User talk:Tony1: Difference between revisions

FACs needing feedback ; view • edit
Mission: Impossible – Fallout	Review it now
I'm God	Review it now
You Belong with Me	Review it now
Hotline Miami 2: Wrong Number	Review it now
Blackrocks Brewery	Review it now

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 19:31, 20 May 2007

This editor is not an administrator and does not wish to be one.

Please click here to leave me a new message.

Featured article removal candidates view edit
7 World Trade Center	Review now
Music of Athens, Georgia	Review now
Mariah Carey	Review now
Pokémon Channel	Review now
William Wilberforce	Review now
Polio	Review now
Concerto delle donne	Review now
The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask	Review now
Geography of Ireland	Review now
Edward III of England	Review now
Doolittle (album)	Review now

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.

Previous discussions:

WP:MEDMOS

Tony, you know how strongly I believe in the guidelines at MEDMOS for keeping medical articles up to par. We had basic consensus on the Guidelines, but largely because of my travel, we slacked off on the discussion there, and wham, Radiant marked the Proposal as Historical, to our shock! Now, he says we have to go to the Village Pump to revive it <groan>—not sure if that's true, since most of us argue we had consensus, just got lazy and didn't finish, largely my fault. Anyway, if we do have to go to Village Pump, I'm worried about a copyedit. I don't want to ask you do it now, because I just left a long list of final things to resolve at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (medicine-related articles) so the text may change in the next few days, but can you add it to your list of things to think about over the next week? (DK, you too, if you're reading :-) Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure what is required in the short-term. Tony 03:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing; just a look at the actual guideline page in a few days from now, to see if it needs a copyedit before we maybe have to take it to Village Pump. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Tony 07:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, would you mind having a brief look when you get a chance? We still need to consult several other medical WikiProjects, so don't spend too much time on the prose (it's still subject to change). Also, Colin has tweaked it a lot, and he is a very capable writer, so perhaps if you find anything troubling, you can make talk page suggestions in a copyedit section? Thanks so much, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC) Thanks, Tony; nice work as always. When you have a chance, can you revisit and indicate on the talk page if you're satisfied with Colin's fixes? I want to stay on top of "striking objects" so that we can achieve consensus. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Musicals

Me again; what a pest. I remember we talked once about musical theatre articles; they are a wreck. Have a look at Hello, Dolly! (musical), and then see Talk:The Sunshine Boys; there seems to be a systemic problem. (Of course, MEDMOS is first :-) Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moon

A user reverted your copy-edit because s/he disagreed with one change.[1]. — Deckill er 05:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Britannica review?

Hi Tony,

Let me thank you again for your wonderfully scrupulous review of the Encyclopædia Britannica article. I followed your advice, and the article has been copy-edited by several experts, such as TimVickers, Phoebe, Ssilvers, SandyGeorgia, and Outriggr. Perhaps you could review the article once again, and see whether you can Support it? Thanks very much for your time and attention, Willow 22:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Devil May Cry

I have attended the lines you mentioned in the Featured Article Candidate page can you please take a look at them when you have time? feel free to leave comments on wich lines need work directly on my talk page that guarantees a faster action than the FAC page, thanks for your time. -凶 23:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC) [reply]

New look at Representative peer

Changes at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Representative peer; pls revisit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shahbag

Hi Tony, Can you please take a look at Shahbag, and copyedit where necessary? Nichalp suggested a copyedit in the FAC. We'd really appreciate if you could take a look. Thanks. --Ragib 21:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great ... thanks a lot for your help. --Ragib 22:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo is coming to Sydney

Sorry to spam you if you aren't interested. See Wikipedia:Meetup/Sydney#April 25th for more info if you are interested. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tamil language FARC

Hi, you made some comments and I've now fixed most of them and explained a few terms as well. Would you please let me know if these modifications and explanations are satisfactory? Would you help by pointing out what else can be done to regtain the FA? Thanks --Aadal 20:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jurassic Park FAC

Thanks for the advice. Would you be willing to come back and have another look? Thank you. Alientraveller 08:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Bignole and Firsfron have copy-edited the article. Please take another look. Thanks. Alientraveller 19:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello? Do remember "Reviewers who object are strongly encouraged to return after a few days to check whether their objection has been addressed." Alientraveller 14:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Atheism FAC

Can you look at the prose? I'm having a hard time with it, but can't explain. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Atheism SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jerusalem FAC

Can you provide some examples of the "bias towards Judaism and Israel [that] is variously subtle and not so subtle"? -- tariqabjotu 22:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think of the fix I proposed for the undue weight you said is given to Israel? nadav 12:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2012 Summer Olympics bids FAC

Hello, Tony. As promised, I contacted several WPs to request assistance on reviewing the article's prose; most of them are active members of the League of Copyeditors, where I've also added a request. So far, few have replied and those who did haven't made a deep review as I would've liked (some fixes here and there). Nonetheless, I performed another copyediting on the article after some time without laying my eyes on it. I wanted to ask you to have another look, to check if by any chance the prose is better. Thanks. Parutakupiu ^{talk || contribs} 00:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cameroon

Hey, Tony. I was hoping you might revisit Cameroon and see if you still take issue with the prose and oppose its FAC nomination. I've gone over the article again, and Picaroon has made some corrections. I'd also like more input from you regarding the use of semicolons in lists. You suggested I replace a couple instances of this with commas, but I'm not sure that's the right call.

Frankly, I'm flummoxed that the nomination has drawn so little attention. The country FACs are usually more active. Perhaps it's because the topic is a little-known African nation? At any rate, any further improvements you might suggest would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, — Brian (talk) 02:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. What's your interest in the country? Tony 02:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Hope you don't mind my moving the conversation back here to avoid fragmentation.) I lived in Cameroon for two years. I taught English there and did HIV/AIDS education in a high school as a volunteer with the U.S. Peace Corps. I've since gotten interested in the country's history and culture, so that's where a lot of my efforts on Wikipedia have been focused. — Brian (talk) 03:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mineralogy

Hi Tony, it's Eric once again (you know, the one pushing for Song Dynasty to get featured article status). I was wondering if you could take a peek at an earth science article that I've been working on recently. It's the article for mineralogy.

I know it's not FA material just yet, but it's well on its way. Do you mind giving some suggestions or valued opinions? That would be very helpful. Thanks.

--PericlesofAthens 03:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jerusalem's lead

I have made a few changes to the intro, per the conversation on Talk:Jerusalem and per a few suggestions on the FAC. I basically moved the Palestinian state piece toward the front and added a few intermediary sentences to set up the concept created by the sentence and the subsequent paragraph. Presuming this doesn't get reverted outright, I hope you will reconsider your positions on the FAC. -- tariqabjotu 06:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I'm confused about your objection to the current version of Jerusalem's lead. This version was born out of my suggestion (which you said was a good idea) to fix the lead by incorporating the Palestinian's claim to east Jerusalem as the capital for a future state. The sentences before that one were added to satisfy a bunch of editors who thought that this would make the article too recentist since it focuses on a recent controversy (relative to its 5000 year history). So the current version is an attempt to meld (at least) three different opinions on how the lead should look. Do you think these viewpoints should not be reconciled? It would be excellent if you could help us by suggesting an alternative opening at Talk:Jerusalem nadav 07:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I've driven my line hard, but I am a little put off by the attitude of some of the contributors in the FAC room. I'll look later. Tony 08:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Insistence pays off :). Tariq removed the word storied from the lead. nadav 22:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shahbag

The FAC has come a long way, but it may still need some copyedit. Would you care to take a look and advise? Aditya Kabir 16:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Writing on Wikipedia

Hi Tony, I'm becoming increasingly fed up by the low standard of writing on Wikipedia, something you've talked about a fair bit. I find it particularly frustrating when it involves policy pages, which I work on a lot, and I feel it's time to try to do something about it.

I was wondering whether it'd be worth setting up a Wikiproject for good writing, or a Society of Professional Writers and Editors, or something similar. I thought I'd ask you before proceeding in case you already know of one. If I did set something up, would you be interested? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking mostly about awareness raising. Everyone accepts we need to cite sources, not violate copyright, not engage in libel. Very few (it seems) think it matters that articles be written properly. So I was thinking of some kind of society/wikiproject, with a good-writers barnstar, and maybe an award we can place on talk pages to signify good writing — nothing rigorous like FA, but something members of the wikiproject could hand out in order to encourage people. And a bunch of pages about how to construct decent articles; maybe something about grammar. Maybe even a noticeboard where people trying to correct bad writing, but who are being resisted, can come for support. We have similar pages for sourcing, copyright, BLP, vandalism, so there's no reason we shouldn't have one for writing.

I'll take a look at the non-free content page, though I hesitate to get involved in policy I'm not very familar with. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Voice leading

Perhaps you and User:Turangalila can help me figure out what's going on with User talk:Hyacinth#Voice leading? Why are some comments green? Who said those? Hyacinth 18:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, where and when was this discussion of melodic voice leading? Furthermore, it's not redundant. Hyacinth 18:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I vaguely recall that melodic voice leading would be voice leading guided by voices and melodic concerns (polyphony), rather than that arising from chord progressions (homophony). Hyacinth 04:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a confusion of melody vs voice leading, melody vs harmony, and polyphony vs homophony. Voice leading is voice leading, and almost always arises from both horizontal and vertical factors. Counterpoint is voice leading in which the parts tend towards greater rhythmic independence. Tony 08:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Return to Song Dynasty Article

Hey Tony. The Song article looks much better now, and I was wondering if you could have a look-see to note any approval or disapproval of how it looks now. Thanks!--PericlesofAthens 23:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Assent

Hi Tony, if you get time can you revisit the above FAR as there has been some work on 1c. Thanks. Ceoil 19:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NFCP debate

Yes, I will withhold my suggestions for now. You're right that gradual change will probably have a greater chance of success than lumping all the change together. Punctured Bicycle 09:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's accurate to say that I'm willing to withhold my proposal for now and that I support the general push to reformat, trim, and clarify the language. To say, however, that I support the exact wording as-is would not be accurate, given my belief in my proposal.

I will comment on one aspect of your current draft. Criterion two says "non-free content is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original in the marketplace." I think it would be more accurate to say 'replace the original market—that is, demand—for the original'; it wouldn't be replacing the original object itself but the object's power to attract customers. In other words, under the current structure of the sentence, I think "the demand for" should go in front of "the original". Or the sentence can just be reworded to say "replace the commercial demand for the original," as market and marketplace are abstract.

It's worth noting that this criterion inspired my proposal to begin with. It's misleading because it only reflects 'effect of the use upon the potential market for the copyrighted work' in the law, but that is only one facet of that fair use factor. The other is 'effect of the use upon the value of the copyrighted work'—which can be interpreted more broadly. When we base our policy on the law but also wander from it, haze crops up. Punctured Bicycle 21:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1a

I understand, and I agree that compelling should stay in some way. However, when I think of "brilliant" prose, I think of flowery fiction (or excessive formality and ridiculously complex wording). I think having that professional emphasis on the 1a criterion (as we've been emphasizing in FACs) would help people realize what kind of writing is expected. — Deckill er 11:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Template Barnstar
		For your creation of the FAR/FARC template. It's only fair I extend this favor, since I received one on the template that copied your design :) — Deckill er 11:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's for the FAR Urgents template, not an image. — Deckill er 22:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have it on my userpage. Like I said, I copied the design for User:Deckiller/FAC urgents, which has been up for a month or so. — Deckill er 22:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also haven't figured out how to adjust the width. I think it depends on the length of the article names. I don't really follow the criteria; I usually follow a case by case basis. — Deckill er 23:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct about the width. Right now the table calculates the width needed to accommodate the text being displayed, so if one table has shorter text, it will have a smaller width. If you want to force the two to have the same width, you can specify a width in the code. For example, where the code for the table starts class="toccolours" align="right", using class="toccolours" width="50%" align="right" instead will cause the table to take up 50% of the available horizontal space. That's obviously too much to be practical, but lets you see the results. Pagrashtak 00:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Pagrashtak. Let's keep this in mind. I can cope with different widths, I guess, but if someone wants to force the wider one, I don't mind. The more important issue is to get these boxes appearing in more places. Are there people who are willing to put them on the top of the user and talk pages? Perhaps a reminder on the talk page of FACs. Tony 01:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you considered combining the two? Pagrashtak 04:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now there's an idea; what does Deckiller think? And Sandy, who updates the FAR/C one a lot. Tony 04:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free content and FA

Tony, I find it curious that you are interested in clarifying the non-free content policy; everyone else with whom I have corresponded in FAC merely disregards what I have to say about it. I just started monitoring FAC a little while ago hoping I could help clear up copyright issues, especially with the issues that happened with Scooby-Doo and Cricket World Cup while they were on the Main Page. I'm not sure anyone is ready to actually have to respect copyrights. Maybe our work is fruitless? --Iamunknown 06:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but I'm only interested in/capable of clearing up the language of the criteria. I see that as a foundation on which subsequently to make proposals for substantive change, if necessary. Tony 08:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, well I've only been met with distaste thus far; apparently based on my failure to realize that a "weak oppose" is significantly different than an "oppose". Everyone is so uptight. --Iamunknown 06:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tamil language

Any last comment on this one? Marskell 10:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FAC

I'm sorry if you think I was inappropriate for sectioning off your comment. I thought it would make it easier to respond point-by-point. I'm also fed up with the endless edit conflicts I've had today, which have been ever so frustrating. I'm just a passer-by at this FAC. At others, where I'm a nominator or co-nominator, I've sectioned off every serious objection or detailed comment in this manner, without anyone protesting. However, I tend to agree that it looks a little odd in this FAC as yours was the only one so-dealt with. Cheers, --Dweller 12:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review

Hey, your comments didn't upset me from the FAC but would you be kind enough to check the State Route 1002 (Lehigh County, Pennsylvania) article. I want the article to be ready for FA soon and your a great reviewer thanks. -- JA10 ^{T · C} 15:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Original Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		Thanks for your review which contributed to the Holden VE Commodore article being promoted to featured article status. Your dedicated attitude towards the subject is greatly appreciated. OSX (talk • contributions) 07:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: your Oppose on Pluto's FA page

Hello, I am Serendipodous. I am currently engaged in the push to have Pluto declared a featured article. As of right now, the article has seven statements of support and one of opposition. I would appreciate it if you could return to the article and provide a more in-depth critique. Once answered, I'm sure it will be the last hurdle before acceptance. I am pursuing this project essentially singlehandedly, so any issues you might still have can be addressed directly to me. I am a writer/researcher myself, and if my writing style is lacking in some way, I would appreciate advice on how to improve it. Thank you for your time. Serendipodous 09:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article review/The Simpsons

Hi,

A while ago, The Simpsons was promoted to FA status despite your objections to the prose. It's up for Featured article review right now, so if you have some free time, you might want to pay a visit. Zagalejo 19:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Genesis (band)

Another one that's been hanging around FAR too long. Ceoil has done some work on it. Marskell 08:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Thorpe

Have you looked at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Ian Thorpe? There's a whole bunch of arm waving going on; I was hoping you could cut through it with something meaningful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NFC criteria

I noticed you comment that you "wouldn't oppose a full revert". Why? The draft was posted for 10 days (and two days before that, in fact). This was announced twice on the talk page, with invitations for feedback and complaints. I spent a lot of time producing the new version; why would you revert it after I've done the right thing, going through a rather long consensus period.

To my logic, there is consensus if no one has complained or asked for changes under those circumstances. If not, what do you consider would be consensus? I even asked whether anyone wanted a different timeframe ... nothing.

Thanks for your edits; they're really good.

Tony 21:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to state the my edition wasn't necessarily an endorsement of the change.

Some of the concerns I've raised haven't been addressed. Did I missed something? Overall, I like the change. I would only keep backward compatibility with the numbering and, for a while, use a warning at the top explaining although the page's text has been recently drastically changed, no change in the policy was intended, and that any incoherence found should be automatically settled to the old version's meaning. --Abu badali ^(talk) 21:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sébastiani

Hi. I would expect the rejection of an article from FA to be done on the basis of a guideline, and I believe that it is only with knowledge of that we are expected to vote in the FAC. Can you, in all honesty, point out a guideline that is failed by that article? If so, I will discuss it and only it. I leave aside that you never wondered if there were any practical reasons for what I had done. Dahn 10:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iridion 3D

Per your comments on the Iridion 3D FAC, I've given the article a fairly thorough copyedit and was wondering if you'd care to re-evaluate. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 15:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shen Kuo article

Hey Tony, long time no see, PericlesofAthens here, how's it goin. :) First off, I want to thank you for your attention given to the Song Dynasty article, which is now at least Good Article status, and I hope one day will be lifted to FA status. However, as a sort of offshoot from that, I have edited and vastly improved the article on the contemporary Chinese scientist, statesman, diplomat, and author Shen Kuo (1031-1095 AD). I have successfully brought Shen Kuo's article up to GA status, but it has recently failed as a FAC. I was wondering, if you are not too incredibly busy, if you would have a look at it in the following week. Any edits or suggestions for edits on the talk page would be greatly appreciated, as I do not think the League of Copyeditors will get to it anytime soon (considering how the Song Dynasty article has not even been touched by them yet). Thanks.--PericlesofAthens 17:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bradley Joseph FAC

(copied from FAC) Recent copyedit completed Hi Tony. Another copyedit of this article was recently done. [2]. Wondering if you could have another look. Cricket02 20:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taiwanese Aborigines

Tony,

Thanks for the valuable observations. Some of the sentence work comes from trying to limit the info (it has been much longer). Feel free to copy edit in the body of the article as you see fit. You may be seeing things we are not and it would add to the entire flow. I would appreciate the help. Thanks again!Maowang 02:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: frogs

I'm not sure of a way to shorten an .ogg other than uncompressing, editing, then recompressing it. This would degrade the quality. --Russoc4 03:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I do have audacity, but i wasn't aware that it could edit the file without recompressing that which is already compressed. I won't be able to get to it now.. it's almost midnight. Perhaps tomorrow I can see what I can do with the file. --Russoc4 03:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History of Pittsburgh FAC

You left your comments related to the History of Pittsburgh FAC, but upon reading them, they appear to be intended for another article. Could you please make this correction to the History of Pittsburgh FAC page to clear up any confusion?PadreNuestro 15:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, I fixed this one for you; I moved the comments to Mimi Smith where you apparently intended them. [3] [4] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About and approximately

Heya. "Approximately" isn't as good as "about" WRT numerical estimates? — Deckill er 22:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's just that the x word is kinda ugly and five syllables. About is just plain, and two. The ugly one conveys no additional or technical meaning. I might add it to the list in the 1a article, but I don't want to be too dogmatic about it (whereas some of the others in that list deserve to be binned forever). Tony 03:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iridion 3D FAC

Concerns have been addressed. Could you please take another look? David Fuchs^{(talk / frog blast the vent core!)} 22:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Southeastern BC and daylight saving time

I responded to your query on the Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Daylight saving time page. By the way, have you had time to read the article and decide whether you support or oppose it as a candidate? Right now it has only two votes and it could use more review. Anyway, thanks for the comment. Eubulides 00:38, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Thorpe

Hi Tony, I recently saw this article went on FAR and thought I'd try to save it. I've done a lot of work removing POV, adding info, and adding references but it still needs some copy-editing. Given your skills I was wondering if you could look it over and give it a run-through. Quadzilla99 07:29, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

System Shock FAC

Regarding your objection to System Shock, I'm not sure how to find copyeditors. I've tried asking User:TKD and User:Deckiller, but they've stopped taking copyediting requests. I posted a request more than two weeks ago with the League of Copyeditors, but haven't gotten a response. I was wondering if you had any suggestions on people I could ask for assistance? JimmyBlackwing 20:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go to the list of FAs. There must be 20 games ones. I looked at the first one (3D thingo), and saw copy-editing by User:BACbKA. That took 90 seconds. You might spend longer identifying a priority list of the most likely to ask. Tony 21:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article has undergone a copyedit courtesy of User:Zeality. If you have time, I would appreciate it if you took a look at the article, to see if it is now up to your standards. JimmyBlackwing 23:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Unreferenced

Do you agree that Template:Unreferenced is poorly worded with that use of "any"? — Deckill er 11:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was reverted and referred to the talkpage. So it's just fine as "This article does not cite references or sources"? Shouldn't an "its" be included? — Deckill er 11:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I also think that "Material not supported by sources may be challenged and removed at any time." is stronger as "Unreferenced material may be challenged and removed at any time". Do you agree? — Deckill er 12:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it looks much better without "at any time". You don't think "Material not supported by sources" should be shortened to "Unreferenced material"? Or is there some sort of deficiency in that wording that I'm not seeing? — Deckill er 12:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. So it should be "Unreferenced material may be challenged or removed"? Sorry for spending so much time on this; I just don't want to get blazed :) — Deckill er 12:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mac Pro FA question

I'm a little baffled by the entire FA process. I got a few comments, but they seemed pretty vague. I tried to incorporate what I could from them, adding an overview area for instance. But then the entire process just died out, it seems that the reviewers didn't examine the changes (it seems that way, I have no real idea of course). But then at the end you mentioned:

"Research the edit-history pages of FAs on related topics. From the edit summaries and comparisons, identify the copy-editors. Get to know their work, and show them that you're familiar with it when you ask for a favour."

Again, confusion. Is there some sort of "out of band" process that keeps FA moving "in the real world"? IE, are there certain FA reviewers/copy-editors who's help should be brought in at the beginning of the process?

Maury 12:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks...

Hi Tony, Regarding the Indonesian FAC, I've just realised you're the author of the guide for criterion 1(a), which I trawled through earlier this year. I didn't do it again recently, perhaps mistakenly, thinking that I was editing with all that imbedded in my head (for example, i find it very hard to use the word 'also' now!). It should be reviewed again for Indonesia. Thanks for your lengthy response, and any further help, or just direction, you can give will be most appreciated.

A general grammar question I've often wondered about is, when when should sentences be broken by mdashs and when should it be commas? For example, should we say Fossils, popularly known as the Java Man, suggest the Indonesian archipelago was inhabited by Homo erectus. or, Fossils—popularly known as the Java Man—suggest the Indonesian archipelago was inhabited by Homo erectus. Can provide or point me to examples of their proper use? regards Merbabu 02:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Either way, but don't use more than one pair per paragraph is my rule. Em dashes are a sharper boundary than commas. Em dashes are particularly useful in text that already has lots of commas. Tony 03:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"however"

Tony, another general question: I was taught to not start sentences with the word "however", but to place it within the sentence. I notice this has been changed in a few places times by a recent (otherwise good) copy edit in Indonesia. Eg,

"Rising tensions, however, between the military and the Communist Party of Indonesia culminated in..."

has become:

"However, rising tensions between the military and the Communist Party of Indonesia culminated in...".

What are your thoughts on this issue generally? (ie, maybe the above is not the best example chosen). Merbabu 15:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your latest FAC comments - Saturday

I've addressed your latest request for the article. I have further developed the mention of corruption in the economy section. [5]. Also, both nominal and PPP GDP/capita figures now - exist, plus they and total GDP have been updated for 2006. The request to also include "nominal per capita income" is not clear. Maybe you are saying we just need nominal and PPP - hope you can clarify this, cheers. :) Also, if you get a change, can you look at my question above about 'however'. thanks Merbabu 15:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS, i wanted to spent today (saturday) copy editing a bit myself with your guide - for my own benefit - and then I was going to on the look out for a 'fresh set of eyes'. I started going through your '1a guide' again (i did it maybe 6 months ago). I did not get to do such a ce - interrogating IMF GDP data takes longer than i thought! thanks, Merbabu 15:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quotations

Hey Tony. I'm in my Business Writing class; is it true that all grammatical styles require periods and commas to be inside the quotes? I always thought it could go either way, especially on a diverse site like Wikipedia. — Deckill er 23:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a matter of grammar. I'm afraid I hate what I see as the illogical use of final punctuation within quotes when it closes off the whole sentence, not merely the quoted portion. It's the norm in North America (although not mandatory, I believe). The opposite is required, I think (not just the norm), by other anglophones, except for direct speech in fiction. I'd ignore people who tell you that you have to put them inside, but it's up to you. I change it where I find it on WP. Tony 00:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, we took a grammar pretest just to see where everyone stands. I got like 8 out of 65 wrong, but most of those were because I'm comma happy and so used to the Wikipedian Manual of Style, which integrates international standards. Nevertheless, the instructor is very good, and I told her about Wikipedia and copy-editing. I need to be careful not to overstep my bounds. — Deckill er 02:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Either way, Wikipedia and your 1a guide will be a good supplement to this Business Writing class, which has already been one of the best I've taken. — Deckill er 02:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In business writing, the need for plainness, clarity and brevity is greater than ever. You have to fight to be read and understood in the business world. That's why business writing is more sectionalised, from subheadings down to bullets. Allows a variety of people in a business to read (or gloss over) each part. Tony 02:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking forward to it. I just hope I don't lose too many points when I adhere to the WPMoS.

By the way, mind if I show her How to satisfy Criterion 1a and ask for her opinion? She also hates "due to the fact that" and "utilize" :) — Deckill er 02:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah well, there's hope 4 her yet. The article? Sure, it's in the public domain, being on WP. She might be insterested in the redundancy exercises. Perhaps I should develop a set of exercises on identifying and removing weasel words and tired phrases from business documents ... or perhaps YOU could?

The very next addition to exercises will be longer excerpts from which to identify redundancy. I think the existing show and tells are a good start, but don't test a key skill in improving WPian prose: spotting problems in larger windows of text. And then there's the problem of "the" for non-native speakers; keen to write a piece on that, plus exercises. Tony 05:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Tony, it's not public domain. It's licensed under the GFDL. By the way, our MOS mentions punctuation relative to quotations at WP:PUNC, if you haven't seen it. Pagrashtak 16:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Manhattan

In going through the process of trying to improve the Manhattan article, taking it to GA status and making an attempt at FA, I have received many useful and productive suggestions for making this a better article. Your snide remarks were by far the least constructive of any of any of the comments I have seen in this entire process. I would suggest in the strongest terms that trying to treat this as a collaborative process in which derisive remarks are not used would be far more beneficial for the Wikipedia enterprise as a whole. Alansohn 13:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Alan—I'm sorry that you've reacted negatively to my review of the writing in the nomination. Perhaps I was a little blunt; I suppose some of my stock statements come from having nominators treat prose reviews half-heartedly or from those who feel that merely correcting the examples is enough. My remarks weren't intended to be soft and polite, but I meant no snideness or derision. When you nominated it, I presume you were prepared to have your work picked over and criticised; after all, you're seeking a gold-star endorsement of it. You should have little trouble finding good copy-editors to lend fresh eyes to the text. You've worked hard to bring it to nomination, so it's worth enlisting others to use their distance from the text productively. I'd be doing that myself if I'd nominated an article. Tony 14:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the reply. I have often been in the position of being too close to a document I have written to appropriately verify the article's content. While I have worked extensively on sourcing what was already in the Manhattan article and adding what was felt to be missing, I recognize that there were chunks of existing text that I had never really reviewed with a critical eye. I have been more than prepared to have this (and any other article) picked over in detail, but I was a bit taken aback by the tone of your remarks. I have already started to make the changes that you had pointed out, and I will continue to go through the article with a more critical approach to ensure that the content flows, makes grammatical sense and covers the topic in appropriate fashion. I would appreciate any further comments that you might have as to how the article might be improved. Alansohn 18:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Main page date requests

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/dates is just beginning; will need your help eventually. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request

I think the worst thing about this encyclopedia and you Tony, is that you're so good to it, but we can't give directly back to you.

If you've got a spare moment—and if only—would you mind taking a look at my latest piece? I've written up Roy Welensky in the last fortnight.

Cheers either way. michael ^talk 03:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching the error in the DST image

Thanks for catching the error about southeast British Columbia in Image:DaylightSaving-World-Subdivisions.png. Wow, you have sharp eyes! Also thanks for persisting and helping me to see the bug. It's fixed now. Eubulides 04:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:White p.jpg

Hello Tony1, an automated process has found an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, such as fair use. The image (Image:White p.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a: exercises in textual flow. This image or media will be removed per statement number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. The image that was replaced will not be automatically deleted, but it could be deleted at a later date. Articles using the same image should not be affected by my edits. I ask you to please not re-add the image to your userpage and could consider finding a replacement image licensed under either the Creative Commons or GFDL license or released to the public domain. Please note that it is possible that the image on your page is included vie a template or usebox. In that case, please find a free image for the template or userbox. Thanks for your attention and cooperation. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 07:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. Period.

Thanks for your comments on Film Booking Offices of America. Because of your interest in copy-editing, I think you should know that your comment "I suppose you'll insist on retaining the ungainly U dot S dot, in the face of all of the other initialisms in the article that are unencumbered with this old-fashioned format. Like: 'U.S.-based'. Hmmmph" is way off-base. "U.S." is the standard orthography for the abbreviation at virtually all American publishers and newspapers with which I'm familiar. Simply do a Google Book Search on that particular phrase that offended your sensibilities, limit it to books published between, say, 2004 and 2007, and see just how far from "old-fashioned" "U.S.-based" is (look at the actual book pages, not the Google search page snips). Run the same test on the New York Times archives. This is the standard style, among a wide variety of publishers that dispense with periods for most other abbreviations, as I do. I don't "insist" on it because I like it (or feel protective of the "ungainly"); I employ it because it's the current standard.—DCGeist 08:17, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you dot es dot

I. just. expect. Americans. to. catch. up. with. the. rest. of. the. English.-speaking. world., which universally uses "US", as for NATO, PBS, etc. An increasing number of Americans have seen the light, no matter what the "authoritative" sources say. Apart from consistency with other initialisms and other English speakers, it's just so much neater. But if it's a religion to you, I.c.a.n.'.t.a.r.g.u.e. Tony 08:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a question of argument, it's a matter of fact. I'm ready to convert at any time. Just cite "An increasing number of Americans have seen the light." The extensive evidence I adduced suggests that's wishful thinking (aka U.m.a.d.e.i.t.u.p.). Hmmmmmmmmmmph (there's some U.S. excess for ya), indeed.—DCGeist 18:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Despite my irreversible familiarity with the text, I've addressed the rest of your points. Thanks again. Best, Dan.—DCGeist 20:02, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seen the light? I mean on WP. But please don't embark on a mass program of reversion. Tony 23:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Query: Are the followers of the initialism-consistency light also plumping for eg and ie?—DCGeist 04:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Plain English people promote "ie" and "eg", yet I was howled down by other professional editors for doing that. I think the clincher is that they're lower-case letters. Tony 07:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happier to see no use of eg, ie, e.g. or i.e. in the Encyclopedia: prose, please. Recently I saw a sentence in a FAC that started with E.g. ... is that compelling prose ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

("Egghead", they called me, for my eg that they reviewed.) Yes, it can be a hedgehog with the dots (just like you dot es dot, ahem); some of the e.g.,s and i.e.,s can be substituted by full spelling out, I agree, where brevity is not at issue. Tony

BTW, Dan, check out Wikipedia:Non-free content, which is heaving with Americans. I dare you to move over to the dark side. Tony 12:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've got 2-3 odds on you in your forthcoming cage match with Fvasconcellos: [6], [7].—DCGeist 19:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Longer examples

Thank you for that! My ability in picking out redundancies should improve after going through the more challenging exercises. I'm glad to see that you didn't forget. Gizza^Chat ^© 10:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Bhutan

The article needs more just copyediting and references. It also needs to be analyzed if it is comprehensive -- keeping only the relavent and core details. I noticed some irrelavent text such as "Bhutan has no formal relations with the United States either...", "While the Bhutanese are free to travel abroad, Bhutan is seen to be inaccessible to foreigners." I would try and salvage the article next weekend. Not much time till then. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WTF?

instead of getting angry at me, how about you check the effects of your edits before making them, there is a preview button. If you want to you can change the template here. Ta, Alec ^{-(answering machine)} 02:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did in the edit summary, Alec ^{-(answering machine)} 03:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No you didn't. Tony 07:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 381: / Line 381: @@
 :::::BTW, Dan, check out [[Wikipedia:Non-free content]], which is heaving with Americans. I dare you to move over to the dark side. [[User:Tony1|Tony]] 12:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
+::::::I've got 2-3 odds on you in your forthcoming cage match with [[User:Fvasconcellos|Fvasconcellos]]: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ANon-free_content&diff=132066950&oldid=132024892], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Non-free_content&diff=next&oldid=132066950].—[[User:DCGeist|DCGeist]] 19:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 == Longer examples ==