Wikipedia

User talk:Tony1/Archive 16

< User talk:Tony1
Latest comment: 8 years ago by Mikael Häggström in topic Issues in the Cerebellum article
Archive 10←Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17

Date Ranges in sports infoboxes

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello - I have noticed that you are doing a lot of MOS maintenance work. Thank you, that type of work often goes unnoticed. I did want to make you aware of an edit I reverted to Šarūnas Marčiulionis. You had changed the 8-digit (XXXX–XXXX) tenure with his first team to a 6-digit tenure (XXXX–XX). Last year MOS was amended to reflect Wikipedia practice of using the 8-digit data range in infoboxes and templates. You can see the guideline here. In the notes section, it reads "A date range may appear in 2005–2010 format if it is a range of sports seasons in an infobox." This was the result of a very long series of consensus discussions. It is somewhat newly-integrated into MOS so I can understand if you are nit familiar with it. Thanks and keep up the good work. Rikster2 (talk) 11:54, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Cuban missile crisis or Cuban Missile Crisis

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There is currently another vote taking place on the talk page of Cuban missile crisis whether to recapitalize the name or keep it in lowercase. You participated in the 2012 vote, and may want to voice an opinion or comment on this one. I'm writing this to the voters from 2012 who may not know about this vote. Randy Kryn 19:00, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

The Day Book

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, I've reverted your change to "The Day Book" per WP:UNDERLINK. In articles about metropolitan newspapers, the name of the city is almost always linked in the lead section, because there is a fundamental relationship between the newspaper and the city it serves. – Minh Nguyễn 💬 14:49, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't disagree with your reverting that. Tony (talk) 09:46, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
 

Thank you for improving Ngaio Bealum's page.

Denisrodman88 (talk) 03:14, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

88, you are most welcome. I do hope you stay to work on further articles. Tony (talk) 03:51, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 January 2015

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

DYK for Karolina Olsson

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:45, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Australian Institute of Music

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Tony - could you please have a look at the page? Needs a lot of work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.229.98 (talk) 01:10, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I may get time this weekend to have a brief look. Are you affiliated with AIM? And would it be possible for you to register and log in? Takes just a minute or two. Tony (talk) 01:36, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

RfC: linking pre- and post-nominals

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Greetings! There seems to be a new discussion, this time an RfC, about the linking of pre- and post-nominals. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 21:36, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Hmm... Just an idea, but perhaps e.g. KG would serve the purpose? :P Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 23:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

You summoned me?

Latest comment: 9 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

? Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 22:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

@Kamek98:, I wasn't expecting you to take up my offer. Um ... well, let me think of a sample: can you explain in grammatical terms the difference between "I don't think she knows" and "I think she doesn't know"? Tony (talk) 09:34, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
"I don't think she knows" shows that the speaker has uncertainty about whether or not she knows. (As in she may know, but she may not know) "I think she doesn't know" shows that the speaker believes that she doesn't know. (As in she doesn't know) I'm sorry if I'm bad at explaining. Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 01:10, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
OK, pretty good, I'd say, especially identifying that the speaker's/writer's angle lies somewhere between yes and no (some grammarians call this modality). May I suggest that this is the case for both examples, not just the first, and that the yes version would involve dropping the speaker's-angle bit (I think/I don't think) and stating the proposition alone: "She knows" (yes); "She doesn't know" (no).

While there might be a subtle difference in meaning between the two (I'm unsure exactly what it is—"I don't think she knows" vs. "I think she doesn't know"), English-speakers seem to use the first version more naturally, where the negative polarity (not/don't/doesn't) has been transferred from the proposition (she doesn't know) to the speaker's angle (I don't think). This grammatical shift is analogous to lexical metaphor, where the meaning of one lexical item is transferred to that of another (the fruits of their labour). Tony (talk) 05:55, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Ahh now you're getting deep into English grammar terms. Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 21:37, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Bach scholar

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I often quote a "new" Bach scholar, now started an article, Richard D. P. Jones, - we don't know much about the person, but the publications, recommended reading, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:01, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Gerda, thanks; I'll take a look when I can. Possibly in 15 h. Tony (talk) 22:56, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 January 2015

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 04 February 2015

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Script-assisted stuff

Latest comment: 9 years ago9 comments3 people in discussion

You're unlinking genres.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:21, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Like "adventure" and "comedy"? Yup. Tony (talk) 08:24, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
The date reversion: good call—occasionally I get them wrong.
I'll talk to Ohconfucisu about whether those genres might be excluded from unlinking. Tony (talk) 08:37, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Well I think they should just be replaced to action (genre) but you have removed links to science fiction several times. Also, on JoJo's Bizarre Adventure you removed a lot of links to the nations that serve as the settings because of whatever "common name" stuff I guess the unlinking thing suggests to do.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:45, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
OK, I've pinged Ohconfucius. Tony (talk) 09:31, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Well, maybe in some situations you don't link to like Italy but these are the settings of the work(s) of fiction.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:38, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Not so much the context of the anchor, but the vagueness of the link-target is at issue here. The very next "Parte" gives a specific location—a town without the country (which we should all know). The "Italy" in question would be better rendered as the city/town, linked, and if that location is not Rome or Venice or somewhere very well-known, followed by "Italy", unlinked. If a reader doesn't know what "Italy" is, they should probably go back to kindergarten; if they want more information on "Italy", including its gross national product, system of governance, international relations, and climate, they should type the country-name into the search box. The guidelines put limit on linking so that the links that are in the run of the prose at least stand out from the background and can be expected by readers to be of reasonably high value as sidelines to the current topic; individual links are, of course, subject to editorial judgement in their local context, but I see no reason here to link a whole, general country article. By contrast, I see that the word "mafia" isn't linked—wouldn't that be a higher-value target than Italy? Tony (talk) 12:39, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

The script assisted MOS edits to the Speak & Spell (toy) article: The actual toy is called "Speak & Spell" with the ampersand in the name itself. Should this really be changed (as was done with the script in December) within the Speak & Spell (toy) article to "Speak and Spell"? Likewise with references to other toys in the series. Lord Nightmare (talk) 06:45, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

@Lord Nightmare:—my apologies. The script doesn't do ampersands; I must have manually changed that, without checking the issue properly. I'll fix it now. Well spotted, thank you. Tony (talk) 08:31, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 February 2015

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Valentine Greets!!!

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
  Valentine Greets!!!

Hello Tony1, love is the language of hearts and is the feeling that joins two souls and brings two hearts together in a bond. Taking love to the level of Wikipedia, spread the WikiLove by wishing each other Happy Valentine's Day, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person.
 Sending you a heartfelt and warm love on the eve,
Happy editing,
 - T H (here I am) 12:21, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Valentine Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Question

Latest comment: 9 years ago13 comments6 people in discussion

Tony, for articles regarding Australian subjects, is it typical to include a single link for Australian cities and states (e.g., Sydney, New South Wales) or two side-by-side links (e.g., Sydney, New South Wales)? For articles about American topics, we strongly favor a single link (e.g., Atlanta, Georgia), rather than two separate side-by-side links for city and state. That being said, if most Australian editors favor two links for Australian city and state, I will happily comply when working on articles about Australian subjects. Please let me know what you think. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 10:04, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

No. States are not necessary for the large cities thank you very much for your enquiry. The only exception might be for "Perth" (there's one in Scotland), and where there's a substantial risk of ambiguity with a small town called Sydney in Nova Scotia. Normally not. For articles on internationally well-known cities in the US, I believe it is undesirable to include states (New York, New York?). Very 1970s, as though everything's an address on an envelope. Tony (talk) 10:08, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Would your answer change if we were discussing the birth and death place of Australians as stated in article infoboxes (and not prose)? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 10:56, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't think it matters. Australia is a small country, too—not much bigger than the LA district. The states are colonial relics that don't function well in locating the big cities in readers' minds. It's different for less-well-known regional cities, I'd say. (Mount Isa, Queensland, at least tells you it's not in the southern or western halves of the continent.) Tony (talk) 10:59, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I'm gonna put in a plug here for a pet peeve of mine, which is having two links side by side with no unlinked (non-blue) text to separate them, so you have to hover around and jiggle left and right to figure out what you're gonna get when you click. In some cases it's hard to avoid this, but with City, State-type cases it seems to me you should have just one big link to the city itself. Since undoubtedly the state is linked in the first few words of the article, the reader can easily get to the State from there if wanted. This reasoning applies as well for Australia as the US. EEng (talk) 03:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

  • EEng, I thought I'd stalk you and see what you were up to, and I find myself agreeing with you 100%. One may well wonder why place names should be linked in the first place (depends on the article, of course), but linking to a state has always struck me as useless. Happy days, Drmies (talk) 03:36, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
As they say, great minds think alike and small minds seldom differ. You're welcome to stalk me any time. Would you like to read something simultaneously tragic and beautiful? Lionel de Jersey Harvard (yes Harvard, and no I don't work for Harvard). EEng (talk) 04:03, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Agree with Drmies concerning the linking of settlement names, except that in articles that themselves are geographic in theme, it makes a little more sense. We link geographical items far too often on WP. Also agree with EEng's pet peeve about adjacent link-jamming—which is officially discouraged at wp:moslink. Linking, according to moslink, should also be located at the most specific targets, which appears not to favour the linking of states/provinces. There's a slight problem here where article titles include the state-name—this means you have to pipe it back to the settlement-name. Pity, all that. My practice is not to include the name of the larger "containing" entity if it's internationally known (New York, New York? And less obviously painful, for example: "Los Angeles, California"). Where the larger entity is included, I'd not link it without a good reason; the overriding reason is that the larger entity will almost certainly be linked at the start of the more focused link-target. (This was thrashed out years ago.)

As for Australian states—do you like "Adelaide, South Australia, Australia"? I've seen it more often than I want to. Tony (talk) 07:12, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Re the "pet peeve" of two links side by side - WP:SEAOFBLUE is the specific MOS guideline. Mitch Ames (talk) 03:26, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Re LA, NY, etc.: I would have thought you of all people would know about the provision that major cities worldwide (London, Berlin, Rome, NYC, Boston, SF, LA, Tokyo, etc etc and so on and so forth) aren't further qualified in text in most cases e.g. living in Tokyo not living in Tokyo, Japan. I can't find this now and it's too cold where I am to look, but it's somewhere in MOS. WP:USPLACE comes close with its talk re the AP stylebook, but still that's I'm talking about, exactly, because it refers only to the US case. I think you might get to it by combining the rules for titles (in which you don't normally say Tokyo, Japan) with some other rule providing that article text follows the rule for titles. EEng (talk) 10:05, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
This should have been at the Australian noticeboard or linked [1] - this stuff gones on forever... satusuro 02:01, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
I've changed SatuSuro's link to the specific section - which one might not guess otherwise... Mitch Ames (talk) 03:30, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 February 2015

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Strine question No. 2

Latest comment: 9 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

Tony, I have another Australian English question for you: is it acceptable to use the "m" for metres abbreviation in prose? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:16, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) In Australian usage, of course, the m is upside-down. Beyond that, see WP:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers#Unit_names_and_symbols. EEng (talk) 14:20, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, EEng. And your upside down "m" did elicit a smile. I'm familiar with the MOS section on point, which effectively gives the writer the choice of spelling out metric distances or using the common abbreviations. What I was asking from Tony was the preferred Australian way of handling it in formal writing (e.g., an encyclopedia near and dear to all our hearts). Care to offer a further opinion on this narrower bit? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:29, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Hmmm. Even if e.g. some Australian government regulation prescribes one use or another in certain formal contexts, I don't foresee that taking hold in e.g. newspapers and so on so firmly that it would be seen as a national variety. Just a guess. Tony1-who-sees-and-knows-all, what say you? EEng (talk) 15:14, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Well, to my way of thinking, "preferred" does not equate to "official," and I am inherently skeptical of governmental or quasi-governmental language mandates. That's more of a French than English approach. I already know that Tony is somewhat more "modern" in his personal use and acceptance of abbreviations, but I was hoping to get a sense of what is typical of Australian newspapers, magazines, and, yes, encyclopedias. My perception is that Wikipedia is generally more accepting of such abbreviations than American formal writing, and I believe that reflects an easier acceptance of abbreviations generally in British and Commonwealth English. The MOS sections on point, of course, basically give editors the choice, with several specific approved uses such as parentheticals. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:47, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
My post completely misled you as to what I'm saying; ignore it. Try it this way: in some countries you always see times of day as 21.30, never 9:30 pm or whatever (at least in formal publications like railway timetables). For whatever reason that's a style that took hold long ago, and stuck, and you can now say "that's the way they do it in Ruritania". But I just don't see something similar, anywhere, ever taking hold for m vs. meter (or metre -- let's just leave that alone for now). For one thing, there will always be times you need to spell the word out for whatever reason, and there will always be times you'll use the symbol m for compactness. Now, where's Tony1 to give us the final word on this? EEng (talk) 17:04, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
No difference I am aware of in usage throughout the English-speaking world. "m" is all over the place in road signs (regrettably sometimes unspaced, contrary to the ISO's requirement). Sorry to lag in replying. Tony (talk) 11:26, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the response, Tony. FYI, in the United States, road signs are still overwhelmingly posted with the distances shown in miles (usually abbreviated "m" for miles when the distances are also shown in "km" for kilometers). Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:30, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

You're up to 10, eh?

Latest comment: 9 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Or so I read above. Well, turn it up to eleven!

Meanwhile, don't I get one of those barmy stars or something for this? Never have I devoted so much time to the elucidation (for the level-headed) of a non-issue that for some reason triggers the peeving of ninnies. No I probably won't get one, because the ninnies won't appreciate it, while the level-headed will (very rightly) be uninterested. (FFS the planet's warming; humanity is doomed.)

Think I'll stop now, before I fall into harring and garring grisbayting. -- Hoary (talk) 01:00, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Isn't "comprised" a verb? Those were the people of whom the group comprised. Or in myspeak: Those were the people the group comprised. Either way. Tony (talk) 12:39, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, in both your examples it is indeed a verb. But your examples don't combine it with "of". Please see this. By contrast, in Standard [US + British + as yet undefined other] English, the verb can't take a preposition phrase headed by of. (However, in [mesolectal?] Malaysian and Singaporean English and probably other flavors of English besides, it can.) -- Hoary (talk) 02:32, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
She'd go of a night to church out of guilt. Is that standard, formal English? Tony (talk) 11:21, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
It sounds informal to me. This use of "of" in "of a night": without being able to look it up now in oed.com, I'd guess that it's a bit archaic in standard English but still entirely normal in various dialects. I don't see how it's relevant here: "of a night" (like "out of guilt") is merely an adjunct. Neither comprise nor go takes a PP headed by of as a complement, but plenty of verbs (despair, approve, smell etc) do. -- Hoary (talk) 14:36, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Relax duplicate linking rule (again!)

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi Tony, I know you're an ardent opponent of overlinking, so I'm sure that you'll have something to say about my proposal to reopen the issue of duplicate links at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Linking#Relax_duplicate_linking_rule. Let's see whether we can find some common ground! --Slashme (talk) 21:32, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Comprised of

Latest comment: 9 years ago13 comments7 people in discussion

Hi Tony. You're a MOS guru if I remember correctly. What do you think of the idea of adding some language to the MOS that discourages the use of grammatically questionable (at best) phrases in articles in general, and "comprised of/comprising of" specifically? 28bytes (talk) 21:25, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) MOS should not attempt to be a general guide to grammar and usage. If it's something that good writers all agree on, MOS doesn't need to repeat it. Here's my standard response to "let's add X to MOS":
It is an axiom of mine that something belongs in MOS only if (as a necessary, but not sufficient test) either:
  • 1. There is a manifest a priori need for project-wide consistency (e.g. "professional look" issues such as consistent typography, layout, etc. -- things which, if inconsistent, would be noticeably annoying, or confusing, to many readers reader); OR
  • 2. Editor time has, and continues to be, spent litigating the same issue over and over on numerous articles.
Item (2) would be the one applicable here, if any. Is there any evidence it does, in fact, apply? EEng (talk) 01:00, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Grammatically, neither "comprised of" nor "comprising of" is even a phrase. (Indeed, neither is even a constituent.) Grammatically, each string seems fine to me: they fit the well-established patterns exemplified by "tired of" and "tiring of". Lexically, there has been the reasonable objection that the verb comprise has the opposite meaning. Which it normally does, though for centuries it also has had the same meaning (check oed.com, or [cough] "comprised of"). As for the degree of use, there's pretty good evidence that "comprised of" is significantly commoner than either "apprised of" or "unconvinced of", neither of which raises hackles. There could be grounds for ignoring the degree of use and outlawing the construction if it gave rise to misreadings; but although I've seen non-specific charges of "gibberish" I've not seen a problematic example. Whichever way "comprise" etc are commonly used, they relate parts to whole; it's rare for parts to be easily confused with whole, so the dearth of problematic examples is no surprise. Moreover, "comprised of" (like it or not) is only used in the one way and not also in the other. -- Hoary (talk) 02:24, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Personally I avoid this verb altogether, as the recent redefinition seems abhorrent to me. Dicklyon (talk) 02:59, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not at all sure that this shows quite what you seem to think it shows; but anyway all WP contributors are free to avoid using the verbs and adjectives that they want to avoid using. (Hmm, have there been any persistently and constructively lipogrammatic contributors?) -- Hoary (talk) 03:23, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Not sure, but someone got in trouble for trying: Talk:Gadsby_(novel)#Please_do_not_write_in_a_lipogram_on_the_talk_page. EEng (talk)
@Hoary: This guy made all of his edits, to articles or talk pages, without "e" for a long time. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:56, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Ulp! (I've tried my hand at it, in email. Paralysingly difficult at first, but one warms to it. Though I think that for most writers other than Perec, any enjoyment that arises is experienced by the writer, not the reader.) -- Hoary (talk) 10:15, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
You've got that completely right. By the end of the Gadsby discussions, we were all incredibly frustrated by it. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:21, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
I had opportunity once to quote Gadsby in a paper (in a footnote, of course...):
Gadsby was walking back from a visit down in Branton Hills' manufacturing district on a Saturday night. A busy day's traffic had had its noisy run; and with not many folks in sight, His Honor got along without having to stop to grasp a hand, or talk; for a Mayor out of City Hall is a shining mark for any politician. And so, coming to Broadway, a booming brass drum and sounds of singing told of a small Salvation Army unit carrying on amidst Broadway’s night shopping crowds.
My comment was: "Branton Hills must have been something of a hardship post for Salvation Army personnel, there presumably being no water or tea available, though perhaps they could resort to milk and soft drinks." EEng (talk) 00:46, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Recently heard a radio interview with this WP editor who focuses entirely on this issue: User:Giraffedata/comprised of, maybe Giraffedata would like to weigh in. Liz Read! Talk! 03:17, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I think we've heard plenty from him, and EEng wanted to hear from Tony. Tony was in a discussion about this here early, and if I recall correctly he's OK with both uses. But I'm interested in hearing from him, too, as I might not have read or remembered right. Dicklyon (talk) 03:30, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Personally, I too abhor this usage, which seems to have crept into a small minority of occurrences in books. There are three standard choices, I recall: in plain singular third-person present, consists of, is composed of (passive), and comprises. Of these, the first two were regarded by Fowler in the 1920s as subtly emphasising the components, and the last one the whole; while that resonates with something in me, Fowler is not a reliable source, in my view, and never was. The expansion of comprise/s to include the passive (is/are comprised of) may have been by lexical "leakage" from is/are composed of, or by a bigger leap, a grammatical morphing from the active-voice consists of (hardly anyone would say comprises of). According to Ngrams, in 2000 the ratio was 32.6 consists of for every 6.8 comprises, every 5.4 is composed of, and every 1.0 is comprised of. The relative occurrence of the last one is probably greater in less formal registers than books; but WP articles are written in a fairly formal register. We have to accept that it this urchin has crept into usage, and all we can do is to discourage it. EEng is right to point out that MOS has a reasonably high bar for new entries. MOS does, however, deal with things such as apostrophes. If there were consensus for discouraging the urchin in MOS, perhaps? But it's probably too much trouble to gain consensus, and wouldn't have much effect even if it were added to MOS.

I'm hardly here until early March, when my crazy work pressure will ease. Tony (talk) 09:52, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 February 2015

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 25 February 2015

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I saw looking through my archive when...

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I found this. Oy gevalt! ResMar 23:40, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 March 2015

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I thought you might enjoy

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

a good chew on an MOS/ENGVAR/archaic English issue: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Archaic_spellings. Feel free to shoot down my arguments, you often do, but I bow to your MOS prowess. --Dweller (talk) 14:24, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 March 2015

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Precious again

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

interest in knowledge being interesting
Thank you for raising the level of quality at DYK last summer, – admitting that what you asked at first seemed an extra load and complication, but thinking now that you achieved a lot in terms of more interesting, more concise information, - repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (19 November 2010)!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:41, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Three years ago, you were the 67th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:00, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 March 2015

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:35, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

.

Reference errors on 21 March

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

  Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I've asked Ohconfucius for advice. Tony (talk) 01:52, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Who cares?

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Stop that. Can't you see that we're busy arguing over real issues over here—like who's called who who's called who sexist? ResMar 05:28, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

They're both important. Tony (talk) 05:51, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

.

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Partly. Thanks. Hafspajen (talk) 18:10, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost – Volume 11, Issue 12 – 25 March 2015

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:25, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Rowley Richards

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I have created a small article on Rowley Richards. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:11, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh, that's great. I look forward to seeing it evolve, and I can assist with my narrow scope of skills where you see it helps. I have no sources. Do you have his two books at hand, and access to any relevant War Memorial data? Tony (talk) 14:16, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't have have his books, so the article is entirely created from online data. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:36, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

English language#Grammar

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Hi Tony, if you have some extra time any comments on the grammar section of English language would be appreciated. I have tried to make sure as many of the major topics as possible are covered and that the section gives a fair overview of how English works without going into unnecessary detail on any single topic. If I have left out some major aspects that definitely merit a sentence or two or perhaps even a paragraph or subsection I'd appreciate if you'd let me know.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:11, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi again, I am considering nominating the article for a GA review, so maybe you would want to be the reviewer? That would make it possible for you to have influence on the article without having to do a lot of editing yourself? Even if you wouldn't want to do the review, I would be very happy for any comments on what you would like to see changed over the next few days.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:47, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost, 1 April 2015

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Talk back

 
Hello, Tony1. You have new messages at User talk:The Herald/Talkback.
Message added 05:47, 1 April 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Signpost: 01 April 2015

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Talkback

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
Hello, Tony1. You have new messages at Talk:Switzerland.
Message added 13:59, 9 April 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ZH8000 (talk) 13:59, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 April 2015

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Station stuff

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Since you participated in the RM discussion at Talk:Greenbelt Station#Requested move 7 February_2015, you may have thoughts worth commenting on at the related RFC at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (US stations)#RfC: some proper talkin' about station title conventions, including especially the survey at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (US stations)#Simpler questions / concise survey. If so, please comment there. Dicklyon (talk) 05:25, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Jr. comma RfC

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

You're invited to participate in the discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#RfC:_Guidance_on_commas_before_Jr._and_Sr. Dohn joe (talk) 02:00, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 April 2015

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Talkback

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
 
Hello, Tony1. You have new messages at Jc86035's talk page.
Message added 07:01, 18 April 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 07:01, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Mea culpa. Tony (talk) 11:51, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
 
Hello, Tony1. You have new messages at Talk:Switzerland.
Message added 11:48, 18 April 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I am still wondering about your answers. ZH8000 (talk) 11:48, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I haven't been back and didn't notice it on my watchlist. Will look soon. Thx. Tony (talk) 11:51, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 April 2015

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

A barnstar for you!

  The Original Barnstar
Neatly described. Palash Ranjan Sanyal 03:29, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Page move: Kuwait Governorate

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I noticed that you moved Kuwait Governorate to Kuwait governorate. As this was done without consensus, the page has been moved back. Please see WP:MOVE in future for correct protocols. Thank you. Nick Mitchell 98 (talk) 13:49, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Talk:College Scholastic Ability Test (South Korea)

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

You were involved in this article. I invite you to an move request discussion. --George Ho (talk) 08:38, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Rowley Richards again

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Just a note to let you know that this article was run on DYK on Anzac day, and was well-received. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:14, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 April 2015

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 06 May 2015

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

RfC: Guidance on commas after Jr. and Sr.

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Following the closure of a recent RfC you participated in, I have started an RfC on the separate but related issue of commas after Jr. and Sr.. Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) § RfC: Guidance on commas after Jr. and Sr. and feel free to comment there. Thanks! —sroc 💬 06:03, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 May 2015

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 20 May 2015

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Dhritarashtra

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Can you redo the corrections to the article? I had to revert an IPs inexplicable edits to the article, and couldn't figure how to do that w/o reverting your subsequent fixes. Abecedare (talk) 04:25, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

If you first manually downcase all of the titles, as I'd done. Tony (talk) 04:28, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
I just left a note at the IP editor's talk page about that issue. That's easy to do manually, and after that you can rerun your script if you have the time. Abecedare (talk) 04:35, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

WP:LQ challenge: leave off the personal stuff

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Tony, I know you don't like it when people come in and challenge WP:LQ, but this is two times you've complained about me by name, and it sounds like you're accusing me of leading some off-Wikipedia movement. Don't make this about me. This is a very touchy subject and it's worth some effort to keep it from getting personal. And please, don't repeat assumptions about how you think I see things. If you want to know why I do what I do, ask me. You've shown you can have a reasonable conversation. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:27, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

OK, that's fair. Tony (talk) 14:36, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Modifications

Latest comment: 9 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Hello. I understand everything you wrote on my talk page. But all you've "done" on pages relating to women's basketball for what you said back at the kind of situation before you changed anything for two reasons:

1. Because these are matters which are of international importance

2. Just as I had done do many other users on Wikipedia untied only for women's basketball, but also for other sports

I hope you all understand what I said and why I'm doing so they already do. Nn94 14 (talk) 13:13, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't fully understand your meanings. You've provided no reasons the articles shouldn't comply with our guidelines. Tony (talk) 13:50, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Of course it should be done according to the rules of Wikipedia itself. But why do not усе and the articles that are edited by other users? Nn94 14 (talk) 13:57, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Nn94 14, I'm trying to understand what you're saying. I stumble at "do not yce and". Could you possibly write it in a different way, and I really will try to engage with your point. Tony (talk) 15:42, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 May 2015

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Script SNAFU

Latest comment: 9 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

While checking some {{convert}} issues, I noticed strange values at Clinton, Mississippi. Checking finds they are due to a script-assisted edit from 5 December 2014. That included changing the first of the following lines to the second (changes dots to commas): 

the city has a total area of {{convert|42.147|sqmi|km2}}, of which {{convert|41.822|sqmi|km2}} is land and {{convert|0.325|sqmi|km2}} is water
the city has a total area of {{convert|42,147|sqmi|km2}}, of which {{convert|41,822|sqmi|km2}} is land and {{convert|0,325|sqmi|km2}} is water

That means the total area in square miles was changed from 42 to 42,147. It's easily fixed in this article, but I'm concerned about possible errors in other articles that may have been introduced by anyone running the script. Do you know how that could have occurred, and whether it might have happened elsewhere? Johnuniq (talk) 04:51, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I just found another: 10 November 2014 which replaced dot with comma in "{{convert|0.342|m3|ft3}}". Johnuniq (talk) 05:01, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting this, John. Pinging User:Ohconfucius for assistance. On further investigation we may be able to narrow down the criteria for repair. I'll check the two articles you mention now. Tony (talk) 06:31, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

  • this is partly an issue of excessive precision - rarely do we need three decimal places, however, we often see instances of editors from continental europe using full stops as thousand separators, hence the script detects that string and converts. i have now tweaked the script to make the string more specific. -- Ohc ¡digame! 06:47, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

If you were vexed before...

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

... just enjoy the wealth of excitement that Askam Borehole brings us courtesy of DYK, soon to be on your mainpage! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:35, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Which will be swiftly followed by the epic that is Wildcat Creek (Lackawanna River). The Rambling Man (talk) 09:06, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
It's like the engine stalls in the middle of these articles; then putt putts to a tentative rumble again. Tony (talk) 16:04, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 June 2015

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please see Commons:File talk:WMF Board candidates 2015 propositions.jpg

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I left a msg. there for you. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:21, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

The gist of my comment - especially the "thank you" part - also applies to Commons:File:WMF Board candidates priorities 2015.jpg. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:32, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
I've commented there. Yeah, I did do that, but it's a combination of histogram and Excel, which could be programmed to display a bold coloured line along the bottom at "1". But alas. So it looks like histograms are a bad choice for that kind of display. Tony (talk) 03:03, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 June 2015

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 10 June 2015

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 17 June 2015

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 24 June 2015

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 01 July 2015

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Wikipedia Library needs you!

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:

  • Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
  • Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
  • Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
  • Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
  • Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
  • Research coordinators: run reference services



Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)


You're invited to the Ally Skills Workshop at Wikimania!

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Thank you for contributing to the grant request for training Wikipedia admins to be more aware of sexism! This grant has been approved in pilot form, and the Ada Initiative is running an Ally Skills Workshop at Wikimania 2015. This workshop will focus on teaching specific skills and techniques directly relevant to Wikipedia admins and editors, and in particular will teach people about the psychology of trolls. The workshop will be on Thursday July 16 from 2pm to 5pm in Don Diego 3.

If you are attending Wikimania, you are invited to apply to the Ally Skills Workshop! Space is limited and we may not be able to accept all applications, so apply now. More information, including a link to the application form, is here:

Ally Skills Workshop description and application form

People of all genders are welcome to attend. Unfortunately, travel scholarships for Wikimania are already closed and we don't know of any other sources of travel funding. If you know anyone else attending Wikimania who might be interested in attending this workshop, please encourage them to apply!

Thank you for your time,

Valerie Aurora (Instructor and Interim Executive Director of the Ada Initiative)

Valerietai (talk) 20:51, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Gregorios Bernardakis

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

For the most part, the bot-assisted edits that you made to Gregorios Bernardakis are helpful, but the process did add some inappropriate hyphens to all the instances of non in the Latin quotation of Cobet. Is there a way to reverse these without affecting the other edits? --Jpbrenna (talk) 05:53, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi, please do not revert in ways that damage the article. In particular, you've relinked words such as "library" and "professor". In what way are those items not readily understandable by English-language readers? You've also changed the correct range-dashes back into hyphens. I've redone the article, but manually removed the hyphens from the Latin "non". Thanks for picking that up. I'll alert User:Ohconfucius about that. Tony (talk) 12:44, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 July 2015

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello there, Tony! I wonder if you're having your holidays there in Australia as the difference between summer and winter is rather mild, isn't it? :-) Well, we're having our summer holidays here in the northern Hemisphere right now, but anyway... Could you please have a look at this section Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking#Discussion of individual edits (2) where the individual edits have been discussed? The main reason I reverted the edits of user EEng is that they are changing the meaning or tone, weakening the current guidance for smart linking. Well, out of twelve edits, I do approve of five, as they are mere copy-edits. Besides me, there are two more editors who more or less disagree with the series of edits. User AlbinoFerret and I have also brought up the issue that an edit war happened to keep the changes

There's a also been made few more edits that weaken the guideline in my opinion:

  1. This edit[2] changed the meaning from "Generally, a units should be linked only if..." (conditional rule) to "A unit should also be linked if it is being directly discussed (see use–mention distinction)" (absolute rule). As the previous paragraph doesn't give an absolute rule "should", it'd be incorrect to say "should also be linked" as far as I am concerned.
  2. This edit[3] changed the tone from "...linking them may be useful..." to "Linking should not be necessary if...". Well, linking units is not necessary: the original guideline says it "may be useful". The new guideline indicates that it is necessary, unless...
  3. This edit[4] changed the tone from "...words are not linked that are needed to aid understanding of the article..." to "...'links that many or most readers would find useful in understanding the article...". This will open a door for endless debates, e.g. "I'd find this link useful for many readers". Indeed, the more exact expression "needed to aid understanding of the article" are replaced by a lot more ambiguous terms like "many ... most ... find useful".

I hope this helps to lighten up my position on the edits. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 18:43, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Do_not_emphasize_nationality_without_good_reason?

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Why did you say this in your comment when you edited? I can't see you have de-emphasized anything like it in the article. Bandy Blues (talk) 18:48, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 July 2015

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 22 July 2015

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

No one cares

Latest comment: 9 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Oh well. I sat here and cried and cried because no one said anything about my tenth anniversary on Tuesday 14 July. Tony (talk) 10:56, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

You missed mine as well... I sobbed too, then I watched the cricket, and now I'm feeling much worse. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:00, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Happy anniversary to both of you. --Dweller (talk) 11:03, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
<sniffle> ... thank you. Tony (talk) 11:23, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
It isn't that no one cares, Tony. I forgot. Happy belated tenth anniversary - a milestone - to you. Very respectfully, Tiyang (talk) 23:19, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Community desysoping RfC

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi. You are invited to comment at RfC for BARC - a community desysoping process. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:30, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to join the Ten Year Society

Latest comment: 9 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion
 

Dear ,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Ten Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for ten years or more.

Best regards, Liz Read! Talk! 11:25, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Scott used to issue these invitations and maybe he will start doing so again. I issue this in his stead. Liz Read! Talk! 11:29, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

That's very kind of you, Liz. It does, of course, bestow immunity to admin and arb actions, so I'd be pleased to join. Tony (talk) 12:44, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
No, you're thinking of "employee of the Wikimedia Foundation". – iridescent 19:06, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Don't forget the pension Tony... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:09, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Pensioned off? I've only just started! Iri, I seem to remember one WMF employee/contractor who ran afoul of ArbCom. <cough> Tony (talk) 07:34, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

"Do not emphasize nationality without good reason"

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

In what way do you mean, is nationality emohasized without good reason in the article about the four nation bandy tournament in 2014? I would like to know, so I can deemphasize it and not do the same misstake again. Skogsvandraren (talk) 06:50, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 July 2015

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 05 August 2015

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 12 August 2015

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Request for comment

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion on the deprecation of Template:English variant notice. Since you've had some involvement with the English variant notice template, you might want to participate in the discussion if you have not already done so.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 07:11, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Latest comment: 9 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Greetings Tony1, I noticed an edit you recently did with your script that I think might be doing something it shouldn't. In the edit your script did here it removed several websites from the references and I don't think it should be doing that. I spot checked a few others with large removals and it seems to be occurring as far back as May, maybe even further. Anyway, I just wanted to let you know. RingofSauron (talk) 20:04, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

The list of female mathematicians snafu

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Could you do me a favor of calming down and explaining more clearly on the talk page what's wrong with the content, rather than attacking the other editors involved?

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:16, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

No, I won't calm down, although I'd be happy to do you favours in other circumstances. The issue is the iron-fisted control exerted over the page by Eppstein—over entry length and theme, and what images may be included in the list.

To my way of thinking, if a good, free image exists of a mathematician worthy of listing in that article, there's no reason why it should not be included; the fact that I took and uploaded the pic some time ago is neither here nor there: the list has very few images; and we're generally short of bio images in this field. I'd go through and add other pics if I hadn't been corruptly prevented from editing the article by Drmies, who seems to be teaming up with his admin friends to allow the edit-warrior admins to continue to edit the article. Drmies can only utter insults to me like "act your age", which as a long-time admin he should have worked out by now simply adds fuel to a fire—has he heard of diplomacy? It's not his strong suit.

The situation had been worsened by article-owner Eppstein's pointy favouritism with respect to an image inserted today by his admin friend Rockmagnetist. But my insertion of an image two days ago when improving the subject's entry was ripped out straight away by Epstein, who controls this kind of thing and is willing to collude with other admins to retain that control. Tony (talk) 01:28, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Re: Admins editing protected pages

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Replying to your query to me here:

  • I suggest that it's unacceptable for admins who have been edit-warring on an article to make any edits once it's been protected. That is certainly advisable.
  • ... if those admins couldn't be trusted not to edit-war, why should they be trusted to edit the article during protection. It's the same general principal that lies behind 3RR, in that there is no "technical" (ie, software) bar to reverting the fourth time, but the penalty for doing so rises.
  • And who is to mediate on whether their edits are on or over the boundary of "controversial". The idea is not to get close to the line. If any disputant in the discussion believes that a post-protection edit is controversial (and that contention is not obviously and completely nonsensical), the involved admin should self-revert or at least get an outside opinion.

There are some policy pages somewhere making the above points, but frankly all this is, or should be, common-sensical. Abecedare (talk) 02:27, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. Common sense hasn't been characteristic of this incident, and it has been very poorly handled by Drmies. Tony (talk) 02:59, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Admin corruption

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Collusion against non-admins seems to be the theme of the day. The latest involves the talkpage of the disreputable Drmies, who directed insults at me in one post and then removed my response. His admin friends Floquenbeam and Neutralhomer have leapt in to revert my reinstatement of my response. They now stand accused of the same herd-corruption.

I repeat what has been expunged: Drmies is a profound failure as an admin, and should resign. Tony (talk) 03:31, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I saw your meltdown. Posting stuff like the above might give a temporary warm glow, but think about the fact that when you have taken a few hours off and are able to reflect on the issue, the history of your talk page will retain a memento of the meltdown. It's probably better to just switch off the computer. Johnuniq (talk) 03:49, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
No thanks. When I see extraordinarily poor behaviour by admins, and aggressive page ownership, I stand up to entrenched interests. Tony (talk) 03:59, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
  The Copyeditor's Barnstar
For that thing we haven't published yet. Gamaliel (talk) 04:44, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Seriously - what do you suggest?

Latest comment: 9 years ago29 comments3 people in discussion

Tony1, you have made a lot of fine contributions to Wikipedia. A few years ago, I worked through your editing exercises and thought they were excellent. I would like to hear from the person who made those contributions. If you don't like my proposals for List of female mathematicians, then what guidelines would you recommend? I have no axe to grind here; I have only made 7 edits to the list, and don't have strong feelings about how it should look. RockMagnetist(talk) 04:47, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

RockMagnetist: thank you, I appreciate your message. Since there's been unresolved conflict about length, theme, and image inclusion, unfortunately it seems that article-specific rules will have to be developed. It's boring, isn't it. The article, like most WP articles, is work in progress; so enforcing one person's idea of brevity to achieve consistency of treatment will be very limiting if our aim is to provide the basic info for all bio subjects eventually—don't you think? My view is that image use should be inclusive rather than exclusive, and that entries should list major achievements, areas of expertise, without being too long (but certainly this arbitrary enforcement of brevity isn't working in some cases—the one I tried to improve with the judicious addition of a prestigious research fellowship has now had her area of expertise stripped from it, as payback). Tony (talk) 05:07, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
@Tony1: Although it would be nice to be inclusive with image use, how would you include the images for every person in the list? Where would they all fit? And if they don't all fit, what do you do? RockMagnetist(talk) 05:24, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
There aren't many pictures. Problem solved. When we approach a situation of having too many to fit down the side, a gallery could be appropriate—or then start to ration them. I don't see the need for rationing at the moment. Tony (talk) 05:33, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Maybe not; but there is something to be said for a top-down approach. If we are going to have a picture in section J, whose should go there first? My impression is that Katherine Johnson is more notable. RockMagnetist(talk) 05:42, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
It's too clunky to compartmentalise the pics within letternames, in my view. And it really depends on how wide you make your browser pane—many readers have it across the entire width of their monitor, so our image placement is always a hit-and-miss affair in terms of adjacency to section titles. Tony (talk) 05:50, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
How do you avoid compartmentalizing the pics? Each picture has to go in a section, and the sections correspond to letternames. RockMagnetist(talk) 05:54, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
  • The pics will automatically bunch down the right irrespective of section titles. You could, for example, simply add all image syntax in succession at the top, but that might look disorganised at a certain density of pics. I don't see any utility in allocating letternames as the key to image rationing. Tony (talk) 05:57, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Well, if nothing else they give us a rough guide how many pictures will fit before the article looks cluttered. My feeling is that something like 10 pictures that represent the best combination of notability and picture quality would best serve this list; and most likely, those 10 would be in separate sections. RockMagnetist(talk) 06:03, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
An unexpected benefit of the top-down approach: By attempting to identify the most notable women so I could include their pictures, I identified some articles that are sadly lacking in pictures: Maryam Mirzakhani, Cathleen Synge Morawetz and Nancy Kopell. I have contacted some copyright holders in an attempt to rectify this situation. RockMagnetist(talk) 06:35, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Epstein says my addition to the entry went "on and on". Really? It added her current, very prestigious research award (five year research project) and the Hardy, which is a really big deal, to make a huge total of 19 words (many others are around 15 words—so?). The London Mathematical Society's Hardy Lectureship is also prestigious, yet you've removed any mention of it from two entries—one of them was the first time a woman had received the Hardy. Perhaps one has been reinstated—I can't be bothered checking what was allowed and what wasn't. And apparently we're not permitted to know her mathematical specialty. Tony (talk) 05:50, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
You say that the Australian Laureate Fellowship and Hardy Lectureship are prestigious, but are they notable? Do you want to see a list of all awards, notable or otherwise, for each person? Would that be interesting or useful? RockMagnetist(talk) 06:16, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Compare, for example, Ingrid Daubechies#Major awards. RockMagnetist(talk) 06:24, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't think there would be any issue in proving notability (Laureate is more than $5 million, and only one mathematician every three or four years gets one, at a guess—sometimes foreigners, sometimes not; Hardy is highly influential and one per year, with significant exposure to the international mathematics community). The awards listed for Daubechies look splendid, although probably too numerous to list on the List page: the IEEEs, for example, are very good, but not worth mentioning unless in the absence of anything better; I don't know about the BBVA ... six are listed in the infobox, and could be investigated to prune back to the most significant. But certainly some are worthy of mention, even in a short-form list. Tony (talk) 07:03, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

One interpretation of due weight would be to list all prizes that meet or exceed some standard - so if the two awards for Joshi are mentioned, then Daubechies should get around six. That would be a lengthy entry for Daubechies, but there aren't many at her level. An alternative is to mention the top N awards, perhaps restricting them to those that have been proven notable (i.e., by a suitable citation or an article on them). Due weight could be addressed by the space devoted to their achievements. What do you think? RockMagnetist(talk) 16:26, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Creating a list of admissible awards would be a huge task. There'd be thousands of them to sift through, although some could be excluded generically, I suppose. Better to make case-by-case decisions, with a limit of two? Mathematical area must be mentioned, but Epstien has removed one and I don't dare go against the article owner's dictum. Tony (talk) 01:48, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
I think any decision should be guided by the fact that awards, in themselves, are not very interesting. Information on what the person contributed to mathematics is more useful. So however many awards are allowed, the description should be minimal - just the name, not the year awarded. That information is in the article anyway. RockMagnetist(talk) 01:58, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
I agree. We still need to gain consensus for every image that has been inserted into the article. When will that be happening? Tony (talk) 02:14, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
I would like to complete our discussion of criteria for the text. I think that, based on what we seem to agree on, a reasonable entry for Joshi would be:
  • Nalini Joshi, researcher in differential equations, Australian Laureate Fellow, Hardy Lecturer and president of the Australian Mathematical Society
Does that look reasonable? RockMagnetist(talk) 03:24, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Rock, it looks fine. Further trimming could be: Nalini Joshi; researcher in differential equations; Australian Laureate Fellow; Hardy Lecturer; president, Australian Mathematical Society

But who knows whether the article owner would object to semicolons. Tony (talk) 04:09, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I appear to be the you-appointed owner whether I want to be or not – even sitting back and letting other editors do most of the recent editing is, according to you, just showing off how much they are all under my control – so let me presumptuously assume that this question was directed to me and at least answer this technical punctuation question. In actual prose, I object very strongly to comma splices, but when I wrote that list I used only commas, because I think it makes it read more smoothly than semicolons without wasting too much verbiage on connecting words. So, if I were writing the Joshi entry (as I already did before you started trying to pack more into it) I would use commas. Or, if you really insist that it should use semicolons, please don't just change this one entry, because then it would be inconsistent with all the others (something you seem not to care about, but I do). Instead, take the time and effort to make the same change to all of the entries so that they stay consistent, possibly holding a discussion first so that if you get reverted and consensus goes against you the time making that change won't be wasted. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:10, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
You appointed yourself—don't try to project it onto me, and don't put false words into my mouth ("even sitting back and letting other editors do most of the recent editing is, according to you, just showing off how much they are all under my control"). The only problem with commas arises where there might be commas within an item; otherwise, yes, they don't add to the flow. Don't treat me like an idiot in assuming I'd be happy for inconsistency on that count between entries. You're the owner of the article, so I wouldn't presume to interfere with your call. Tony (talk) 05:23, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Meanwhile, my proposed wording meets with no objections, so I'll add it to the list. RockMagnetist(talk) 06:09, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
You're most welcome. Tony (talk) 06:22, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Re: images: Usually individual entries are challenged. Is there a particular image you think is inappropriate? RockMagnetist(talk) 02:25, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Since my insertion was edit-warred over by Epstien, without the slightest substantive reason given aside from an apparent WP:IDONTLIKEIT, I'm going to insist that every single image be audited and gain consensus, separately, for inclusion. Tony (talk) 04:09, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
WP:IDONTLIKEIT, in the form of "I don't think this is an improvement", is an extremely valid reason for reverting an edit, so valid that it is exactly the second step of WP:BRD. Don't blaim your failure to follow the third step of the dance on other people. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:21, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Let's leave behind the arrogant prig demeanour, shall we? What I don't like might be quite different from what you don't like. So don't presume. Tony (talk) 05:25, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
It would be a lot simpler to discuss the inclusion of the picture you want, or general criteria for inclusion. RockMagnetist(talk) 05:20, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Re: hat

Latest comment: 9 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

To answer your question, I am not friends with David Eppstein. I would appreciate it if, in the future, you would avoid overtly personal remarks about me, particularly ones that are utterly baseless. --JBL (talk) 01:35, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

What else would explain a blatantly partisan action, then? Tony (talk) 01:45, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
I see no reason to believe your question is asked in good faith. In case you actually are interested in the answer, you should find some better way to ask it. --JBL (talk) 01:56, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
You need to be careful when hatting on a talkpage that your actions are not easily perceived as biased. Tony (talk) 02:13, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Serious question 1: Is there anyone doing anything on pages you edit in common with you have not attacked over the last couple of days?
Serious question 2: Is it possible that everyone else did not decide together in secret to start screwing you over; and that instead you have had a bad couple of days over something, and would benefit from taking a little breather, re-centering yourself, then returning to collaborative editing like you have done for a long time?
Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:00, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Answer 1: Plenty of people.
Answer 2: I'm feeling excellent, and your bad-faith line of questioning is casting you in a bad light. I'm surprised you haven't yet learned that gratiutous, patronising "advice" concerning "taking a little breather, re-centering yourself" is *always* taken badly. Why don't you take a breather and stay off my page?
It's been a nasty incident, and I hope the self-appointed article owner and the hopelessly undiplomatic admin who protected the page and insulted me on several occasions have learnt from it. I don't think I've learnt anything from it. Maybe I could have tried harder to engage with Epstien in the first place, but he didn't leave much space for that. Seeing the trail of destruction now, maybe it would have been better. It's difficult to confront an editor who makes up his/her own rules for a page, without reference to site-wide guidelines or policies, and once it spirals downwards, I find it hard not to be defensive. Tony (talk) 08:22, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 August 2015

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Great Signpost this week

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I gave some personal thanks to Bryce, but I wanted each of you Signpost board folks how much I appreciated this issue. Not only was the op-ed outstanding and thought provoking, the news section was well above average and Tony's travelogue was distinctive and fun to read. For my part, I'd like to see more profiles like that which appeared in the blog. It's impossible to cover every noteworthy event, but the statistical analysis seemed to line up with my anecdotal recollection of the event as it unfolded. Having the opportunity to see such an event analysis on an occasional basis may prove to be a different cross section of exactly how we function in real time. I'm taking the liberty to copy this to each of your board members; please pass my good wishes among your entire team. Outstanding reading. BusterD (talk) 04:47, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Buster, thank you very much for your kind words! Tony (talk) 12:22, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

August 2015

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

  Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • maintains more than 50 sites across Australia and biological control research stations in France]and Mexico. The primary roles of CSIRO include contributing to meeting the objectives and

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:31, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

  Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • [[File:CSIRO.jpg|thumb|CSIRO Corporate Headquarters in [[Campbell, Australian Capital Territory|

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 08:03, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 August 2015

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 02 September 2015

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

hey tony

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hey, thats my dog strike. I live here in austria. Would you give up sydney for a couple day dream of them too? I would, just for love to them. Hes also such a breed likesydney is. Always thought about a girl like her but called her lucy in mind. What do you think. Is there an opportunity? Katjeen (talk) 22:27, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Strike. FULL NAME: Harlekin Lucky Strike

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have this dog since the friday 13th, picked him up at a dog station. It was march. He was from hungary at dead systems calling. Hes probably at the age of 2 or 3 and a bad person in his mind as he is such brave and confident to people. A good dear boy. Did your sydney the stafford bullmastiff mix ever get kids or do you know the history of her by the way you have her sice she is 18 month. Please recall me and my question. Sorry hes biting me at the moment wanting a lady but he got kastrated sorryful! Katjeen (talk) 15:51, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

FC

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Well done! Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 12:13, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Xanth, you're very kind. Tony (talk) 13:25, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Composite scripts

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The composite scripts should now be working. The stoppage was caused by a bug that crept in to the CT script at the end of July which caused the execution chain to fail. Hope they continue to bring improvements and productivity to your editing. Regards, -- Ohc ¡digame! 12:00, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh that's just great! Thank you. Tony (talk) 13:26, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 September 2015

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Wikivoyage cowboys

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I see that when you were blocked by this Carrotflower person you wrote "It is morally reprehensible, and demonstrates a clear strategy to get rid of critical voices—anyone who dares to stand up to the boys' club here.

From now on, I'll be deeply committed to letting Wikimedians know what a corrupt and bullying power structure has developed here. This is so dysfunctional it is laughable."

Did you ever obtain any redress or should I just give up on my indefinite user block?

There seems to be no have been no discussion or even documentation of my ban and no appeals procedure that I can find. Surely this is no way to encourage copy editors and have better looking travel guides? Do you know who this 118 is that I'm supposed to be impersonating? He seems to have used IP addresses from your part of the world... BushelCandle (talk) 16:25, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid the WMF wasted a million dollars on legal and other costs to bring Wikivoyage on board. A toxic community had already developed under the "stewardship" of an owner that wasn't and still isn't known for its benevolent attitudes. en.Wikivoyage seem to rank up there with en.Wikinews on the scale of communities now barely functional through years of dictatorship. I'd dump both sites if I were the WMF. Rip them off quickly like a bandaid and throw into the sealed infection bin.

I don't know what you can do, other than come here to edit on en.WP, where you'd be most welcome and the community is much more collegial. Tony (talk) 03:37, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Misfires

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Ricky Wilson (British musician)? [5], among a few other recent problematic changes. Dl2000 (talk) 03:42, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

You can try Ricky Wilson (American musician), though... Dl2000 (talk) 04:03, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Don't smear by referring vaguely to "among a few other recent problematic changes". Tony (talk) 08:15, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

CDDG Page

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Dear Toni,

I believe our page was deleted out of bias from Dremis. I can reference every single project that was listed on the page. I would have preferred that he contacted me for that and ask me for references. Can you please help me retain my page and I will make sure to add references to it all. I will also try to remove promotional material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wissamraji (talk • contribs) 09:46, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi, sorry, what page? Tony (talk) 10:54, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Center for Development, Democracy and Governance, a Lebanese NGO. I told the editor I'd have a look tonight (BST 21.00)- I have no idea whether it's notable or not at the moment. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 11:44, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Changing date formats

Latest comment: 9 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Tony. I noticed that (quite some time ago), you changed the date format in the article Tvrđa from DMY to MDY, and from looking at your contributions it seems that you often make this change (e.g. here). Doesn't this go against the statement at WP:MOSNUM that "The Arbitration Committee has ruled that editors should not change an article from one guideline-defined style to another without a substantial reason unrelated to mere choice of style"? Cordless Larry (talk) 06:02, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, there's more to this than I thought, as here you made the change the other way - from MDY to DMY. Could you clarify what your rationale is with these edits, as maybe I've missed something? Cordless Larry (talk) 06:29, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Decatur is American, so I flipped the dates. Boncompain—I see, there's a "revrieved mdy". It's pretty hard to pick out. Tvra, first date was mdy (although wrongly with a st). If you object so much, why hadn't you fixed the first date so it was like the others? They need to be consistent. Tell me if it really matters so much to you so so much, and I'll flip it back. Tony (talk) 08:12, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
It's not a big issue - I was just curious what the rationale for changing the format was. I hadn't spotted that that first date wasn't in DMY format, but the rest were DMY at the time of the article being promoted to GA status (and I'd subsequently made it consistent). I've reverted back to DMY (and made that first date that format too - it must have been changed during a period in which I wasn't editing much) as part of an effort to standardise the article (some other date formats had crept in since your edit). As I said, it's not a major issue, and no offence was taken (or intended). Cordless Larry (talk) 10:02, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Larry. I go through many (old) articles when I have the time to gnome. The script, and my accompanying manual edits, operate to fix a number of issues—not just date formats. Sometimes I make mistakes, but I hope not often. Tony (talk) 10:57, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
No worries, and thanks for your understanding. Keep up the good work. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:31, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
And you too—I see your work ranges over many themes and involves gnoming too. Tony (talk) 13:41, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Alpha Phi

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Two comments on your changes. First, what MOS indicates that the colorboxes in the Infobox Fraternity should be dropped. Those are pretty common. Secondly, you changed the homepage to simply alphaphi.org, is it reasonable to assume that in general that domain.org will redirect to www.redirect.org? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naraht (talk • contribs) 14:11, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 September 2015

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Duncan Armstrong

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hey, Tony. Do you have access to various subscription-only Australian newspaper archives, etc., or hard-copy biographical dictionaries for Australians? Earlier this year, I was trying to ready the article for Australian swimmer Duncan Armstrong for a Good Article nomination and review, and it's about 90% of the way there. I ran out of steam for lack of two or three quality sources to fill out the early years and post-swimming life sections of the article. Armstrong was a surprise gold medallist at the 1986 Commonwealth Games, and one of the Aussie heroes of the 1988 Olympics. A good magazine article or newspaper feature -- written some time after his second marriage -- would probably be just about all I need to finish and fully source it. I'm specifically looking for sources that discuss his several years as a sports broadcaster, and any and all other details. Any help you could provide would be sincerely appreciated. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:34, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

DL, regrettably I don't; I'll ask at the Aust. WPians' noticeboard. Tony (talk) 12:09, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Tony. Based on my post on your talk page, Jenks24 generously jumped in and ran a search on Armstrong in the Newsbank archive of Australian newspapers, and is going to forward the results to me by email [6]. If anyone else volunteers other sources at the Aussie Wikipedians noticeboard, please send them my way. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:28, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 29 September. Yours, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:21, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Script assisted edit error

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Tony, Just a heads up to let you know your script assisted edit to the Tower of London article changed the capitalisation of part of a a book title in the Bibliography to lower case, see:- this diff. Richard Harvey (talk) 08:26, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Richard. I've fixed it and am now pinging User:Ohconfucius to ask for a tweak to the script. Tony (talk) 08:48, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

That death-toll list

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi. It looks like you, or a script of yours, undid links I had put to the calendar dates in the list. My intent in having the links in place was to assist readers/researchers in correlating incidents to other events, and to possibly establish a broader context. While I don't have an opinion on whether the list is appropriate content for Wikipedia, as long as the article does exist, my feeling is that those links would be useful additions. Were it a data set in an article I felt belonged on Wikipedia, I would feel strongly about the issue, but in this case, I don't even know whether the article's main creators/curators care - so your call whether to revert. —Boruch Baum (talk) 07:34, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Boruch, on the English Wikipedia, chronological items are not linked unless there's a compelling reason to do so (I don't see that here), or the anchor article is itself intrinsically chronological (like "2008"). This was decided back in 2009. Tony (talk) 08:51, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

New Jersey Devils

Latest comment: 9 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Figured I'd take it here. First off, while you keep citing "per MOS:NUM, MOS:CAPS, MOS:LINK" in your edit summaries, there's nothing in those bits you are insistent on removing that has anything to do with numbers or capital letters. I'm at a complete loss why you've repeatedly included that in your edit summaries.

As far as MOS:LINK goes, I'm likewise curious as to what element of that you think those forms violate. Could you cite it, please?

Finally, calling a consensus standard used in hundreds of infoboxes across many WikiProjects "ignorant colour clutter" is seriously uncivil. In looking through the talk page, one thing strikes me: you never once ask why those color squares are being included. Why haven't you? Ravenswing 12:05, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

If you really want to put redundant coloured adornments (patch of red, patch of black, is it?) in an already over-full infobox, sure, just degrade it further. The article is there to convey information; it's not a christmas tree. Perhaps you'd like them to flash? Linking "professional" and words like that with no particular use to readers is not recommended on the English Wikipedia. Please see "What not to link", and the bit about making links specific rather than general, and avoiding bunched links, such as town, area, state, country, all linked in a row, when the town target-article will justifiably contain links to the less specific ones if someone is really gagging to get to them. Remember that every additional link in the main text dilutes the useful ones; readers are unlikely to click any links as it is, so the well-accepted rationale is that editors use their knowledge and skills to ration links to the ones we predict are of higher value to the mythical average reader. Happy to talk more. Tony (talk) 14:05, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
And all that is your opinion -- it's not part of any policy or guideline, and you've been around far too long to be ignorant that reverting wars against (by this point) four different editors without talking it out on the article talk page is something that IS explicitly against policy. Not that, if your knee-jerk response to civil questions is mocking, we ought to expect a productive talk page conversation from you. Ravenswing 08:01, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
You're pretty rude yourself. Everything that drops from my lips is my "opinion", but here it's consistent with site guidelines. Tony (talk) 08:52, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 September 2015

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Script fixes on Mr. Robinson (TV series)

Latest comment: 9 years ago11 comments3 people in discussion

Hi! I undid your script-assisted fixes on Mr. Robinson (TV series) because most of them actually made things worse.

I hope this will help you track down bugs in the script you were using! –Dark Cocoa Frosting (talk) 09:51, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I was pointing out that your script is not acting according to the template documentation for at least two templates that I listed above. As it is your intention to modify pages with a script that does not work appropriately in every context, it seems to be your burden to either modify the script to do so, or to have the templates changed to accommodate your script. –Dark Cocoa Frosting (talk) 10:27, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
That's how I'm suggesting you might be kind enough to help out, since you use the template and probably are more familiar with it. Tony (talk) 11:04, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
If you want to use a script to modify articles, it appears to me there are three options:
  1. Adapt your script to work according to the template documentation (Template:Infobox television and Template:Episode list) in the different contexts.
  2. Adapt your script to leave those parts of the article unchanged where it would do changes against the template documentation.
  3. Ask for the templates to be changed so that your script does not have to decide between different cases or contexts. I think a good place to start this would be the template talk pages, Template talk:Infobox television, and Template talk:Episode list.
I cannot do the first two. You can do the third as well as I could (while it is in your interest). Sorry, that is all I can think of.–Dark Cocoa Frosting (talk) 11:45, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for nothing. You're useless. Tony (talk) 11:47, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
The proliferation of infoboxes, where there are different parsing requirements for the same-named parameters, is obviously out of control. I've disabled the templating of urls -- Ohc ¡digame! 12:30, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, OC. You'd think Dark Cocao would have a greater sense of the responsibility of editors to act with coordination to ensure that infoboxes have a minimum of functional consistency. This is a major headache for technical progress in the Wikimedia movement (including the development of visual editor). But no, scripts are blamed. Tony (talk) 12:59, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
As an aside, those {{start date}} templates are pretty useless and redundant. Any bot trawling for such metadata would be programmed to go straight to those infobox fields to get the metadata in all of its formats instead of navigating a stupid template that sends out COinS. -- Ohc ¡digame! 14:54, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 September 2015

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Query re List of leagues and clubs in Victoria

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Recently you removed the links in the titles of the leagues on the list I have been working on. I looked through MOS:LIST and I couldn't find the reasoning behind your move. Could you point it out to me, because I think it's appropriate to link the leagues that have more detail on the clubs - particularly the ones with multiple divisions. Footy Freak7 (talk) 02:11, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

The page is unfindable using that title. Normal to link to it. Could you, please? Tony (talk) 05:56, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Signpost FC

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi, Tony1,
I don't know if you are still like to work on the Signpost article on Featured Content but this week's edition has just been posted, if you would like to help with some descriptions or resizing photos: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2015-10-07/Featured content. Thanks for your help! Liz Read! Talk! 16:21, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Quoting

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi, Tony - I thoroughly appreciate the sentiment behind the following comment you made a while back: ...vague, sweeping damnations are very easy to make; but they mean absolutely nothing but bad faith without specific examples of these "exaggerations" and "personal opinions". Tony (talk) 6:12 pm, 11 January 2014, Saturday (1 year, 8 months, 27 days ago) (UTC−6) I added it to other quotes at the top of my TP. Hope that's ok, but if not just let me know and I'll remove it. Atsme📞📧 13:22, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 October 2015

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

McGowan

Latest comment: 9 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

McGowan was elected for the first time in 2013. Her article says this as does the most basic Google. All our member lists are rigorously maintained. The Drover's Wife (talk) 15:14, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Except McGowan was elected for the first time at the last election and is very much still in parliament. I'm not sure who you could be confusing her with ... ? Frickeg (talk) 19:40, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
There was more than one—possibly two—that I removed because they weren't on another WP list. I didn't google each member because I thought WP's lists would be consistent. Tony (talk) 00:13, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Clearly the other list (which?) was wrong then. But simply clicking through would have made it obvious ...? Either way, my snark in the edit summary was only partially directed at you; it was also directed at the rest of us who didn't notice the error for ten months. Frickeg (talk) 07:29, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
I definitely remember being surprised at the discrepancy—and I was trying to correct it. Tony (talk) 10:44, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 October 2015

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Canadian Federal Election 2015

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi. I don't have '[edit]' appearing on the election page (but I do elsewhere on wiki) so I can't do the edit that's needed. Looking at 'View history' I see you appreciate the important difference between percentage & percentage points.

Can you please do these edits on behalf of all of us in the longish 3rd para. at the beginning:

1) Con. P from The Conservative's fell 7.7% from their 2011 results to attain 31.9% of the total vote, to ... 7.7 points

2) (The comparative figures (2015 cf. 2011) given for all the others - Liberal Party, NDP, BQ, & Greens - are points, & so are correct.)

3) Much less impt., hyphen needed re Tories for part of the adjective in "near 10 year reign in power": 10-year reign.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.91.251.138 (talk) 11:57, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, yes, the distinction is very important. The figures you cite are only in the infobox (where they're correctly labelled "pp". Nothing like it in the third para. Can't find any of your other points in the article. Tony (talk) 12:02, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
  With this ever dramatic world and winter coming, here's a cup of tea to alleviate your day!  This e-tea's remains have been e-composted SwisterTwister talk 05:25, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Love Ricky121130 (talk) 20:53, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 October 2015

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Question

Latest comment: 9 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

What dash script? GamerPro64 01:41, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Easy—it's been around for years, and was refined very nicely to fix almost all of the typographical fixes that are widely accepted in professional English (and by our MOS). I don't think I've seen a false positive for years. Installation string for your personal vector/monobook page is here. I use the single click on many articles I visit. Tony (talk) 01:54, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
So does that mean I have to create my own Javascript page? GamerPro64 01:59, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
User:GamerPro64: create User:GamerPro64/vector.js. Just copy in:
importScript("User:GregU/dashes.js");
Refresh. Then find the – option on the tabs at the top (seems to vary a little; usually under "View history"). Release. Music from heaven. Saves that fiddling about under the edit box to find the dash symbol manually for each instance. Can be done from display mode or while in edit mode. Tony (talk) 04:15, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Oh cool. Thanks for the tip. Learning new things here. Not sure if that's something well to think about. So many years here. GamerPro64 04:21, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
You're welcome. Tony (talk) 07:58, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 October 2015

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

FAC

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Nice to see you around. --Laser brain (talk) 23:20, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

LB, that's kind of you to say that. I'm very busy in RL at the moment, but would like to drop in to FAC occasionally. Tony (talk) 00:17, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Weird effects of script

Latest comment: 9 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Hi Tony, hope you're well. Click this diff and scroll down to see what it did to the references section. --Dweller (talk) 10:26, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Dweller. Pinging User:Ohconfucius. Tony (talk) 11:47, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Cheers Glad to see your name in lights at The Signpost. Keep well. --Dweller (talk) 11:48, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
I ran the formatting script but cannot replicate the error. Tony, try refreshing the cache and run the script again. regards, -- Ohc ¡digame! 20:15, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
  The Original Barnstar
 
Hello, Tony1. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Angevilish (talk) 12:46, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks!

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Thank you so much for your assistance, sir. I truly appreciate it that you took the time to respond and help me out.

As for the reviewing thing I was referring to in my previous email, it's for the article I made: Huzama_Habayeb. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angevilish (talk • contribs) 19:16, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 November 2015

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 11 November 2015

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Re-run dashes script?

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi Tony, would you mind re-running your dashes script on Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2015-11-11/Op-ed? I had an edit conflict, and chose to save mine because it incorporated several changes. Hoping that re-running the script is a quick and easy fix. -Pete (talk) 21:40, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

dmy vs mdy

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Hi, I noticed on Hammerton Killick you used a script to change the entire article from mdy dates to dmy dates; might I ask why? ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 16:11, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

It was a mess of both formats (see references). I've flipped it to mdy. Tony (talk) 01:12, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Well done! (less confusing for readers from most countries). BushelCandle (talk) 08:07, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

November 2015

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Timeline of Chinese history may have broken the syntax by modifying 6 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:56, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

tb

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
Hello, Tony1. You have new messages at NE Ent's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

NE Ent 13:46, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 November 2015

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

ArbCom elections are now open!

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Lead sections...

Latest comment: 8 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Tony do you recall a minimum size for an article for it to have a lead section? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:08, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Cas, wp:leadlength is the nearest we have, I think. That style guide on leads needs a good copy-edit, and probably and update. The emphasis on the lead due to mobile views (now more than half of all WP views in North America, I think) means that a lead is important even for a stub. Perhaps there's no lower limit now? Tony (talk) 05:20, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Really? That seems odd - for the competition then I guess a 1500 kb mimimum article size then maybe...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:22, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Sounds fine (although a pic would distort that). Tony (talk) 06:17, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Centenary of general relativity

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Today is the day.

One hundred years ago saw the publication of Einstein's article that went beyond special relativity to introduce general relativity—that is, embracing acceleration (to cast it in simple terms).

What a great day for humanity it was.

We should rejoice.

Here's a simple explanation; and if you don't know about the PBS Space Time series, here's a starter, with the charismatic Gabe. Tony (talk) 10:40, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 November 2015

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Flags

Latest comment: 8 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Hello Tony1, I appreciate all the hard work you've done in wikipedia. As far as the flags are concerned, I urge you to take a look at literally all sport clubs and sport departments' articles in wikipedia. You'll see that this is common practice for all articles of this kind. I understand your good motive but with those changes, the lay-out and the appearance of the page is destroyed. One can easily move his cursor on each flag, seeing on the spot whose country's flag it is. If -for some reason- you insist on all this, I can make a flag section just under the references. But please, I would ask you not to change it again. I've spent countless hours of my personal time to make this article accurate, sourced and presentable. You can easily find out that this is the format used in all sport articles in wikipedia. I've sacrificed so many hours on this kind of articles and I respectfully ask you to take my word for it. Thank you so much for your understanding and your consideration. Gtrbolivar (talk) 16:49, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

One Pilsner Urquell

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
  Drink one more! Thanks for help! Ruessen-Kleinstorckwitz (talk) 20:57, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 December 2015

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Remarkable results

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

One never knows, do one? Smallbones(smalltalk) 21:22, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 December 2015

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Question involving Signpost policy

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I was reading the recent News and Notes and looking at the disclosure about the Arbitration Elections, it mentions the Signpost's "conflict-of-interest policy". Do we actually have a COI policy for the Signpost? Or an Ethics Statement or something? Just found that rather striking. GamerPro64 03:30, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Requesting to join a debate for James Stunt

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

@Tony1: I'm requesting you to join this Afd discussion. Your comment is valuable to us. Please help us reach a consensus. Thanks -Khocon (talk) 19:12, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Graph colouring

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, I enjoyed your signpost article on the election. Just as an additional note, green-red colour blindness is pretty common, so where possible it might be better to used blue and red. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 02:33, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Nga, sorry, it was an old template and I forgot. Tony (talk) 04:26, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

The moving of pages for the purpose of disambiguation, naming conventions

Latest comment: 8 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Hello, Tony1. First, no sarcasm is intended in the entirety of this message. I reverted your move of the article Social Security Act to "Social Security Act (US)". If the article had the name for three months or more, or if there was any indication that the new name had any reasonable chance of meeting the Wikipedia Manual of Style's naming conventions, then I would have gone through the formal move process at Wikipedia:Requested moves. In the future, when changing the name of a major article that has been around for 4 years (it was a redirect until 2011), and has almost 450 pages linking to it, including some very important articles, as well as templates and such, you should consider using Requested moves.

I am all about disambiguation, but in this case, there was no need because there were no other articles with the same name. In addition, article names do not get disambiguation in their names so that people know what country an article is about just by the article's name (unless the Manual of Style has been changed since I last read it, which actually happens sometimes). If disambiguation were needed, I would probably have named the article "Social Security Act (United States)" because that is the type of disambiguation that other articles exclusive to the U.S. have in their names, and the Manual of Style recommends that you conform the names of articles to the names of similar articles.

I have examples of the usage of "(United States)" for article name disambiguation below. However, there do not seem to be a whole bunch of examples, and there are even fewer when articles about military regiments and such are excluded (I did not put any on this list), and fewer still if articles about military rank are excluded. Still, there seems to be even fewer examples of "(US)" or "(U.S.)" for disambiguation, as I could not find any, which seems very odd. However, I think my searches may have been biased somehow. I do not remember how to search just the names of articles, rather than their names and contents, which would be helpful in this endeavor. Anyway, if the other articles actually use "(United States)" the least, and instead use "(US)" or "(U.S.)", then I would recommend using the form that is most favored.

  • National Historic Site (United States)
  • Two-cent piece (United States)
  • Major general (United States)
  • General (United States)
  • Township (United States)
  • National Monument (United States)
  • Vice admiral (United States)
  • Brigadier general (United States)

I wish you the best of luck in your quest to reform Wikipedia. There are certainly many things that could use improvement. If you respond and want a response from me, it may take some time due to my health. You can continue the conversation anywhere you want, but if you want me to remember or notice, I will need a short message on my user talk page directing me to the proper page. Finally, I do not require a response, so if you do not feel a need to respond, you do not have to. Thank you very much -- Kjkolb (talk) 08:40, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

You're just absurd. Tony (talk) 12:17, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry, as absurdity was definitely not what I was aiming for. If you prefer not to have any further contact, simply ignore this message, and I will not intentionally bother you again. If you feel like it, you could give me constructive criticism, perhaps via email if it is rather brutal. I will still not initiate further contact if you do this. However, there is a small chance that our paths will cross again on another article, and I may not remember you (long, boring story). I am really into topics about California or science, especially energy, but most of my editing comes from just wandering from article to article. Warmest regards, Kjkolb (talk) 08:41, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
  • It may not seem surprising to you, but I am pretty sure there may be others who search on WP for " Social Security Act" to land on an article about the US legislation when they perhaps were searching for one enacted in Britain or Australia. I tend to take the view that the "not necessary disambiguation" argument whilst arguably more efficient, it is rather simplistic. This does the latter category of users no favours whatsoever. I believe that it would be infinitely more helpful for such to have keyed into the search box and land on a disambiguation page (to find perhaps that the desired target did not in fact exist on WP) than to land on the US article, which was not at all what the searcher was looking for. It might also leave them pondering whether they ought to add other countries' Social Security acts to the same article or to create a separate article for it.. Regards, -- Ohc ¡digame! 09:12, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict ... to Kjkolb): I reacted capriciously—I'm sorry ... it was my misreading that recycled ill-will from one anti-disambiguation zealot from years ago. I didn't even read your message properly. Tsk. I do think the title is unhelpful to readers without the country-name (many countries have a Social Security Act). "United States" would be fine, even though brevity is widely regarded as desirable in article titles. Tony (talk) 09:16, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 December 2015

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Narrow gauge railways in Bosnia and Herzegovina

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Something seems to have gone wrong with your last edit at Narrow gauge railways in Bosnia and Herzegovina because it changed the redirect you had just made from moving the page to be an almost-exact copy of Narrow-gauge railways in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Also, if you look at what the script did to "14.1 miles" and "18.8 miles" at the article you will see that it has a strange fault. Johnuniq (talk) 11:13, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll check it out now. I remember manually fixing 18,8 miles. Cheers. Tony (talk) 11:55, 28 December 2015 (UTC) Graham87 has ditched the original article now. I remember: I put in the convert notes for those miles. I feel the article editors should be made aware of the need to do this, rather than putting in the proper template in two places (there are scores of unconverted examples). In fact, a good run through is required by them. Tony (talk) 12:07, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 December 2015

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

PR

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello there! I hope you are feeling well. You had previously commented in this FAC, which failed due to some reservations about prose. I had the article copy-edited by GOCE and have opened a peer review here. Please leave your suggestions there if you'd like to. And happy new year! -- Frankie talk 11:09, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

2016

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
  Happy New Year 2016!
--Rosiestep (talk) 18:29, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Re: caption

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Viriditas, come see me if you want to talk about the grammatical metaphor here, which underpins the mildest of ironies

And you believe that this kind of irony should appear in a news section about a serious subject? Have y'all lost your minds at the Signpost? I don't find it the least bit funny nor is this proper place for humor. Do you also tell jokes at funerals? Viriditas (talk) 06:35, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Not at funerals; if I dislike the deceased enough to tell jokes soon after their death, I'd do it somewhere else—and probably not attend the event. Also, isn't there a difference between irony and humour? Tony (talk) 07:02, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Irony, in this context, is used for humor or amusement. The Signpost has apparently gone bonkers, it seems. Viriditas (talk) 07:16, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Prose question

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

While it seems that you have been out of the featured content business for a few years now, I was wondering if you could take a look at the prose The Bourgeois Blues and tell me how much work it needs before I put it up for FA? Thank you for your time. (Can you believe that FS will hit the 5 years of being inactive mark this August?) --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 06:25, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Guerillero. A good thing, FS inactivity, at least under the way it was so widely framed in those days. Lead of that article: I'd refer to him as "Belly" alone in the second sentence, since a close repetition. Possibly put "Jim Crow laws" in quotes first time, and why not one compositie link anchor rather than bunched (to the second of the targets)? Who was Lomax? Hard to characterise neatly in the sentence, but it needs something. "that African-Americans were encountering in"? Remove first "then". Then: "It has since been remixed ...". "the subject of controversey". "Doubt surrounds". Avoid with + -ing: "There is doubt about the song's authorship; some scholars contend that". "without the impetus of a collaborator". "Belly's role". "; the party." Some work is needed. :-) Tony (talk) 08:52, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 15:21, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 January 2016

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 20 January 2016

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 8 years ago11 comments5 people in discussion

Hello Tony1,

You have removed the wikilinks to Australia, South Australia and Western Australia on the article Eremophila subfloccosa. Can you give me a quick explain please? (Here or my talk.) I have used these on many other articles, especially those about melaleucas and other eremophilas. If they are also incorrect, I need to fix them. Thanks in anticipation. Gderrin (talk) 12:09, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Gderrin, thanks for this. Definitely "Australia" should be unlinked. The two states are slightly more specific, and defensible as links, but ... linking to WA goes somewhere almost as big as Europe, and just by-the-way, are the "semi-arid" parts of WA the south-eastern corner? If so, it would be much more useful to say that; I wonder whether there's a more specific article (or section of the WA article) that focuses on that region? SA is also rather non-specific through its sheer size, but there's a nice link nearby to "Eyre Pensinsula", which has a good clear map—so I'd be inclined to funnel readers into that one. Let me know what you decide. Also, may I comment on a couple of other things? Are we allowed to abbreviate "millimetres" to "mm" after its first occurrence (and without an explicit paranthetical abbreviation first time, I'd say)? mm is so widely known, and expanding it every time is a little clunky. Could we avoid the second link to "stamens"? This sentence: "The flowers are yellow to green and occur singly in the axils of leaves on a stalk up to 4 millimetres (0.2 in) long and are covered with soft, white hairs." ... I wonder whether it's slightly ambiguous ... could mean that those qualities apply if the stalk is up to that long ( is a stalk what a leaf is on the end of?), but I think you mean simply to deal with two facts in the one sentence; if so, I wonder whether tweaking would fix it: "The flowers are yellow to green and occur singly in the axils of leaves where the stalk is up to 4 millimetres (0.2 in) long, and are covered with soft, white hairs." But I don't know the fact, so might be wrong. It's a good article. Tony (talk) 13:16, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello again Tony1,
Thanks for your rapid response.
1. Wikilinking Australia - you haven't given a reason for removing the wikilinks. I have checked a number of other Australian plant articles to which I have not contributed, including a number of FAs (eg. Banksia ericifolia, Epacris impressa, Persoonia lanceolata, Telopea speciosissima) and can find very few, (actually none, other than stub-class articles) that do not link Australia, or one more of of the Australian states. The Telopea speciosissima article includes in its lead, "It is endemic to New South Wales in Australia...". I have read Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking.
2. Semi-arid = south-west of W.A? No! One day I will work out a way of adding distribution maps to the articles I write. Until then, readers can use the references I always include - generally to FloraBase. (In this case https://florabase.dpaw.wa.gov.au/browse/profile/7274)
3. Abbreviating millimetres. I never write "millimetres", or "metres". Following the lead of experienced plant article writers like Cas Liber I use markup that converts metric dimensions to imperial ones. The result is "kilometres", "metres" or "millimetres".
4. Second link to stamens - my mistake.
5. Yes, ambiguous and fixed now - thanks for noticing that.
6. "Good article" - Thanks for the compliment, but not yet I should think.Gderrin (talk) 14:20, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
It's quite common over time for an editor or IP to come along and link 'Australia' or a state, or some other common word, after I've buffed an article. Sometimes I notice when I'm on my phone (where it's hard to revert) and then forget about it later. I generally have to clear my watchlist when it gets to 10k articles, which has happened twice now, so sometimes I just lose track. There is a parameter that abbreviates the convert template - will show in a sec. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:25, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Et voila Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:28, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Cas, I like it ... Gderrin, do you? Gderrin, could you hint at a more focused location in WA, even if not linked? It's a biiiig place. Special justification required to link a commonly known country-name. MOSLINK encourages focused linking, and also discourages bunched linking. I intermittently work my way backwards through the gigantic list of "links-to-"Australia"", so I guess I'll be encountering more; I'll check whether links to states are needed on a case-by-case basis (and will ask User:Ohconfucius why some Australian states unlink but others don't). Tony (talk) 14:10, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
The script unlinks regions, including northern/eastern/western/southern [continent]. It just so happens Western Australia is a state, s that unlinks too. Should I adjust the script not to touch the latter? -- Ohc ¡digame! 21:28, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
I think on balance it would be better to exclude all Australian states and territories, just on the basis of the inconsistencies that arise when they're listed. Thanks, OC.
(talk page stalker) I agree, I don't think they really serve as any extra value to the readers. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 13:27, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Yeah ... On a whole continent we rarely find references solely to states—the usual is settlements within them, in which case the settlement target is quite sufficient. And states are, let's be honest, a colonical relic. I'd be inclined to unlink them at this stage, and see if it works. Tony (talk) 05:06, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Right now, the script unlinks Australian states if they are preceded by another linked term. -- Ohc ¡digame! 08:15, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Before going ahead with unlinking Australia and its states, you might want to consider "Victoria", which refers to 13 places in the United States alone, apart from Victoria (Australia). Furthermore, your statement "On a whole continent we rarely find references solely to states—the usual is settlements within them (states)" is quite incorrect (unless I misunderstand what you mean). States may be just a "colonial relic" to you but probably not to most other Australians. Check Isopogon anemonifolius - a FA and DYK article yesterday. No mention of "settlements within them" (except for towns near which it is common). As well as the vast majority of articles about plant species linking Australia and the states, it would seem that most articles about animal species and Australian towns and cities also wikilink to Australia and/or an Australian state. As an Australian, I would like to know that people from other countries are actually clicking on Australia, Western Australia or New South Wales. Good luck - big job to make this change. Gderrin (talk) 02:35, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 January 2016

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

A barnstar for you!

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
  The Original Barnstar
User made a helpful copy editing tutorial. thank you. Callum radiator (talk) 18:14, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 February 2016

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 10 February 2016

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:29, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Mohanlal filmography

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Could you please check this for any corrections or improvements. I have plans to nominate it for FL. Your contributions will be appreciated. --Inside the Valley (talk) 11:12, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 February 2016

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

BWV 4

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Tony, you kindly looked at the cantata article, could you please check if your concerns were addressed? At least one of my questions is open. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:55, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

... asking again, Easter getting closer ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:15, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for helping with script

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
  Calatrava Medal of Merit
This is for fixing scripting errors on Rosenstein Castle. Deus Vult! (talk) 21:44, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
  The Barnstar of Diligence
I would like to thank You for Your Self-help writing tutorials! These are absolutely brilliant, spot on, and deserve to be adapted to other languages. Thanks! PeeterT (talk) 14:40, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 February 2016

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:04, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Menelaos Lountemis article script fixes

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Could you please check Menelaos Lountemis again? It seems that the script removed some working links in Notes and references section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DataDispenser (talk • contribs) 07:23, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

User:DataDispenser, thanks. This probably happened because the links contained Greek script. I've fixed. But are you able to either romanise/translate the Greek script throughout the notes, or add English translations to each in square brackets? It's not satisfactory at the moment. Tony (talk) 08:26, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

A cheeseburger for you!

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
  Thanks for your article, The Signpost (Wikipedia)! Peter Sam Fan | talk 21:11, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Italic for quotations?

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Does any style guide prescribe or recommend routine use of italic to denote direct quotations? Was this ever a standard practice? It is a relatively common error in Wikipedia, but Wikipedia editors make lots of common errors. Today, however, I saw it throughout a master's thesis in typography: Miklavčič, Mitja (2006). Three chapters in the development of clarendon/ionic typefaces (PDF) (M.A. Typography thesis). University of Reading. Retrieved 2 March 2016. —Finell 03:58, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Finell, discouraged by the major UK and US styleguides, as well as en.WP MOS. Needs to be corrected when hunted down! From the reading-psychology point of view, italics is harder to read than roman, which is why it has evolved for use only in marking out single items, or headings. Tony (talk) 09:01, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. I know that major style guides do not sanction italics for quotations and approve it only for limited uses. I was wondering if there is some history that explains why it occurs to anyone to use italics for quotations. And in a typography thesis at a UK university? Thanks again.—Finell 06:12, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 March 2016

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:01, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Flags in soccer national teams articles

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi Tony, I hope you didnt find me rude, it was not my intention. I am aware about the MoS regarding flags, but in football articles there has been some flexibility. I understand you find it a total overkill at that Kosovo national team article but if you take a look at other national teams they all have the same exact situation: flags for countries they played against, flags for countries the clubs players play are located at, flags for the last national team they played against, etc. Not only is that widespread practice in football-related articles, but it is a widespread practice generally all over internet regarding football websites. Take for instance the leading world website for national team, http://www.national-football-teams.com/ , the website is almost entirely based on flags. Anyaway, the point there was that changing the practice in one article and leaving something like around 250 other equal articles about national teams unchanged doesnt make much sense. We should better either establish consensus to change it in all or decide to leave it in all. Cheers FkpCascais (talk) 05:22, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Your helpful review

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Precious again, your detailed constructive comments which helped to improve Christ lag in Todes Banden, BWV 4 to FA!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:01, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 March 2016

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 16 March 2016

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:13, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Four years ago ...
 
interest in knowledge
being interesting
... you were recipient
no. 97 of Precious,
a prize of QAI!

Palm Sunday, time for No. 1, please watch and enjoy! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:34, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Centralized ENGVAR, DATEVAR, CITEVAR discussion

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This may be of interest, since you were involved in previous discussions of the conflicts between these guidelines: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Cleaning up and normalizing MOS:ENGVAR, WP:CITEVAR, etc.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  12:35, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 March 2016

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:25, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

March 2016

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

  Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Mobutu Sese Seko may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • two countries gradually grew stronger and closer. In 1971, Finance MinisterValéry Giscard d'Estaing]] paid a visit to Zaire; later, after becoming President, he would develop a close personal

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:22, 20 March 2016 (UTC)


  Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to World Economic Forum may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • appearance outside South Africa. At the 1994 annual meeting, Israeli Foreign MinisterShimon Peres]] and [[Chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization|PLO chairman]] [[Yasser Arafat]] reached a

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 04:33, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Who wrote it?

Latest comment: 8 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

On your user page you ascribe a quotation to Hemingway, but it is actually a sentence from the protagonist's interior monologue in Ursula K. Le Guin's novel The Left Hand of Darkness. See Wikiquote, second quotation taken from Chapter 15 "To the Ice", p. 213. Note there are also some subtle differences in the text.  --Lambiam 14:39, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Lambiam, thank you; but which user subpage? I started a search but couldn't find. Tony (talk) 01:43, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Not a subpage but your main user page.  --Lambiam 08:38, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
OK, thanks, removed. Serves me right for trusting a third-party source. Tony (talk) 12:20, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedian speaks out on discrimination against women researchers

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Nalini Joshi, a leader in her field of mathematics, is a Wikipedian who cares about our poor coverage of women in science, mathematics, and engineering. Although her direct activity on the English Wikipedia is intermittent, she watches the project and occasionally emails me to point out where the battle is being lost.

Today she gave a joint presentation to the Australian National Press Club Lunch, broadcast live and reported in the media. Among her points was that while discrimination is now less overt than in the mid-20th century, the push to harness the talents of half the population now involves "principles and conventions that are almost invisible, because research is conducted in organisational cultures that resemble a feudal monastery."

She observed, inter alia, that at academic functions—dressed in black and with name tag—she has too often been mistaken for wait staff.

We editors need to do more about this, worldwide.

Tony (talk) 12:43, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Coupla things...

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

First, thanks for your statement above about women researchers. Secondly, I was hoping you could explain "its prose is engaging, even brilliant" in the following statement on your user page: Featured article candidates. I promoted the technique of reviewing the prose of nominations by analysing the weaknesses in a sample of the text as representative of the whole, and providing more generally applicable advice for the nominated article. This may have been one of several factors contributing to higher standards of prose in some featured articles over the past two years. It has certainly made nominators take Criterion 1a more seriously (“[A featured article is] well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard”. The reason I ask is because there appears to be a rather thin line between engaging prose and what some might consider puffery or promotional. For example, pioneer vs innovator or perhaps even one who developed. Also, I would appreciate your thoughts regarding the prose for a BLP with regards to "engaging, even brilliant". I would think that a BLP written more along the lines of an academic or professional bio, (brief summary of a CV or resumé) would not be "engaging prose", correct? My thoughts for engaging prose are more along the line of including their motivations or inspirations that led to their notability (with inline citations to RS). I ask because there appears to be a trend that supports the academic or professional bio rather than actually containing biographical material. I just found an example of prose that was removed as "promotional" and would appreciate your thoughts on it. Thanks in advance...Atsme📞📧 15:59, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 April 2016

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:12, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Script-assisted fixes

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

This edit changed the nonstandard < characters to ", but ignored their partner >s, leaving a set of tracks listed bizarrely as "title> ! Does your script need tweaking? PamD 11:51, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Pam—pinging User:Ohconfucius—and I'll revisit that article now. Tony (talk) 13:48, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Also Do the Crawl has the mixed symbols, and Scrawl (album), Hey You Let’s Kiss, Clean (Cloroform album), Grrr (Cloroform album) all have both nonstandard symbols < and >, if you want a testbed for any improved script! PamD 15:10, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Pam! Over to Ohconfucius. And I'll need to watch out for these circonflex-like quotemarks until we deal with it in the script. Tony (talk)

Lucienne Laudré-Viel article

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi there,

I noticed your edits on the Lucienne Laudré-Viel article. I have two points on inappropriate cross-wiki links:

1) first, Lucienne participated in the 1928 Olympics on the French national track team. It is appropriate to note that she was French with the   France tag.
2) Lucienne also won the High Jump championship for France in 1927 and 1928. I put the link in to the frwiki article containing the results for that year's french championship because it verified the claim that she won the championship, and also provided a link to anyone who wished to look further into the 1927 french national championship (which is not likely to have an article in the enwiki).

Thanks again for your edits.

Endo999 (talk) 20:46, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

  • Endo, I'm afraid I disagree on both counts. First, what is wrong with the word "France"? Decorative flagicons are discouraged on en.WP. Second, WP is not a reliable source, so cannot be used to verify; you need an external source for that, and indeed the article needs to be marked with a refimprove tag. Tony (talk) 02:33, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
  Thank you award
Thanks for your corrections! Pavner (talk) 08:55, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 April 2016

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:46, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Edits on Anthony Marinelli

Latest comment: 8 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Thank you for your edits on Anthony Marinelli. I can understand and appreciate your preference on overlinking, but I just wanted to let you know that changing date formats may be chasing windmills.

The citation interface for the standard template(s) use the international xx month xxxx format pre-filling for the date-accessed field. This is also the expected date format in MOS:DATEUNIFY for Access and archive dates. The (international) verbiage appears to have been removed from the EN MOS, but the xx month xxxx format is the first listed in the MOS:DATEFORMAT table and the xx month xxxx is the preferred format for date sorting Help:Sorting#Date sorting problems. For these reasons, I have standardized on this date format. I hope you don't mind, but I will be restoring the date format to the Reference section (I have no date preference in article bodies other than what is now my habit, except I do believe that sorted tables should use the least problematic format.) Thanks again for your edits, 009o9 (talk) 14:42, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I do mind. It's an American subject. Tony (talk) 09:14, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
FYI: MOS:DATEUNIFY
  • Access and archive dates in an article's citations should all use the same format, which may be:
  • the format used for publication dates in the article;
  • the format expected in the citation style adopted in the article (e.g. 20 Sep 2008); or
  • yyyy-mm-dd
I'm not seeing "month xx, xxxx" format as an option here, I also note that you have not changed the date format on your American? signature. 009o9 (talk) 15:46, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Additional: since you claim to have written WP:MOSNUM you might consider re-reading the second paragraph in the lead.
Where this manual provides options, consistency should be maintained within an article unless there is a good reason to do otherwise. The Arbitration Committee has ruled that editors should not change an article from one guideline-defined style to another without a substantial reason unrelated to mere choice of style, and that revert-warring over optional styles is unacceptable.[1] If discussion cannot determine which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor.
Just because the subject is American, is not a good reason to change the guideline-defined style. Besides that, the subject is also holds Italian citizenship. 009o9 (talk) 16:17, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
I don't claim to have written MOSNUM. Where are you getting that from? WRT the Marinelli article, now I'm totally confused. The main text was using mdy format before I did anything. I really don't understand what you want. Tony (talk) 09:49, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Rename of "Standard commands for programmable instruments" was wrong!

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

moved to Talk:Standard commands for programmable instruments

For the record, I bent to this editor's will after a few exchanges. Tony (talk) 09:51, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Gamaliel and others arbitration case opened

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others. The scope of this case is Gamaliel's recent actions (both administrative and otherwise), especially related to the Signpost April Fools Joke. The case will also examine the conduct of other editors who are directly involved in disputes with Gamaliel. The case is strictly intended to examine user conduct and alleged policy violations and will not examine broader topic areas. The clerks have been instructed to remove evidence which does not meet these requirements. The drafters will add additional parties as required during the case. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others/Evidence.

Please add your evidence by May 2, 2016, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. This notification is being sent to those listed on the case notification list. If you do not wish to recieve further notifications, you are welcome to opt-out on that page. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:39, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, finger slipped. DrKay (talk) 11:24, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

FAC

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I wish you'd reconsider. You are largely responsible for raising standards there back in the day, and speaking from experience it was always the threat (!) of you commenting that pushed me further. You mentioned footprint previously, it was a point well made. Ceoil (talk) 13:12, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Ditto, I finished watching TV now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:46, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

A cupcake for you!

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
  Hi Tony1! Thanks a lot for taking your time and fixing some grammar errors on the page I've created :) L7starlight (talk) 17:30, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 April 2016

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:43, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

From the vicar...

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi Tony, I have just googled the phrase "became the vicar of". I see your point. If I had to write the following two sentences NOT on Wikipedia this is how I would do it.

a) I met Charlie Hill when he was Vicar of Portsea.

b) Having not seen Charlie for some twenty years, I was intersted to hear he had been vicar of three seperate benefices since leaving Portsea.

As to putting [[]] round clergy titles I find less and less people know what a vicar is.

Message received and understood!

All the best,

MattBashereyre (talk) 10:17, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Infobox musical artist

Latest comment: 8 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
 

Hi, nice to meet you on article Younes Elamine. [7] ツ Hey, I don't mind the work, because I can edit an entire day just on infobox errors: parameters, converting image to bare file name, and then there is this one: Film articles using image size parameter using Template:Infobox film, which are piling up but I haven't figured out if I am to delete the size or the entire parameter. Just saying in case you were unaware. ツ Wishing you the best and happy editing, Fylbecatulous talk 14:17, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Sure, Fyl. I've been wondering why "solo_singer" is there at all in so many infoboxes when it doesn't even display. Apart from the weird formatting (lowercase initial at start, and then ... eeeeek ... an underscore. Very weird. Tony (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Ah, as a member of the WikiProject I can answer this. The background format one chooses displays the colour of the infobox borders itself: [8] So Dalton Rapattoni gets a yellow and The Connells get(s) a blue. The world of infoboxes is magical. Now whether this really matters in the grand scheme of things, who knows. But any foul creates an error somewhere. Forbid the thought that a box be the wrong colour. And we can haz cheezeburgers for being among those willing to work on these type of Wikipedia quirks. Fylbecatulous talk 17:25, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Not much point in the colour-coding if our readers don't know how to decode it. Tony (talk) 05:13, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 2 May 2016

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:09, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Capitalisation of the lists of music articles in Rees's Cyclopaedia

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The topics are capitalised in the lists because that is the way they are written in the original work. If you scroll down you will see that the script has only altered some of the topics from all caps to caps and lower case. In some cases only part of the word is blue-linked. The concluding letter is black. The result is an odd appearance on the screen. Surely the capitalisation rule mainly applies to text pages? Might there be some lee-way in their use in tables? Kind regards Apwoolrich (talk) 15:24, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid not. Our style guides don't allow all-caps like that. By analogy, we don't use curly apostrophes, the original font, or the original font-size. Are you interested in fixing the remaining all-caps items? Tony (talk) 02:56, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Removal of nationality flags

Latest comment: 8 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

Hi Tony, you appear to be hitting a number of articles which this newbie contributed in a biog series concerning the "Great Escape" during the Second World War and you are removing the flags which those lads fought and died for. I am aware that it's currently fashionable to disregard such "out dated" imagery, I guess its considered one of the "ist's" by the younger generation, however your change is leaving that part of these articles looking messy and rendering the purpose of the box unclear. Please can you either return the flags or find another way of representing their purpose (which was demonstrating the manner in which Arthur Nebe selected these lads for execution, in his twisted sense someway proportionate to the number and nationalities of the escapers). I am fed up with this sort of "bodging about" of articles which I have contributed, by editors who might be better spending their time actually contributing something new rather than endlessly messing with the contributions of others. I made my last addition to Wikipedia at the start of the year after another session of "bodging" by some random editor and although I had recently considered providing some more articles this session has put an end to that thought, I may still donate to the upkeep of Wiki but I'm done here. Too many "editors", not enough serious contributors. cheerio R44Researcher1944 (talk) 08:02, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Bringing it back here from your query on my talk page - I started to contribute articles to Wikipedia because I believe deeply that these men and women made a significant contribution to our freedoms most of them at the cost of their own lives and that they deserve to be remembered, some were SOE field agents, some senior commanders, some were service personnel, others were diplomats who materially contributed to the rescue of large numbers of persecuted people. Quite quickly I noted that random “editors” were free to nominate articles for deletion because they didn’t suit the “editor’s” personal agenda and I fought successfully to retain an article which met every requirement of a notable person. I was advised by an experienced contributor that I should add articles to a Watchlist to be checked daily simply to protect valid articles from the unnecessary changes made by random "editors" who lacked understanding of the subject matter but were following their personal agendas. I contributed two articles on very similar Battle of Britain participants, receiving positive feedback from one editor only to see another editor remove chunks of the second article for being irrelevant. Both men had grown up without fathers who had died on service in the First World War, in one article that factor was acceptable and relevant but in the other it was regarded as irrelevant and removed. I struggle with the concept that as a specialist I'm contributing material which is directly pertinent to a subject which I understand but that it is later removed by somebody who lacks in-depth understanding of its significance, such as the split in nationalities which Arthur Nebe reviewed when deciding which of the Great Escapers were to be killed. These days the flags may mean little to some people but they did mean something to the men who died and they mean something to those who have served. The staggering editorial inconsistency is the problem which has prompted me to call a halt. R44Researcher1944 (talk) 10:44, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
What can we do about these problems you've encountered, then? I'm sure there's a way. On flags, there's certainly some point in historic flags in infoboxes. But modern national flags can be just pretty baubles, and infoboxes don't exactly have a lot of space to spare on those lines (mobile viewing can cause unintended clutter, too). We put up with rafts of French/US/UK/Rusian flags in sport-related tables, wearily. Why don't you revert the ones in question and I'll edit them without removing flagicons ... Tony (talk) 12:03, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
re: the removal of flags on BBC Women's Footballer of the Year, WP:MOSFLAG states "Flag icons may be relevant in some subject areas, where the subject actually represents that country, government, or nationality – such as military units, government officials, or national sports teams." What is your rationale for removing them from the players listed who represent their countries on national teams? This has been the standard on most all of the football articles I've seen, so was confused by your removal of the flags.Hmlarson (talk) 17:35, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
First, most readers won't know to hover their mouse over the icon to learn which country it stands for. Second, in that table in particular, the flags look just awful when higgledy-piggledy. Third, it says "may" be relevant. You want the flags because they look ornamental? Tony (talk) 01:45, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
I appreciate your thought but I'm done here, in my view too many want to be "Editors" and chop stuff around for next to no reason and without sufficient knowledge - not enough seem to be interested in actually contributing anything. The flags in my articles were significant, military and actually were the reason why the individuals were picked to be murdered. I'll pick up my coat on the way out. Best of luck R44Researcher1944 (talk) 07:42, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
I hope you return. Tony (talk) 06:37, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Hey

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

FWIW, now go discuss changing it :-) 203.217.39.91 (talk) 20:08, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Page moves

Latest comment: 8 years ago20 comments6 people in discussion

Hi, I notice you are making a lot of page moves from Suburb, New South Wales to Suburb, Sydney. This appears to contradict Wikipedia:WikiProject Sydney/Suburbs. Do you have consensus for all those moves? WWGB (talk) 02:09, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

I never dreamt that someone in Perth would know that Birchgrove, NSW, is not just north of Armidale. Why confuse readers who are searching? The articles all seem to be rather old and untended, and not up-to-date in terms of our style guide in some respects. Tony (talk) 02:11, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Well if you do not have consensus on this matter, it breaches the above position. I intend to revert until this matter has had a proper airing. WWGB (talk) 02:13, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Can you point to where the consensus was gathered, please? Tony (talk) 02:22, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
I have shown you the existing position at Wikipedia:WikiProject Sydney/Suburbs. That position is used in hundreds of articles about Sydney suburbs. Also, WP:MOVE requires that if retitling is expected to be controversial, you need to seek consensus for the name change. You did not do that but made unilateral changes. If you want to change the status quo, I suggest you take it up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sydney/Suburbs. WWGB (talk) 02:32, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
No, I want you to point to where the consensus was gained. Who knows who wrote in this position that you are defending. A diff. to the end-point endorsement, presumably on the talkpage, would be sufficient to judge. Tony (talk) 03:05, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Applicable policies seem to be at WP:PLACEDAB and WP:NCAUST. I haven't read them yet. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:09, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
It was established in 2004 by former administrator Ta bu shi da yu. It has been followed ever since, but I don't think anyone would be concerned if you raised it as an issue on the wikiproject's suburb talk page. - Letsbefiends (talk) 08:28, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
What on earth? You want the change, you get the consensus. Raise it at WP:AWNB or something. I hardly think it's improper for someone to want discussion before moving hundreds of articles - I know I would, no matter how open-and-shut the case. Frickeg (talk) 12:55, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Well that's aggressive. All I said was that it needs to be discussed somewhere. You could just say "it might be best to discuss it on WP:AWNB as this is a better place to gain consensus. I am curious though, aside for the effort that would be required in moving the pages, why do you think it would be a bad idea? - Letsbefiends (talk) 13:32, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes, rather unpleasant and aggressive, Frickeg—especially for someone who can't point to the original consensus, which is the wall put up when first discussed at that wikiproject talkpage. It turns out that there was no consensus (which is not defined by one person's editing 11 years ago). That wikiproject is creating a very bad impression in my mind. It has failed to encourage good editing in this category of articles, and basic practices outlined in the style-guides are not followed, for example. The postal envelope addressing for articles titles for city suburbs is most unhelpful for readers—and WP articles are not written for those with expertise (or high levels of familiarity) with the subject. I might know that Birchgrove is in Sydney, an internationally known location—small enough to conceive on a world map—but why do you expect every en.WP reader to know that? What the hell is NSW, a New York reader might well ask. Is Birchgrove in the desert, a South Australian reader might well ask, or regional, or city-based? Tony (talk) 03:31, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
For a New York reader, city and state are synonymous. For everyone else in USA, they are used to following WP:USPLACE, wherein "Articles on populated places in the United States are typically titled [[Placename, State]]". Just like Australia! WWGB (talk) 04:35, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Not intended as aggressive. Merely how taken aback I was (and remain) that the basics of WP:BRD seem unfamiliar to someone with your experience. No one has to point to a prior consensus - you want to make the change, so the onus is on you to gain the consensus. In this case I'm not even sure I disagree with your point (I would have to look into it further), but I do disagree with widespread undiscussed moves, especially in an area as controversial as Australian place names have been for the last decade or so. Frickeg (talk) 08:03, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Failure to establish the consensus is what got me. Or the rationale. Tony (talk) 10:09, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
It was, what, 2004? A different time! Either way, WP:PLACE might be the best, er, place to discuss, since it is home to WP:NCAUST which supports the status quo. There appear to be extensive discussions on Australian naming conventions in the archives (not all of them about this specific issue, but I'm sure some of them encompass it). Frickeg (talk) 12:49, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Tony, you really need to give this a rest. Either gather consensus on WP:PLACE or just accept the current convention. Until you discuss these changes you will not be able to change established naming conventions. - Letsbefiends (talk) 03:44, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
P.S. You realise it's a little ironic you are making unilateral changes on the one hand but you are claiming that the naming convention was never established by consensus... The consensus, in case you haven't realised, is that the naming convention has been followed by those Australians who took the time to document the hundreds of suburbs in Wikipedia. - Letsbefiends (talk) 03:49, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Get off my talkpage. You're the one not "giving this a rest". Tony (talk) 07:14, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
What you fail to realise is that actually I am the person who came up with the naming convention and until I just rage quit was trying to keep a low profile... But trying to tell you that you are correct, but it's best to discuss it first or every fucking wikilawyer under the sun will harass you till you, also, rage quit like I just did! - 203.217.39.91 (talk) 20:11, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Tony, dunno why I keep getting reverted but I'm sorry if I was harsh before. I mean what I said, I think you are right. - 203.217.39.91 (talk) 02:13, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 May 2016

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:34, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Issues in the Cerebellum article

Latest comment: 8 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Hi,
I'm editor-in-chief of Wikiversity Journal of Medicine, and we're about to consider a snapshot of the Cerebellum article for publication in this journal: Wikiversity Journal of Medicine/Cerebellum. This would make it easier for external sources to use and cite this work, and after we've advanced the journal these publications will be searchable in PubMed as well. Since you have been one of the most active contributors to this article, we would like to include you in the "author" list, but we want these to be the authors' real names. If you approve, you may edit that article to change your username to your real name, or include it in a reply to me. Otherwise, you will be attributed by a link to the history page of the Wikipedia article. Also, the work has undergone peer review, and I'd appreciate if you could have a look into the peer review comments, and help amending the mentioned issues before publication in the journal: /Cerebellum#Peer review. You may first look at its history to see what corrections have already been made by other authors.
Best regards,
Mikael Häggström (talk) 12:47, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

@Mikael Häggström:—I've no recollection of editing that article and couldn't find my username among the past 500 entries of the edit history page. I wouldn't mind my real name being used, but I think you've got the wrong person! I may take a look at the peer reviews and assist if I have time in the next few days. Tony (talk) 13:03, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
I got you name mentioned when running X!'s tools on the article, and I see now that you made multiple edits on that article in 2005 [9], which I'd say gives you the merit to be among the authors. Mikael Häggström (talk) 13:18, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
I still think I don't deserve it, and don't want to dilute credit to contributing editors who are closer to the field. I'll take a look later. Tony (talk) 13:34, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Very well, I removed you from the top segment. Just let me know (or add yourself) if you change your mind. Mikael Häggström (talk) 20:51, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tony1/Archive_16&oldid=1142726244"