the only reviewer here. --BritandBeyonce (talk) 00:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Gimme More

User:Chwech copyedited this article simultaneously when this was on GAN. I am planning to proceed to FAC. Any thoughts? --BritandBeyonce (talk) 07:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

James Milner

A Peer review is currently going on. I hope you can give feedback when you can find the time. Buc (talk) 08:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Date formatting

I see you're busy but a query on WP:Citing sources reminded me of bugzilla:4582. I think you're involved in this front. Discussion is all over the place, and I'm looking for a synopsis. Could you point me to some conclusion on what syntax/code/markup has been decided, and who if anyone has written code to implement it? No hurry, yet. Gimmetrow 03:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Your FAC comments

I have worked hard on the article since the FAC began about a little over a month ago for The Thriving Cult of Greed and Power. Editors including yourself brought up some good points which I have done my best to address - and the article reads much better for them. Care to reevaluate your initial Oppose comment at the FAC? Cirt (talk) 15:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• Nevermind, it was promoted. Thanks for your comments, I implemented all your suggested changes. Cirt (talk) 02:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Somerset FAC

Unfortunately there has been a problem with FAC (possibly due to transcluded pages/templates & overall page size). As a result several nominations, including Somerset, have had to be restarted and I have been informed that all previous commentary (both supporting and opposing), including yours is void. As a result would you be kind enough to review the page and place any comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Somerset. Thanks— Rod ^talk 19:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Captions

Tony, you commented at this FAC that the captions shouldn't have full stops. However, I think WP:MOS#Captions actually says that if a caption includes a sentence as well as a sentence fragment, then both the sentence and the sentence fragment should have a full stop. I think the article is in compliance but I wanted to check with you. (The nom's been restarted by the way; the new one is here.) Thanks -- Mike Christie (talk) 17:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Glad to hear they're OK. I hate to nudge an opposer, but your oppose to that FAC got erased when it was restarted, so you should probably re-register it on the restarted FAC if you still see problems. Thanks -- Mike Christie (talk) 23:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

James Milner

A Peer review is currently going on. I hope you can give feedback when you can find the time. Buc (talk) 11:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

FAC Birmingham campaign

I appreciate the comments you made to Birmingham campaign. I'd like to report that I have addressed your concerns and invite you to view the changes I made. Please let me know what more I can do to improve the article to earn your support. Thank you. --Moni3 (talk) 22:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

DearTony1/Archive11,

Thank you for your constructive criticism and input in making Alpha Kappa Alpha a featured article.

Best,

miranda 08:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Style template

There are so many discussions about these issues in so many places, I'm leaving this here to be sure you'll see it. I've edited the style template to separate the MoS subpages from the others; and to separate the other guidelines from pages that have no status (that are either not marked as guidelines or are just proposals). See here. Is that all right with you?

The reason I did it is that what is and isn't in the MoS, and what is and isn't a style issue, seems to be very confused. Would it make sense to gather up anything you regard as strictly an MoS style issue and make it an MoS subpage? And/or perhaps have an MoS template only for those subpages?

You now have a special MoS guideline tag for the top of MoS pages, BTW -- we just moved the style-guideline title to MoS-guideline instead. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I see you're busy in real life, so there's no rush for this. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, by all means change it to style and formatting. I don't know why I added syntax. Nice talk page, by the way. :-) SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Lisa del Giocondo FAC

Tony, would you consider supporting Lisa del Giocondo (at FAC) now? You were right, it needed work! I made two edit passes to spiff up the article. They have a waiting list as I imagine you know but I also requested a LOCE review. Thanks again either way. Best wishes. -Susanlesch (talk) 05:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you for at least not objecting formally and for your constructive comments. Maybe most important from my point of view was that I learned to do page numbers! A participant at LOCE kindly moved this article from FAC to FA for copyediting at some point. -Susanlesch (talk) 04:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

FAC Everglades National Park

I know you're a busy guy, and I'm covering my bases here. I've copy edited this article, and so have a couple other editors. I would appreciate it if you would drop back back to re-read and comment. I appreciate the time you took to read the article and make suggestions. --Moni3 (talk) 01:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Future of air transport in the UK FAC

Hi Tony

Thanks for your comments in this FAC. I've acted on what I can, and queried a few items. If you get a chance can you have another look at the FAC and let me know what you think? Cheers. --FactotEm (talk) 10:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Buckingham Palace

Hi;

I don't want to start an edit war here, if you don't like some of the links, or you are just not a links person, feel free to revise them; as regards the quality of the copy, with respect, please try reading a comparison of the FULL text of the two versions before you revert. Most of the changes I made were small ones, to correct egregious errors, or bad grammar, or bad/clumsy form. I made no revisions to the substantive content of the text & did not consider it necessary to start an entry on the talk page seeking approval for such minor work. The article as a whole really isn't very good in present form, it's jumbled & run-on & repetitive. If you'd like to engage in further discussion on the matter, friendly I hope, I am available.  :) --Lx 121 (talk) 00:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

FYI[2]. I have reverted the edits and requested they be discussed on the talk page of the article instead of talk pages of individual editors. Best, Risker (talk) 00:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

FA review

Hi Tony, I just wanted to thank you for your thorough and very professional review of the Iran article, recently nominated for FA status. It was really very helpful. Thanks again! SSZ (talk) 21:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Robert Gilbert (chemist) semiprotect ...

Re your message: That's pretty sad. Whomever it is seems to be watching the page waiting for the protection to expire (the bot was just doing cleanup, it didn't actually unprotect it). So it's back to semi-protection, this time for longer. Maybe the person will forget by then? We'll see. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 19:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The City of New York vs. Homer Simpson

Since you looked at it, the article has had some copy editing. Mind looking at it once more and giving any other feedback or any sort on it's FAC page? xihix(talk) 01:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Wormshill

Tony, just wanted to pop by and say thanks for your input on Wormshill. Though I may not have had the "strategic distance" to see eye-to-eye (excuse the dashes!) with you on the early part of the process, I certainly did (and still do) appreciate your thoughts. I am very much aware that the article's subsequent promotion to FA would not have been possible without addressing your commentary and I have learnt much about the MOS from our exchanges that I will take with me on further forays in the Project. Many thanks once again and I look forward to reading your views on new FACs with interest. Dick G (talk) 00:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening

I've responded to your concerns and made the grammar fixes, however I do have some responses to some of your other requests. David Fuchs ^(talk) 03:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I'm snippy, but I still have no fucking clue what you mean by the "sales figures" comment, and you insulted me first, how about you clarify and stop throwing stones in your glass house. David Fuchs ^(talk) 21:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Your comments made no sense. David Fuchs ^(talk) 01:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Weird split

Were you following when this split was made? I don't understand it all. Why, for example, would Medicine be in one place, and MilHist in another? It made sense before this split, but I don't know what this split is about, or how it was decided. I can't find any talk page discussion, and these breaks have no rhyme or reason. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I see you moved MilHist. Why are Chinese history and Film down below? That entire split made no sense; what are the divisions supposed to represent? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Alice in Chains FAC

Hi Tony, thanks for the notes on the Alice in Chains FAC page. I was unclear on what you meant here:

• Most of the quotes use the required "logical" punctuation, but ... Staley said, "I know I'm near death, I did crack and heroin for years. I never wanted to end my life this way." and "Drugs worked for me for years," Staley told ... etc.

What should be done to these quotes? I'm not sure what you mean there. Thanks, Skeletor2112 (talk) 07:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I think he wants to say that the comma be out in the quotation marks. I don't like this "logical" type but its the policy. =) --BritandBeyonce (talk) 08:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Brit: you're right! Then the comma is part of the WP sentence, not ascribed (probably erroneously) to the quotation. That truth-in-quoting ideal is behind WP's insistence on the so-called "logical" punctuation. Tony (talk) 11:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, makes perfect sense now, thanks! Skeletor2112 (talk) 11:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Tony, this is now stalled among the longest-running FACs ever; I'd like to get some clarity, since it was recently submitted to LOCE (at six weeks in FAC). Several of the previous opposes are 1a; can you have a look-see if 1a and 2 pass muster after all the recent changes and several ces? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

And I am not sure that the article actually needs another CE - I think the nominator just put in a request at LoCE as a last resort, as the opposers have not provided a "specific rationale that can be addressed". Of the three opposers, one hasn't really responded to the specific changes he requested(indopug), one has made it clear that until he works on the article, he won't support (WesleyDodds), and one supports WesleyDodds (NSR77). As laid out at the FAC page, all of the opposers specific issues have been addressed. Thanks, Skeletor2112 (talk) 08:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

MoS: Keep up the good work

I just dropped by to say, thank you for having exactly the right perspective in the current MoS uber-debate, and call on me for support at any time. I see you like Geoffrey Miller...wow. What a friggin genius he is. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 17:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Featured sounds

I noticed that you have participated Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates in the past. There are now two candidates and the project appears to be abandoned. If you could look at the candidates and vote it would be appreciated. Zginder ^{(talk) (Contrib)} 18:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

MoS

I see above that your real-life workload is very high; that stress might be leaking over to WP. Your comments on the MoS talk page are starting to cross the line from constructive discussion to personal remarks ([3] [4] [5]). You don't serve your cause well by appearing dismissive of other editors' opinions. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, I was the first target of personal remarks, and I will not shirk from defending myself in like terms. You should not presume things about my real life, and I'll do you the courtesy of refraining from proposing such hypotheses about you. Tony (talk) 14:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

You have a statement at the very top of this page about your real-life workload; I was merely referring to that. In any case, regardless of your activities elsewhere, you should avoid personal remarks about other editors. If you feel they are attacking you, please raise the issue on their talk page rather than the MoS page. They may well be willing to revise or redact their comments. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

It's the inference from that statement you made that I find unnecessary. Tony (talk) 14:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I've crossed it out; I wasn't aiming to offend. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec) The attacks on Tony's professionalism and motives that went on in that discussion were unexcusable and over the top from some of the very first responses, and they escalated from there. All I can think of when reviewing some of the comments that refer to sneaky motives and power grabbing is projection: "A noble heart cannot suspect in others the pettiness and malice that it has never felt." – Jean Racine. Merciless poking of Tony for bringing his professional skills to the table to help improve Wiki to the stature it deserves and address a serious contradiction probably feels no different than it would feel to Hink or Tito if they were attacked for writing hurricane articles, or Giano for writing about architecture. Carl, before you address Tony, please look seriously at some of the things that were said to and about him. For the record, I suggested Tony should apologize to Gguy, who doesn't seem to have been responsible for all of the moving/closing, but closing an active discussion on a talk page is offensive. I've got a new proposal/section to try to re-focus the discussion bouncing around in my head, which I'll try to put up later today, in spite of my crappy prose. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Carl has now pointed out to me that he also left messages for Trovatore and Parham, fortuntely, so it seems I was a step behind. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

FYI, new start proposal. Sorry your motives have been so attacked; I hope it will all stop now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I hope so as well. The present situation with various conflicting MoSs is untenable, and I admire you for your robust attitude towards those who appear to believe that incivility is a touchy-feelly guideline designed to make us all "better" people. Bollox is bollox, no matter how "civil" it might appear to have been to some kiddie who probably ought to have asked for his parent's permission before posting anything at all. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Tel Aviv

Just to let you know that the copyedit of Tel Aviv is now complete--Flymeoutofhere (talk) 10:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Lisa Gerrard

I found today probably the finest vocal performance I've heard so far. She is an Aussie, however, I still get a sence you would appreciate it, so here it is. Ceoil (talk) 12:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Would be interested to know what you make of this. Expressive but meaningless. Very Bacon, and it says more than most pop songs. Ceoil (talk) 22:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

There is an element of cheap ethnic clobber for the masses with Gerrard; and she is seriously over exposed these days, but still, what a voice. Never liked Cassidy, or any of that fay celtic mystical stuff. Ceoil (talk) 06:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Title couk.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Title couk.gif. 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) 02:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Apology

[copied at Sandy's and WT:MoS's talk pages] An apology here is appropriate: I want to thank people for being supportive recently. A week ago when I was arguing at WT:MoS, I was under the impression that I was making a useful, if clumsy, contribution. I now understand that having passion in no way gives me permission to make accusations about Sandy and Tony, and I'm sorry about that. I have agreed to stick to writing boring, factual articles here and to start a blog as an outlet for my passion. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 20:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

"Kinda" back

I'm "kinda" back, but I still won't be around much :) — Deckiller 07:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's probably the best way to describe it. — Deckiller 05:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Glorious First of June

I have now replied to your comments on the FAC. Thankyou very much for your help here and I hope that the article has improved to the standard required for you to support. If there are any outstanding issues, new problems or further comments then please don't hesitate to contact me. All the best--Jackyd101 (talk) 01:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou very much for your comments regarding the Glorious First of June article which has just passed FAC. Your input was much appreciated. --Jackyd101 (talk) 00:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Happy Valentine's Day!

User:Wilhelmina Will has wished you a happy Valentine's day, and good luck in love and friendship!

A short/sweet little message, which I hope has made your day better! Happy Valentine's Day!!! Wilhelmina Will (talk) 03:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

J.S. Bach articles

Hi. My first writing to you. As you know, the majority of Bach's works have get only red link in Wikipedia and if you click in the red link, it will tell you to edit the new article. Indeed, I have just find a page Partita No.3 in E major, BWV 1006 unpurposely, which is Bach's work. However, when I refer back to "the list of composition of JS Bach", the work isn't linked either. My action is that to link the work, but failed as it appears as red link. I later find that the name of the work in "the list of composition of JS Bach" is not the same as the article that I unpurposely find. My worry is that many Bach's works article are actually created, but the name of the works are not standardlized and so red link is therefore appeared. I am sure most users will find the work for reading through the composition list but not type in the work directly for searching. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Addaick (talk • contribs) 06:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for forgeting to sign my name. I just know that when I take a look at my watchlist. Addaick (talk) 06:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Hockey Hall of Fame

There's been a light copyediting done on the article as requested per FAC. Problem is, it's very slight, and most users I've approached about it have said the article is perfectly fine. Would it be possible to either have you help you with the copyediting, suggest a user that would take this task on and make major imporovements to the quality as you request or change your view on it. Thanks, Maxim_(talk) 01:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Snakes

Hi Tony1, I am having a bit of trouble with the page Wikipedia:Delegable proxy. Specifically, I find it hard not to write really long sentences. Sometimes it seems like when I break them up, it distorts the meaning. It's kinda like how the U.S. Constitution, Robert's Rules of Order, and similar works have a lot of really long sentences because if you split them up, they can be quoted out of context in a way that distorts the original intention. Of course, I am not really worried about being quoted out of context. I guess the key is transitions? If you break up a snake, you have to figure out a way to transition from one sentence to another. Maybe eliminating some colons and using periods instead... Hey, that worked wonders! OK, thanks. Have you noticed that sometimes when you break up a snake, though, it can introduce some ambiguity? For instance, I can say "It's kinda like how the U.S. Constitution, Robert's Rules of Order, and similar works have a lot of really long sentences. The reason is that if you split them up, they can be quoted out of context in a way that distorts the original intention." Someone might think "The reason is that..." refers to the reason why it distorts the meaning (referred to in the sentence before). So in breaking up snakes, it seems like you may end up with more words total, but greater readability. Ron Duvall (talk) 01:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Talk:Robert Gilbert (chemist)

It's my pleasure, Tony. For the life of me I have no idea why that page is on my watchlist - I probably corrected a typo a year ago or something - but I've been noticing it popping up every few days. Unfortunately, the anon is coming in with a different IP address each time, and is from one of the big Aussie ISPs, so a direct block is pointless and making a range block would affect quite a few editors. Incidentally, I've gotten plenty of use out of your "Avoiding 1a problems" manual. Kudos to you for continuing to help the rest of us strive for "brilliant prose". Risker (talk) 04:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Manual of Style

Tony - I am really sorry we started out on the wrong feet — largely my fault. I have long been impressed by the contributions you have made to Wikipedia, and often refer to your excellent guide on good writing. As I'm sure you have seen, I've started a thread, encouraged by Sandy and others, at MoS-talk to see if there is mileage in the idea to address the MoS coordination issue with a WikiProject. This could provide a way to address the MoS coordination problem without alienating any individual editors. Your comments on whether and how such a project could address these issues would be very valuable. Thanks, Geometry guy 19:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I've now initiated a draft at WP:WPMoS. Sorry for the delay. I hope you will want to add your name to the list of participants. Thanks, Geometry guy 21:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

State of Play (film)

Hi. Our paths have barely crossed since I joined Wikipedia late last year, and I know you by reputation more than anything. However, your fastidiousness when it comes to MOS issues is well-known to me. I've written the article for the film State of Play (choosing to attend to it a few months ago as a way of learning the ropes here). Once the film has been released and is relatively stable I will be looking to take it to FA status. This probably won't be until another year from now, but I would like a solid base on which to build the featured-quality article. I was wondering, schedule permitting, if you would care to cast a very brief glance over the article for me. I'm not asking for a thorough review or anything, more a two-minute check to see if there are any glaring, persistent MOS breaches or examples of clumsy pieces of prose you can spot which might come back to haunt me at some point down the road. If you lack the time, I will understand completely, and carry on referring to your excellent guide to help me. Thanks for your time, Steve ^{T • C} 12:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Steve, you're far too kind. I just loved the BBC drama; can the US version possibly reach those heights? If it does, I look forward to it. Can you possibly wait until after 7 March, when I'm FREEEEE of work frenzy for a while? Tony (talk) 13:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Epbr123 (talk · contribs) also does a good review for MoS items. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, that's handy to know. Tony (talk) 13:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem, of course it can wait; the film isn't out until next year. Just thought I'd get a head start. :) I'll ask you about it in a month or two. All the best, Steve ^{T • C} 13:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

On FAC

Hi. Are you not busy Tony? Could you please take a look on Déjà Vu; its currently on FAC. Any comments or suggestions? Thanks. --Efe (talk) 13:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Featured content dispatch workshop

For writing the weekly dispatch on featured content for the WP:SIGNPOST, WP:FCDW. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Opinion on a criteria edit

[6] does that look like a good trim, or did I change the meaning? Reference sections are required anyway, so it seemed like a straightforward tweak. — Deckiller 04:54, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

ah, subtleties. Requires a reference section, but some call it footnotes. Could get sticky! I'd be safe and go back. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I was bored :) That page is so well written that it is actually fun to spot trimming opportunities. — Deckiller 04:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

You're bored? What happened to all those girls? Want fun, check my contribs. Heck, I haven't even caught up on my watchlist to where you even edited WIAFA. I got my first news here !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

You really changed it back ?? Now it popped on my watchlist. Gee, I'd better watch what I ask for ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:01, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't want to really fool around with those girls...I doubt my real girl would like that. Especially since she's also an admin on Wikipedia :) (Don't worry; she knows they're stalking me). — Deckiller 05:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

oops, zip my lip! Are we abusing of Tony's talk page? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:04, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure he doesn't mind. Oh, and I reviewed a FA today (John McCain) for the heck of it :) — Deckiller 05:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Shocking, a review that says more than ILIKEIT or IDONTLIKEIT. I like it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Still, it does seem that more people are providing thorough feedback; I see lots of bulleted lists throughout the FAC room. — Deckiller 05:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Is that a good thing or a bad thing?  :-) I'm warming up to the idea of Tony waking up on the other side of the world to find an entire conversation on his talk page. This beats shoveling snow all day. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, my break brake fluid decided to hit dangerous levels in the middle of the snowstorm. I had to buy some fluid at work; I'm gonna fill it up tomorrow. But it wasn't fun driving home with both ice and bad breaks... — Deckiller 05:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

ugh. But we didn't have bad ice, just a really nice, soft snow. Lots to shovel, but not heavy shoveling. Our Rhode Island Labrador Retriever had a blast, up to his belly in it. That should give Tony a chill :-) Past my bedtime. Thanks for doing the reviews. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:52, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Rhode Island is easily the best state. Talk to you later :) — Deckiller 05:54, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I'm sorry about your bad breaks. Had to say that in a conversation with the copyeditors :-) 'Night !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Nominal group (language)

I didn't start a discussion because I didn't think it would be controversial. What disadvantages are there? --Ptcamn (talk) 05:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds a bit like a POV fork to me. Surely it would be better to discuss the (in)correctness of nominal groups vs. noun phrases in a single article?

My impression from the books on Google Book Search is that most linguists treat "nominal group" and "noun phrase" as synonyms. (Even Halliday & Hasan's Cohesion in English says "noun phrase and nominal group are more or less equivalent".) Some distinguish them but rather than rejecting "noun phrase" as flawed, use both terms for different things. In any case I think the differences are subtle enough that they would be best treated in a single article explaining the different usages. --Ptcamn (talk) 18:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Tyrone Wheatley FA

I believe I have responded to your FA comments. You mentioned that you felt "Once it's thoroughly massaged it will be OK.". I think it has been pretty well messaged.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 17:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for removing your provisional oppose. Did you consciously not support? Did you overlook supporting? Is it to be read as a neutral or abstain now?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 17:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Look before Monday?

Do you have time for a look before Monday? Wikipedia:FCDW/March 3, 2008 SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Tony, if you get free in March, and if you have time, you may be interested (with your music buddies) in working up Leck mich im Arsch in time for April Fools, as discussed at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-03-03/Dispatches. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

FREE AT LAST !! Puh-lease get thee over to FAC First. And then pls consider whether you can work on Leck mich im Arsch for April Fools; see Noetica's talk page for details. And then FAR. And then MoS, which has become indecipherable ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/Walter de Coventre/archive1

As wikipedia's master FA reviewer, if you could, could you give some of your time to having a look over Walter de Coventre? Pretty please? Will be appreciated as always, and better before than in FA review. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 09:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Whenever you can obviously. :) I saw the workload level 10 only after I posted to you, and contemplated removing my message. Whenever you're able to comment will be great enough! All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Dashes

Well I didn't know either.. but it seems so after the amount of crazy dashes being placed in Presbyterian Ladies' College, Sydney whilst its under FAC. Seems a little strange to me, but I was just going with it and assuming I was ignorant to the correct structure of a dash this whole time. Loopla (talk) 09:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tyrone Wheatley

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tyrone Wheatley has been restarted. Your support would be appreciated.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 03:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Little thankyou

		The Reviewers Award
		To Tony, thankyou for all the high quality reviewing of articles that you do for all of the FA processes. Your continued work in improving the quality of prose is very much appreciated. Thanks again. Woody (talk) 11:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Truly a pleasure to give you one Tony. The hard work that you put into your quality and in-depth reviews is truly appreciated. The number of articles that would have slipped through otherwise is huge. Have you seen Sandy's stats about reviewers on the FAC page? Woody (talk) 11:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Civility

Tony, hello, and thank you for taking the time to review the Dirty Dancing article for FA. However, I am finding your tone a bit uncivil.[7] I'm doing my best to respond to good-faith concerns, and I do appreciate your time, but perhaps you could ratchet the rhetoric slightly? Instead of using a confrontational tone and pejorative terms ("flab" "Hello? We do speak English?" "ungainly distractions"), a more constructive approach would be more helpful. Please remember that we're all volunteers here. I do understand that you're trying to help, and I do take your comments as given in the spirit of good faith... I just wanted to offer a course-correction. A "review of your review", so to speak.  :) --Elonka 02:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Rudeness comes naturally to me. Tony (talk) 03:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, for my own records, is it okay if I'm equally rude back? I try to adapt my communication style to whatever people are most comfortable with. If you can take it as well as you can dish it out, we may be able to communicate more effectively.  ;)

Getting back to the review, I worked on several of your changes, and then got caught in an edit conflict with SandyGeorgia.  :/ But I did have two questions: What did you mean by "min dot" in the infobox? And, could you give examples of the "flab", so I have a better idea of where to start liposuction? Thanks, Elonka 03:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The FA writer's best friend is ever alert to misplaced modifiers, errant commas, and deviations from the MOS.

Here's a few I saw when we edit conflicted: ... and boosted attendance in dance classes all across America. ... and as of 2007 it has sold a total of more than 10 million copies. See Tony's userpage for redundancy reducing exercises; he's managed to teach even me a few things. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Elonka, I believe Tony1 was referring to the "Running Time 100 min." in the infobox - I've noticed he's quite dogged about those periods after the abbreviation for "minute." Hope that helps. Risker (talk) 03:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Are you calling Tony an FA writers best friend, er ... dog? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Well, he certainly has exhibited a certain tenacity in herding editors through the challenging process of FA review! Risker (talk) 04:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Ah, so it should be "100 min" or "100 minutes", but not "100 min."? --Elonka 03:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Great choice Risker, an Australian Cattle Dog; they don't come much better than that !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

How did you know I'm obsessed with dogs? My very own daughter is furry and warm, and extremely pretty. I'd be inclined to spell out "minutes" in that instance, since it won't cost you a line. My strategy in the FAC room is to achieve maximum impact with minimum time-cost per review. Why? Because there's a continuous torrent of candidates that are mostly substandard in their prose, and few reviewers who deal with 1a. That's why I probably don't observe the niceties of social interaction in my reviews—they get straight down to examples and reasons. Some people take offence. Oh well ... tough.

Pic of my daughter about to go on my user page, inspired by this posting. Tony (talk) 05:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Ooooh Tony, she's gorgeous! You must be a very proud dad. Risker (talk) 05:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Absolutely. But I've neglected her for two months: client after client after client, and she finds things like polymer chemistry and cominution boring topics. Has sat on the sofa alone for too long. Now it's pay-back time, with lots of park, beach, play. Tony (talk) 06:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

If she gets bored with the beach, you can always bring her here to play in the half a meter of snow that's fallen in the last 36 hours. It will take hours to dig out tomorrow. Risker (talk) 06:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

From the spelling and climate, I see you live in the north of the US. Thanks for translating into metrics in the first place. Ruby would probably like the snow; I imagine little booties to keep her paws dray and warm. In Canadian ski resorts I've seen the most beautiful dogs loving the snow; they use them for rescues. TONY

(talk) 06:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Southern Ontario. We Canadians have these very odd spelling tendencies, half American, half British. We've had about 400 cm of snow this winter, but this is the biggest storm yet. What was that old saying about March and lions and lambs? Cheers. Risker (talk) 07:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Well damn it, my last trip (BC and Alberta) was thin on new snow in March last year, and in 2005, OMG, the worst ski season in living memory. Perhaps I'll be luckier next time. Tony (talk) 08:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Tony, have you been to The Fat Man's dogbook? User:The Fat Man Who Never Came Back/Dogbook SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Sandy! User:The_Fat_Man_Who_Never_Came_Back/Dogbook#T. Tony (talk) 06:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I find your tone gets to the point, and doesn't sugarcoat the truth. Keep up the good work Tony. LuciferMorgan (talk) 09:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Semicolons versus colons

I think I'm ready to step it up a notch and fully learn the subtle differences between semicolons and commas. Is it appropriate to use a comma instead of a semicolon if the latter independent clause proves a claim made in the former independent clause? Or is that just an old school rule? Should I just continue to stick to semicolons to keep it simple? — Deckiller 05:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Only if the clauses on either side fit together grammatically. Semicolons are stronger boundaries that allow the reader to rest momentarily and download the previous into long-term memory (well, slightly). Give me examples ... Tony (talk) 06:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

FCDW Dispatch

Am running through Wikipedia:FCDW/March 10, 2008 now, in case you have time for a quick look. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Tony! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Guqin

Music FAR, no idea what to do with it. Wikipedia:Featured article review/Guqin. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

FAC Opeth

Hi Tony, it has been suggested at Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Opeth that a fresh set of eyes take a look at the prose on Opeth. If you have a minute, can you let me know if there is anything that jumps out at you? Thanks, Skeletor2112 (talk) 06:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding South Africa and the Anglosphere Map

Hello Tony... Your point is entirely valid, but I lost control of that graphic a long time ago. I don't know who the current editor is, and I'm not even sure of the file name. I no longer upload graphics to Wikipedia due to the photo-rights Nazis, it's just too much trouble. Sorry I can't be of more assistance. Iamvered (talk) 17:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Church

Dear Tony1, the article above has an editor who is capitalizing words like "Eucharist" and "Mass". I made those lower case because I thought Wikipedia policy made you lower case such things. What is your opinion on this issue?NancyHeise (talk) 00:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

thanks for the ruling on this issue. NancyHeise (talk) 09:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

<blushes>Only Popes make rulings, yes? Tony (talk) 13:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Grammar/prose chec? "The first US lawsuits emerged in 2001 claiming that deviant priests had sexually abused minors.[18]" SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Tony, I appreciate your taking the time to come comment on the page. You seemed to be quite angry in your oppose vote about RCC position on certain issues. As with all religions, there are a fair number of people who will be opposed to everything that religion stands for and become upset when they feel certain crimes have not been fully addressed. Just to give you my perspective on the matter so you can see the other side, I want you to know that I personally feel that the good done by the church has not been addressed in any degree close to its importance in the world. The number of schools, hospitals, orphanages, ministries, in fact the millions of people helped by the church are hardly mentioned - one sentence - thats it. This compares with the number of people hurt by deviants in our religion who get whole paragraphs one upon the other throughout the article - and then people like you want us to expand on those! While the bad things done by the church get tremendous news coverage, there is very little about the good - really, no one cares. But my honest opinion about the article is that it is very NPOV and I think fair, more than fair, coverage has been directed toward the dark areas of this church. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 09:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Um, "quite angry"? Nope. It's an unwarranted accusation that seems designed to dilute the impact of my review.

As I went to the trouble of stating, my personal views on religion are irrelevant to the review.

It's the angle of the treatment of the bad stuff that makes it POV. By all means, discuss the charitable work in slightly greater detail; it's the history section that crowds out everything else, which is why it should be dramatically reduced. Tony (talk) 10:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The history section has recently been dramatically reduced since you last visited the page as well as a major trimming by four editors working together - not all of them Catholic and three who opposed its FAC nomination. You do sound angry in your communications. Maybe you arent but your phrasing is quite stark and harsh - you could use a little softening up I think. NancyHeise (talk) 05:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

You're starting make me feel angry. Tony (talk) 07:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Conversation just now

• Me: (explaining went to Sonoma for lunch)...
• Her: Oh, you should have bought some bread to bring home.
• Me: (long pause) - oh shit (repeated a few times)..I did. (i.e. I left it there)

But seriously, here is a prolific contributor who must be a no-brainer to gain sysophood...

PS: Had a couple of funny stories on medicine/epidemiology though I am reluctant to put anything to print. Remind me some time in the future and I'll explain next time we chat verbally Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me: I'm going down there to buy sourdough bread some time very soon. Tony (talk) 13:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Shame on you, Cas !! Tony, can you revisit Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Song Thrush? Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Tony, can you revisit Song Thrush once again? Thx, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

MOSNUM as usual

COuld you take a look at the revised wording at WP:MOSNUM#Autoformatting and linking and make sure it is all correct, grammatically and practically. (I unprotected it earlier today after your note on the talkpage.) Hope all is good. Regards and thanks. Woody (talk) 14:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey Tony!

All of your concerns at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Super Smash Bros. Melee have been addressed. Thanks for taking the time to comment. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 16:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Could you help with a FAC?

Tony, could you help out with this FAC, it needs some copyediting and that seems to be the only concern for it before reaching featured status. Thanks if you can. Hello32020 (talk) 11:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I have addressed your comments in the article or in my response, thanks. Hello32020 (talk) 20:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

semicolons if list item include commas

hey Tony the "controversies" sentence in the lead of Roman Catholic Church has three items: liberation theology, stances on various issues, and sex scandals. The second item includes sub-items separated by commas. Can we use semicolons in the current version of WP:MOS? Ling.Nut (talk) 14:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Original text

The original text is valuable, to allow users to see the actual words being translated, and assists with bilingual searching to locate sources in both languages. We typically do this for names and important terms, when covering subjects from languages using a non-Latin writing system. Badagnani (talk) 00:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I use the non-Latin glosses all the time in my WP work and searching. As you can see, I don't read all those languages fluently, but they help with searching and are etymologically important. See seolleongtang for an example of how the etymology is covered. For languages like Chinese and Korean, where a certain syllable may have many different spellings, the original script (with Wiktionary links if possible) allow one to delve further into the actual meaning of these terms. But, at seolleongtang, you can see that we didn't give Asian script for Joseon dynasty, Dangun, or Gojoseon, because those terms already have native script in their own respective WP articles.

I agree that Guqin may have some terms that aren't necessary (we can discuss at the talk page there), but I think you removed some that were. Badagnani (talk) 01:40, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I was going to pitch in, but it looks like Badagnani has it mostly covered already. :-) I agree with Badagnani's reasoning here. It's kind of helpful to be able to cross-search between different sources. It's a large part of the added value that wikipedia provides over other kinds of documents. --Kim Bruning (talk) 02:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC) ps. welcome to the unicode age! ;-)

You're really not correct in your assessment. Glosses are typical and appropriate, and a great many of our users search and use Wikipedia in a multilingual manner. I've clearly explained why the characters are used at seolleongtang, which you haven't demonstrated that you've actually looked at and considered. There's a difference between extraneous characters and ones that are central to an understanding of the subject. Badagnani (talk) 02:18, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

And you haven't explained why the characters can't be glossed in a separate section to avoid clutter for the 99% for whom they merely make the reading harder. I'm not so impolite as to state that you're "not correct". And I'm not assessing anything.Tony (talk) 02:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, well, I really intended to just make the one comment, but you've asked politely, and you're right that I really need to explain more.

Let me check if I understand you correctly. Your main argument is that adding Chinese equivalents clutters the page? --Kim Bruning (talk) 02:54, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I've duplicated a discussion on Kim's page:

Listing the characters that meaning absolutely nothing to 99% of our readers in a separate glossary ... Tony (talk) 02:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, that is the main problem, especially when taken to extremes as in the Guqin article; there, it's even worse because of the narrow column that opens the article, squeezed by the infoblot. I'm no monoglot philistine; I can transliterate Russian and Greek well enough. And I think east-Asian characters have a certain beauty. No, my concern is one of a functional reading psychologist who thinks that it's worth exploring better ways of doing two things at once: (1) retaining the utility of non-Latin script sources for specialist research; and (2) freeing the main text of clutter that has absolutely no meaning to almost all English-language readers (it is the English-language WP), and allowing people to focus more easily on the phonological information that is currently provided in the forest). Listing all original non-Latin-script items in one section (a solution I quickly arrived at after interactions concerning my rogue edit of Guqin) seems to be a solution to both, and might even assist the specialist researcher. I note that specialists also have a link bottom left to the equivalent article in the Chinese-language WP.

Compare this side by side with this. Which looks better on the page? Which is more accessible to the generalist readership? Which is easier to read and comprehend even for specialists?

The sample freed-up text would, of course, include a new section—probably at the bottom—listing all of the Chinese-character items and their equivalents. In addition, I think the two Wiktionary items that I retained should be removed and listed in a glossary as well. Tony (talk) 03:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

March 17 Dispatch, March 24 too

For your ce pleasure, Wikipedia:FCDW/March 17, 2008. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Tony, can you pls check this? Thx, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Tony, I just got started on Wikipedia:FCDW/March 24, 2008, and your help now would be premature, but will you be able to look at it by Sunday night, Monday morning? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Tony, would you be able to look at the 24th dispatch tomorrow (Monday)? I'm afraid I've really tortured it ... Kirill fixed the Banners section, and his edit shows how muddled my content is. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:13, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

See if you like the image change I just made; using gallery makes them smaller, but puts them side by side and where we want them, and I added the link to the caption for detail. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you know how to get an image of the expanded (hide/show) articlehistory at Talk:Autism? I didn't know you had this talent; now you're in trouble :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Licensing issue

Ah, so Parnham's turned into a professional snoop—is he stalking me? Either way, I just dumped stuff there as notes, to completely change when I worked on it. And no, I don't want the site advertised until it's finished, so I removed the link.

Thanks very much, and sod off, Parnham. Tony (talk) 01:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

In general I find these pages of your helpful; the issue is simply one of licensing. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

You're repeating yourself. Tony (talk) 01:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Richard Dawkins FA

Hello Tony. Thank you for your comments. They were helpful. Please find more mistakes in the article. The only way to improve the article is to find mistakes and correct them. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

A challenge - Unsatisfied or Dissatisfied...or maybe just unhappy?

OK, here is the sentence:

"After finishing several songs, however, she was dissatisfied with the outcome."

I am going over Madonna (entertainer) which is at Peer Review - which word would you use here...or something else entirely. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks for input..Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

An invitation

Per WP:FCDW/March 3, 2008, to here, a bit early still, keeping you informed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Opeth

Thank you for commenting at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Opeth. All of your concerns have been addressed, and it would be appreciated very much if you were to go back and take a second look. Thanks, —Burningclean _{[Speak the truth!]} 05:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I've replied. It seems that the user you suggested has retired. —Burningclean _{[Speak the truth!]} 07:05, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Was that an unexpected thing? It is certainly odd to me. I go to contact him and his last edit was a retire notice the day before. —Burningclean _{[Speak the truth!]} 07:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

By "in this field" do you mean band articles? I've been through FAC with band articles already. If you have time, would you mind fixing what you see? That is the part I have a problem with on articles. —Burningclean _{[Speak the truth!]} 07:38, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for your help. Cheers, —Burningclean _{[Speak the truth!]} 07:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

FACs

Thanks for your kind note. I've been reviewing pretty actively for a couple months now; I heard you were busy IRL so perhaps that's why we haven't crossed paths there much. The particular FAC you mentioned is rather making my blood boil - if you have any comments about the issues I raised, I'd appreciate if you'd post there, be it for or against my stand.

(Forgive me for indulging in some train-of-thought here, but it's hopefully of interest, and I know Sandy will see it here too.) I'd like to see us come up with a better way to address stalemates between a nom and a reviewer; individually asking other reviewers to comment feels a bit like selecting your own jury, and the only other option seems to be waiting until it shows up on the Urgents template where someone might pick up on it. I'm leaning towards suggesting a reviewer noticeboard/talk page somewhere - a place to post "I've stalemated on an issue at x, commentary needed" or "Hey could an images person look at y". It could also help Sandy and those of us who are trying to pick up some of her old 'duties', by giving her a place to post notices like 'someone needs to address non-actionable opposes at z' so she can continue moving away from directly handling issues where she's concerned about a conflict of interest. Feedback? Maralia (talk) 17:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

So much to be done, Maralia. I've taken the hint from Roger and you and I'm being more aggressive about removing premature noms; at least until someone screams about that. I'm equally troubled, since Ealdgyth has been checking them all scrupulously, at the number of FA writers or nominators who outright admit that they don't seem to understand what makes a source reliable.

The shortage of reviewers is reaching critical mass because so many noms are coming through; most peer reviews are showing up empty, and I suspect that's part of the problem (editors have given up on PR or aren't getting adequate PR). Many FACs are languishing simply for lack of review; not because I don't have time to get through them. I'm not so much having a time issue anymore as I am just browsing FAC daily hoping for reviews so I can determine consensus for closing.

I don't want to do anything to force reviews (as in requiring that nominators also review other articles, or a reviewer noticeboard), since a review that misses the WP:WIAFA mark can backlog FAC more than no review on invalid Opposes or Supports that don't engage the criteria. I know who I can get to review X issues; Elcobbola images, Ealdgyth sources, lots of people prose, almost no one MoS (since Epbr123's absence), but the problem is that 1) that is like picking the jury, and 2) the good, discriminating reviewers are too few, so some FACs get stalled because of premature Support until someone else comes along and notices the deficiencies.

A classic stalemate right now, for the purposes of example for this conversation, could be this one; because it has sufficient support, but clear deficiencies, it ties up FAC until it gets addressed one way or the other. I don't know what the solutions are ... just adding my thoughts ... but solutions have to involve quality of reviews, more than quantity. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

All points to the need for a campaign to expand the pool of reviewers. Separate reviewers' noticeboard carries extra burden. Tony (talk) 02:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

... for the grammar fix[8]. Guest9999 (talk) 19:10, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Bone Sharps, Cowboys, and Thunder Lizards FAC

I think I've addressed your concerns; can you take another look? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 21:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Irreplaceable

I've addressed some of your concerns and will go over the article after I'm done with stuffs in real life. Thanks. --Efe (talk) 08:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Tony, I'll be out for days. If you have additional comments, please reflect it in the page; I'll be addressing it soon. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 12:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello Tony. DM already supported after addressing his suggestions and Skeletor would like to help polishing the prose, while commenting on the FAC page. I've also tried to address your suggestions. Please visit the page. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 03:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Financial conversions for HMAS Melbourne

Thank for your efforts at peer review. I have attempted to create financial conversions for all the financial figures in the article (see User talk:Saberwyn/HMAS Melbourne (R21)#Tony1). Unfortunately, the data you found does not reach back to the 1947 purchase value you specifically requested, and I'm having no luck finding any data that far back myself.

If you want me to post these into the article, give me a yell. -- saberwyn 23:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Have some diffs. I've done all I can find (which excludes the 1947 purchase at this time, there's a hidden note there as a reminder). All of the figures have been nbsp'ed, and are in the format (AU$foo bar in 2007). Is this sufficient? Anything else the article needs?

Lucida handwriting

Hey, much easier to tell the hyphens apart in this font....Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Could you do me a favour?

Hi mate, don't suppose you could me favour please? User talk:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a#Request for a check of "flow" Ryan4314 (talk) 18:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Cheers for that pal ;) Ryan4314 (talk) 19:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

List punctuation at Dispatch

Yes, it does read better as sentence fragments. I was doing a quick edit and didn't see exactly how the list was set up. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 13:40, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Miss Ima

Sorry, distracted by situation on AN/I, where lies are being told about me ... will take me a while to catch up today ... left notes/questions for you here. Will check later. Beautiful work :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Is this correct? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:00, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Request

I noted your comments on Song Thrush, and I've since discovered your helpful style guide. I'm planning to put up Chough, it's not ready yet (no range map), but I would be grateful if you could comment on the prose, so that I only have to deal with content-related issues (not that I can find anything that I have already incorporated). Thanks for any help or comments, Jimfbleak (talk) 06:58, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

NFC

I didn't read your last few messages on Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts after I had left my last message on that page, and I wanted to respond to some of what you said. I'm not very good with expressing myself, I know that, and I wish I were better at it. That doesn't mean I'm unable to give a valid opinion on the work that someone like you, who is good with words, does. Not only that, but you were constantly attacking me because of my shortcomings with written words, which was really insulting to me. Saying stuff like "I have nothing but contempt for the way in which he expressed his doubt" is pretty mean and hurtful. I wish I was able to express myself better, and I try my best to improve the way that I do express myself. I don't understand why you have to insult me like that. I never intended for the situation to be a big deal, and I never intended to discourage you from improving the wording of WP:NFCC. For what it's worth, I'm sorry for getting mad at you, but hopefully you understand why I was mad. -- Ned Scott 03:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Aang

I went over the article myself and copyedited it. I know it is still not perfect so I will be requesting some more help. I just wanted to ask if you could look it over and see if it is better than when you looked at it during its FAC. Thanks a lot. — Parent5446 ^{(t n c e m l)} 15:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

University of California, Riverside FAC

Hi Tony. Thank you for your extremely detailed and helpful feedback in the current FAC for the article University of California, Riverside, along with your advice in the first discussion back in January. I've just finished what should be one last copyedit, and I feel I've tackled the last remaining prose issues, including those you didn't specifically mention. Could you take another look at the article, to see if your concerns have been fully addressed? Thanks! szyslak (t) 02:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again! szyslak (t) 22:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

And yet another request to take a look

Hi Tony, I hope that gorgeous daughter of yours isn't keeping you too busy on the beaches because I'd like to ask your opinion on the Jacques Plante article (currently at FAC) to which I made some signficant contributions, most notably in copy-editing. I've been doing my best to follow your fantastic guide, and would appreciate your feedback on how I'm doing. No doubt we've missed a few points. Thanks, Risker (talk) 06:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to read through what must seem an odd topic for a resident of a non-hockey nation. Your comments are very much appreciated, and I think between Maxim and I we have taken care of your suggested modifications. Adhering to your guide has certainly paid off, although I will admit to having stolen a few ideas from Giano's essay as well. Risker (talk) 03:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Kannada literature

Hi Tony. I have requested the league of copy editors and others for a copy edit of this article in FAC. Can you suggest someone you know who could help me in the short term? Thanks.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 15:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Foreign letters

Is this following text perfect? No, no WP article is. But if anything, its flaws are it contains too little original script, and too much of that is oversimplified.

The lion's name, similar in many Romance languages, derives from the Latin leo,[3] and before that the Ancient Greek leōn/λεων.[4] The Hebrew word lavi (לָבִיא) may also be related,[5] as well as the Ancient Egyptian rw.[6] It was one of the many species originally described, as Felis leo, by Linnaeus in his eighteenth century work, Systema Naturae.[7] The generic component of its scientific designation, Panthera leo, is often presumed to derive from Greek pan- ("all") and ther ("beast"), but this may be a folk etymology. Although it came into English through the classical languages, panthera is probably of East Asian origin, meaning "the yellowish animal," or "whitish-yellow".[8]

There are a dozen possible letterstrings, most of them alphabetized on separate pages of a Greek dictionary, which could be transliterated leon; at least one of them is actually a word. So if the reader wants to look up leon conveniently, he must have either the Greek or a good transliteration before him. If we include both the original and the transliteraton, it is true we need not include the macron; but it is preferable to have both, leon for the Greekless, λεων, or rather λέων, for the Hellenist. (Note that actually including the Greek is the simplest way of including the Greek accent, which the Hellenist will value.)

There is a similar value, in avoiding ambiguity, to including the vowel-points in the Hebrew.

Why is there no hieroglyphic for the Egyptian? Because it is more difficult to find computer-renderable Egyptian fonts, although they exist, and fewer computers will actually display them; if this were not a problem, the use of inclusion is less: fewer readers will be able to profit from them.

It is not always helpful to indicate transliteration system; for Greek, at least, they do not have precise names (both Latinization and demoticization each cover a range of possibilities), and the chief purpose for indication is to permit the reader to reconstruct the original spelling - much more simply done by including the orginal. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I do not see your agreement with Narson; your proposed mandate would be most unfortunate. Do you realize that Chinese, in any dialect, has only a few hundred syllables, or less? Distinct words can only be distinguished by the characters. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

173rd Airborne Brigade Combat Team (United States) FAC

Hello, you put several comments on the FAC for the 173rd article, however you didn't respond to my asking for clarification and the FAC got closed later anyway. As this is my first FA, I am still unclear on why the citation style I have used does not work. It has been used in multiple sucessful GAs, and I don't see where it is different from what the guidelines call for in citations. Please offer me any advice you can so that I can fix the article, the citations seem to have been the single biggest issue. Thanks. -Ed! (talk) 01:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: 1988 PHS FAC Comment (I have responded to them)

I responded to your comments awhile ago and not sure if you didn't see my message that I left under the same section of your talk page as my first request. Could you please see if I have addressed your comments enough or see if you find anything else wrong with the article? Thanks. Hello32020 (talk) 21:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

RfC

I've started drafting a user conduct RfC that you might be interested in here. There's a lot of evidence to sift through and present, so I think it will take awhile to get it put together. If you'd like to participate, please feel free to do so. Cla68 (talk) 07:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ancient Egypt

Hi Tony, SandyGeorgia suggested we ask you to look at the math section in Ancient Egypt, to see if we are using the right formatting for the fractions. I appreciate this and any advice you can give on this article. Thanks, Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 00:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Tony, this is what it looked like, and these are the changes I made. It had that awful frac template in the text, which distorted the text; I changed it to fractions spelled out per WP:MOSNUM. Is that still correct ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:30, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Double Seven Day scuffle

Can you please take a look at my comments on the talk page of this recent FA, as a sanity check to judge if my concerns are incorrect or overblown ? Thanks. Abecedare (talk) 02:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Note: Eleven days at FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:54, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Just to be clear: I am not questioning the FA promotion at all! My only hope in bringing this up is to potentially improve the article if my concerns are valid; and to learn from the feedback, if they are not. Abecedare (talk) 03:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Not to worry, abc; that's not what I meant. I just wish more people would review at FAC; I let it go a full 11 days, when I normally promote after six. Would you be interested in looking at Kannada literature, which is also at FAC ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I skimmed the Kannada literature article, but knowing nothing about the subject, it is very heavy wading for me. I had the Double Seven Day scuffle watchlisted for review but other distractions kept me busy and I eventually read it only when I saw it promoted. For me, such off-beat FACs are most interesting to read and I still remember An Experiment on a Bird in the Air Pump fondly. Abecedare (talk) 03:21, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's a gem, isn't it? Well, frustrating ... 11 days should do the job. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:33, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look! Abecedare (talk) 00:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)