User talk:Tony1: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 16:10, 13 April 2008 editMoonriddengirl (talk \| contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators135,072 edits →Closed RfA: reply← Previous edit		Revision as of 17:44, 13 April 2008 edit undoTony1 (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Template editors276,356 edits →FAC Review Next edit →
(5 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 375:		Line 375:
	Hi. :) You seem to have inadvertently contributed a comment to a closed RfA, . Since these are not meant to be changed so that the archived version preserves the discussion as of the time of closure, I just wanted to point this out so that you could remove your comment. Perhaps it could be placed at the RfA's talk page instead? --] <sup>]</sup> 15:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)		Hi. :) You seem to have inadvertently contributed a comment to a closed RfA, . Since these are not meant to be changed so that the archived version preserves the discussion as of the time of closure, I just wanted to point this out so that you could remove your comment. Perhaps it could be placed at the RfA's talk page instead? --] <sup>]</sup> 15:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
	:I figured it was an accident. :D --] <sup>]</sup> 16:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)		:I figured it was an accident. :D --] <sup>]</sup> 16:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


			==FAC Review==
			Comments such as do not belong in a Featured Article Review. ] (]) 16:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
			:Well, I was quite concerned that I'd cop it too. You seem to have dealt with one of my colleagues already. ] ] 16:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
			::If you are unable to ], then maybe Misplaced Pages isn't the place for you. ] (]) 16:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
			:::Only going on the previous evidence and trying to protect myself. Looks as though it was necessary. ] ] 17:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
			::::Is this your admission that you are unwilling to assume good faith and abide by standard Misplaced Pages rules? ] (]) 17:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
			:::::No. I think you're harassing me on my talk page, the very thing I asked you ''not'' to do. Please desist, and I encourage you to work on the nomination rather than bicker here. ] ] 17:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:44, 13 April 2008

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

REAL-LIFE WORKLOAD: 3

1 = no work pressure
5 = middling
> 5 = please don't expect much
10 = frenzied

Please note that I don't normally copy-edit articles.

USEFUL WEEKLY INFORMATION ABOUT THE FEATURED ARTICLE PROCESS

Archives of this talk page
Archive 1 (4 August – 14 October 2005): Archive 2 (15 October 2005 to 5 March 2006): Archive 3 (6 March – 15 June 2006): Archive 4 (16 June – 6 September 2006): Archive 5 (6 September – 29 December 2006): Archive 6 (30 December 2006 – 6 April 2007): Archive 7 (7 April – 29 July 2007): Archive 8 (30 July – 7 September 2007): Archive 9 (7 September – 16 December 2007): Archive 10 (17 December – 18 January 2008): User_talk:Tony1/Archive11/Archive 11 (19 January – 30 March 2008):

"Miss Ima"

	Nice job on "Miss Ima"!
	To all of the excellent editors who were part of the Karanacs-led collaboration to bring Ima Hogg to featured status, it was a pleasure working with you on such a fine article about a great lady. Thank you so much for your contribution to this fun collaboration. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)	File:Ima large.jpg

FAC Copy-Edit?

Hello Tony. I was hoping to ask if you would copy edit Tropical Storm Charley (1998) when you have time. It's up for FAC, and one of the commentators recommended getting a copy-edit. I've tried several times, but am having trouble with it. TheNobleSith (talk) 18:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Max Mosely

Thank you for reviewing the article and your time, it's become quite a long read these days! Unfortunately due to some allegations published in the UK this article has been given protected status so I think I will have to withdraw my nomination (but i am going to sleep on that an see what the morning brings!). But when all the fuss has died down I am sure that your suggestions can be used to make it a better article.Tommy turrell (talk) 18:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Irreplaceable

The article is now featured. Thanks for the help and leave me a message if you have more concerns. --Efe (talk) 01:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Max Mosley

Thanks for your comments on Max Mosley. As you may have noticed, M. Mosley has been in the UK press in the last couple of days due to what the News of the World choose to call a 'Nazi sex orgy'. Hey ho - that was the final nail in the coffin of the FAC, and I'm currently unable to even edit the article. I'm told I can get an admin to make uncontroversial fixes, so we'll work on your recommendations. I wasn't clear about a couple of them, so I'd be grateful if you could help.

"separated from his parents while they were interned in Britain during the Second World War."—um ... they were German-born? If so, say so, or the readers will wonder why they were gaoled.
- No, they were not German-born. In the simplest terms, they were interned because they were fascists, which is already mentioned in the lead. Pretty well all registered fascists were interned, although many of them were released long before Sir Oswald. In more detail, Sir Oswald was the leader of Britain's most significant fascist party and had called for a negotiated peace with Nazi Germany. Lady Diana was a friend of Hitler, who had attended their wedding(!) at Goebbels' house shortly before the Second World War. There was also a security clampdown sparked by a spying scandal. I think all that is necessary is say 'Like all registered fascists in the UK, Mosley's parents were interened....'. Do you agree? Oh yes, that's just fine. TONY (talk) 10:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
'"He became president of the FIA, FISA's parent body, in 1993."—No comma, please. In reverse, a comma after 1993 if at the start of the sentence, yes.'
- Can you elaborate for a poor confused soul? Which of the two commas? They're there to split off 'FISA's parent body' as a subordinate clause, i.e. one that can be left out. How do you feel about 'In 1993, he became president of the FIA, FISA's parent body.'? Oops, my fault—didn't take in the whole clause at once. It's fine, but start "In 1993, he became ..." to avoid a comma, if you want.

Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 09:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for the clarifications. Guess we'll wait a little while and start again. <rolls eyes>. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 11:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Church

Hi Tony, I am considering renomination of this article for FA. I would like to know if you see any obvious problems with the article before I resubmit. I am contacting you on the advice of Karanacs who suggested I ask previous commentors to take a look and see if previous FAC issues have been sufficiently addressed. Your nicer side would be appreciated. Thanks.

You certainly won't get any "nicer" side by saying that, which comes across as snide. TONY (talk) 00:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/The Mummy (1999 film)

I think I have addressed your grammar concerns. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 21:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Best Conjunction?

OK, in:

Predators include the Peregrine Falcon, Golden Eagle and Eurasian Eagle-owl, and the Common Raven will take nestlings

what conjunction would you use after comma, "and" or "while" or something else? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Unless you regard, in your specific context of Predation, the common raven's eating of nestlings as fundamentally dissociated from or contrary to the peregrine falcon's &c. eating of adults, "while" is inappropriate and "and" is fine.

However, you should consider inserting a comma after "Golden Eagle". I know many people preach style over content, and go red in the face if you suggest the oxford comma, but unless you genuinely intend to imply that the golden eagle and the eagle owl are near-cognates, your current structure is slightly {balky, clumsy, under-comprehensible}. Generally, lists' constituents are more easily discerned when they are consistently distinguished.

i.e.: Predators include the Peregrine Falcon, Golden Eagle, and Eurasian Eagle-owl, and the Common Raven will take nestlings

You should also consider replacing your last comma with a semicolon. Same reason: clarity of your intent for the reader. Punctuation (and layout &c.) is used by the average reader as a cue to the writer's intent, and when you overlap the syntax of two semantically related clauses as you are doing here, there needs to be a very clear distinction between the contents of the 1st and the 2nd clauses, which by use of commas throughout you are muddling.

i.e.: Predators include the Peregrine Falcon, Golden Eagle, and Eurasian Eagle-owl; and the Common Raven will take nestlings

Alternatively, of course, you could simply leave it as it is. It's perhaps not as clear as it might be, but there's nothing wrong with it.

cheers,

Saltation (talk) 00:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that, as I read it, I just found the "and" a bit insubstantial with the result that the Raven bit just sort of ran on, even though there was a different emphasis, which is why I liked "while" but recalled reading somewhere that "while" was not a good choice. I just like to throw things up once in a while (figuratively, not literally!). Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

your note

Though we've never really crossed paths, I'm a long-time admirer of your editorial prowess. That you would say this to me means a great deal.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 00:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Nguyen Ngoc Tho

Can you explain what you mean by "bend over"? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Nhu's bodyguard slapped him in the face. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 06:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Is my copyediting regressive? . Thanks again, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Punctuation

You're right. I just took a closer look and now I see it. Sorry about the mistake, which I've fixed. SlimVirgin 15:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

MoS frustration

Tony, something has to be done. I am to the point of throwing up my hands and ignoring MoS, but I suspect that would only please some of the MoS detractors, so I try to hang in there and figure out those pages at least once a week. After the time I spent there today, all I've come away with is confusion about captions, italics in headings, forcing image sizes, and the perennial dash issues. (It's a frightening thought that image captions could be patterned after some of those written by DCGeist, who tends towards writing a paragraph in image captions.) G guy started a WikiProject so things could be sorted out; what happened there? He is a reasonable editor, who works consensually—have you considered working on and strengthening the WikiProject with him? I know many editors are disgusted with and frustrated at trying to follow those acrimonious discussions on MoS and would be glad to help do whatever it takes to get them to stop and to sort out the mess, but they have no interest in wading into the ongoing insults from PMA et al. You've got to retain the upperhand and never return the insults or respond to the needling, or others will continue to stay away. I don't have time anymore to spearhead or help launch a WikiProject; someone has to take that bull by the horns and get the MoS pages sorted out. If that doesn't work, it may be time for an RFCU to address the core disruption; this has gone too far and has gone too long. I'll be out most of the afternoon. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I also left a note for G guy, and reminded him that this constant shuttling between the two of you is getting expensive and is interfering with my beauty sleep; please start picking up first class airfare so I can sleep on the flights :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Tony, let me know if there is anything I can do to help with MoS issues. Talk or e-mail. --Laser brain (talk) 18:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: 1988 PHS FAC Comment

I believe I have addressed your one MoS comment at the FAC. Hello32020 (talk) 21:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Weather front

Hi, thanks for your comments on Weather fronts FAC. I believe (and I hope) that I have addressed most of your concerns. Do you think there is anything else that needs to be done? Juliancolton 23:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed even more issues that other people have noticed. Do you think it is ready for you to support? Juliancolton 14:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Captain Scott

Thank you for supporting this at FAC. Still feel free to make comments - the article can always be improved. Or save your fire for Shackleton, whose Transantarctic Expedition will be at FA soon. Brianboulton (talk) 10:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Richard Dawkins

Dear Tony: You may not have noticed, but your FAC critique of Richard Dawkins supported the views I had expressed there under the heading "Not ready yet", although you wrote with more specificity and pungency. Some of us are trying to improve the article, which could reach FA with sufficient work. We could use your help there, especially since you have already analyzed what needs to be done. Finell (Talk) 18:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Tone cluster

Thanks for your observations and tweaks. Let me know if I've successfully addressed the questions you raised: diff.

I feel compelled to explain about heavy metal. The admirable WesleyDodds solicited my assistance. I cursed and wailed:

Why, Dear God, Why
Heavy? Fucking? Metal? Let's check out my qualifications: I own exactly two metal albums—Motörhead's Orgasmatron and 1916. (Of course, I love Led Zep, too, but have no albums for tedious historic reasons. There is my beloved 45 of "Hey, Hey, What Can I Do," though.) I think of "Helter Skelter" as my favorite heavy metal song; PJ Harvey's "Long Snake Moan" as my second favorite. "Kashmir" is my favorite Zep song, but is it metal? Never, even in my most feverish dreams, did I imagine myself laying an editorial hand on this subject matter... Well, I can't wait to see you grappling with Deathrocker over the appropriate level of attention to devote to...um...Edguy and Hammerfall. Edguy and Hammerfall. I may cry... Of course I'll help.

WesleyDodds, that callow, treacherous SOB, moved on after the article achieved FA status. I, loyal and conscientious to a fault, remained behind to tend our cheerless charge for evermore. I feel about it the way I like to imagine Barbara Bush feels about her most (un)fortunate son. Best, Dan.—DCGeist (talk) 20:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again—excellent ideas. See what you think: diff. As for linking within the now much-reduced quote, per our bloody, bloodied MoS, I believe "there is a good reason to do so"—in this case, the quote (a) introduces significant terms (b) likely unfamiliar to many laymen (c) that it would be ungainly to include and link elsewhere in the section.~~—DCGeist (talk) 21:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)~~

~~Upon further reflection, the Nicholls quote had to go. Here's the diff.—DCGeist (talk) 06:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)~~

~~Emile Lemoine~~
~~I managed to get two people (three if you count WBOSITG and Epr's to be separate ones) to do a copyedit. Would you see if I've addressed your "and more"? Nousernamesleft 01:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)~~
~~I updated the ref. Nousernamesleft 20:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)~~

~~April 7 Dispatch draft~~
~~Misplaced Pages:FCDW/April 7, 2008 SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)~~
No apology necessary. I'm not sure it made much sense out of context or for those uninitiated in the mysteries of FAC (and I'm not sure Sandy wasn't pulling my leg by linking me to WP:WBFAN). Yomangani 08:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Ha ! I linked Yomangani to WBFAN because I know how he feels about it :-) Guys, I love that quote; it sums up a lot about FAC. Can we pretty pretty please find a way to explain the context so it can be kept? Those articles get attention, others don't, is the idea. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I moved your version from the talk page to the main page, but kept the quote, as I really want to figure out how to make it work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
~~I tweaked it to try to provide context; better now? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)~~

~~my acitivites curtailed until WP's technical glitch is resolved~~
~~Misplaced Pages:Village_pump_(technical)#URGENT_action_required.2C_please:_browser_issues_with_eng.WP_alone TONY (talk) 01:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)~~
Tony, I had the same problem earlier today, don't understand it, but Gimmetrow fixed it. For him to be able to edit your monobook, you have to give him explicit permission. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh thank the lord (the lord is Gimmetrow!)—I cleared my cache as she advised, and the yoke around my neck was released! TONY (talk) 01:44, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Happened to me when I was trying to promote/archive (which requires opening six or seven tabs at the same time); wanted to scream. Don't know where I'd be without Gimmetrow. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
~~I left a question for you here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)~~
Can't see a specific question for me there. TONY (talk) 12:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
The question is what you think of quarterly publication in the Dispatch, and what Jan thru Mar would look like. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

~~Oort cloud~~
~~I've given the article a root and branch copyedit. Let me know what you think. Serendi ous 13:23, 5 April 2008 (UTC)~~

~~Prague Spring~~
~~I've changed the wording a bit, better? The Dominator (talk) 14:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)~~

~~Chough~~
Re your oppose on Red-billed Chough, and the need for a fresh pair of eyes, I asked you for help at 0658 on 23 March, but reply came there not. ~~Thanks a lot.~~ Jimfbleak (talk) 15:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
~~Replied to this outburst on Jim's talk page. TONY (talk) 16:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)~~
I understand that, but it would have been nice to have had a reply. I also appreciate that it's difficult to see your own errors - I read and reread Chough countless times looking for potential pitfalls after reading your style guide. I do quite a few GA reviews (including Emperor Penguin incidentally), and it's much easier to see other people's infelicities.
I suppose one thing I find irksome at FA (not just you) is having very minor errors pointed out, whereas I tend to fix such things myself when reviewing at GA. The other thing that is particularly annoying at FA is contributors (not you at all) who come up with endless lists of suggestions, and then don't vote either way. Anyway, forget the minor tirade above, pax vobiscum Jimfbleak (talk) 17:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

~~Decorative fonts within text ?~~
~~See Nahuatl#Sample_text, is that OK with MoS? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)~~
~~Unsure. Who's a good person to ask? TONY (talk) 16:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)~~
I don't know, but that makes three different fonts in one article (look at the sources). My only experience with graphic design has been in playbills and gala invitations, and I was always told that more than two fonts created visual confusion and was a no-no. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC) (Four when you include the italics; too much going on visually.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

~~MoS update, dispatch question~~
OK, I moved my question to Misplaced Pages talk:Featured content dispatch workshop#April 14, since it's a specific Dispatch question. That is, is it worth it to take one out of four monthly Dispatches for this, or would a quarterly update be better? And, we should include things like the change in instructions at FAC for driveby noms. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Let's see how it pans out. I've asked Dank55 to consider taking on a few pages: it's an easily divisible, and thus delegatable, task. User:Tony1/Monthly_updates_of_styleguide_and_policy_changes TONY (talk) 12:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
To put it as plainly as I can :-) ... I have a very hard time following Dank55's writing. It exhausts me. Whether we allocate a monthly or quarterly slot to this at WP:FCDW to me depends in part on what you can commit to. I want a clear, succinct write up of changes, because the verbosity at MoS is part of why I now avoid the talk page there. Editors just need to know what the changes are, without all the verbosity that is found on the MoS talk page. It's illuminating that hundreds of KB of discussion at that page actually results in such little change when you look at it on a quarterly basis. Anyway. I need to know what to do this month. If you take the April 14 Dispatch slot, can you do a write up that introduces/announces your new page and summarizes the changes so far this year? I'd like to give it to you quarterly, if you can commit. If not, the DYK people have done a writeup and I can give them the 14th. Please let me know. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

~~initiative~~
congratulations on your initiative. for people like me, who tend to carelessly pass over details, its very useful to have a way to make sure we don't fall too far behind. (smile) DGG (talk) 03:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

~~Oort cloud comment~~
Comment on RJH's review—Just shoving a "Support" in here and providing no evidence of having looked at the article is regrettable. We really need to engage with the material, or even a portion of it, to make this a high-quality process. The nominators and the project deserve it. Please tell us just a little about why you support it, please.
Tony1: look under the hidden gray box in the FAC. Also see the article history for April 2–3. I added more comments today and I have also changed my position based on recent edits.—RJH (talk) 15:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
It would be helpful if the planet articles would come to FAC better prepared; since the editors bringing them are all experienced FA writers, it's surprising that they continue to appear at FAC with the same issues as in previous FACs, in need of better sourcing, consistent ref formatting, MoS cleanup and copyediting. I guess that may have been the point Tony was making about the Support. It's understandable for first- and second-time FA nominators, but not when the same issues come up in every planet FAC presented, and reviewers have to repeat issues that were covered in many other planet FACs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
~~RJH, thanks for letting me know. TONY (talk) 01:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)~~

~~WP:Layout~~
Tony, Sandy requests your help at WT:Layout#Rewrite. It concerns a very short section, dealing with end sections. We've already crossed the big hurdle; we've gone 3.5 days with no one arguing in favor of "no recommendation for order of end sections", which was a very long-running debate a month ago, and a pretty wide range of people have been notified to speak up at this point, so I think we're in the clear. Anyway, Sandy mentions the 3 other problems, all of which are right; mainly, the names of the end sections don't match the names of end sections in WP:MOS. If you want to rewrite it, great; if you want to tell me what you'd like to see, that works too. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 00:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
P.S. Also, Sandy was saying that in some cases, you don't want to advise people to alphabetize lists; I'm guessing she felt that it was either trivial or self-evident. In the discussion right below WT:Layout#Rewrite, last comment dated March 6, you'll see that we were wondering what to advise about alphabetization in See also links, because opinions seemed to be all over the place. We found that most GAs with not a lot of See also links didn't alphabetize; others did. Some people grouped their See also links, and generally denoted that by putting them out of alphabetical order; they thought that made it obvious what the grouping was, and it didn't. You have a lot more experience with this than I do; feel free to make a recommendation. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 00:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't care what GAs do or don't do; they have no community standards, and each GA is only as good as the latest editor one cut above a troll, sock or vandal who may have passed the GA. I also con't care if we alphabetize or not (but we're pushing it by telling editors how to organize lists), but regardless, we don't put self-references into the article text, by specifically adding a line saying to alphabetize, which is what was there before. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps raise this at MOS main page with a link from Layout? TONY (talk) 02:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

~~Nguyen Ngoc Tho~~
~~Update. I've done a full copyedit. Thanks, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)~~

~~Thanks!~~
~~Wow! Coming from the master, the ultimate "word nerd" himself, that means a lot. Thanks! indopug (talk) 04:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)~~

~~New WMF Licensing Policy?~~
In this edit, you mention a new licensing policy, promulgated from 23 March 2008. But the link is only to the WMF wiki front page, and though I looked further, I couldn't find anything. Can you help? Where has this been mentioned on-wiki? Carcharoth (talk) 14:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Ta, my goof; fixed. TONY (talk) 14:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
What you've linked to is not a new resolution. It is a clause of a resolution passed on 23 March 2007 that came into effect on 23 March 2008. In practice, it seems to have had little effect, as I haven't yet seen people changing their practice based on that more stringent wording. Probably largely because no-one is sure what it means. Or rather, only some of our NFCC criteria can be decided mechanically, and others are subjective and need discussion. So that clause shouldn't, in theory, change how things are done here, as we already (after a period of notification and/or discussion) delete images that fail our EDP. The WMF resolution is silent on how long such periods of notification and/or discussion should be, so presumably that is decided (within reason) on a project-by-project basis. In our case, the periods range from 2 to 5 to 7 days, and within those time periods people are allowed to contest the proposed deletion. Carcharoth (talk) 14:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

~~General~~
I know you you don't normal copy-edit and I know we sometimes disagree on how much needs to be trimmed in order to (couldn't resist) eliminate redundancy, but could I request you give The General in His Labyrinth the once-over on Thursday just before the authors put it in for FAC? It isn't ready yet: it's part of a class project that finishes on Thursday and they are keen to get it nominated by the deadline, so they are still working on it. It doesn't have to be the full works - a quick skim through to pick up any obvious boo-boos we may have missed would help. I'll drop you a note when it is closer to being "finished". Yomangani 15:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

~~Tropical Storm Barry (2007) FAC comment~~
~~Thanks for reviewing the article, and I responded to your comments on the FAC. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)~~

~~ENGVAR~~
~~You really need to see the show at Talk:Rotavirus; what a timesink and an affront to a perfectly fine article and editor. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)~~
There's hardly any text there at all ... TONY (talk) 16:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
It's archived; see the last archive. DOn't miss it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Talk:Rotavirus/archive3 SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

~~Jack Kemp FAC~~
I am glad to see that your real life workload is a 1 today. I was not quite sure what to do about your April 6th complaint that the Jack Kemp article was troubled by "bizarre, awkward, unexplained structures and wordings" because the complaint did not give me much actionable guidance. A subsequent editor complained of choppiness and passive voice which gave me grammatical changes to look for. I spent the whole day attempting to address his concerns in this regard and hope this might be what was necessary to converted you to support or at least neutral. here is what I did today that may have addressed your concerns.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 03:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

~~Richard Dawkins~~
Hello Tony. How are you? You opposed the FA nomination of Richard Dawkins. We have made some necessary changes. I would like you to see the article. Do you think the article is ready for the FA status? Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 08:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

~~Image:FA on main page (for the Signpost).png~~
~~I am putting the non-GFDL license on Image:FA on main page (for the Signpost).png as it contains the Misplaced Pages logo. Have a nice day. asenine /_c 13:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)~~
And I changed it again to {{Misplaced Pages-screenshot}}. It is copyrighted by the Wikimedia foundation because of the logo but is good for use in the signpost. Woody (talk) 14:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
We all have our part to play ;) Where we would be without prose aficionados like yourself? Woody (talk) 14:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

~~How's it goin?~~
Hey! Just wanted to see how your doing! Life going well? My goal is to make friends with every single person on wikipedia! Will you be my wiki-friend? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.229.227.142 (talk) 15:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Not if you're anon. TONY (talk) 16:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
The IP was blocked by the way. Part of the Southern Adventist University IP block that left this evocative speech on my talkpage. Woody (talk) 16:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
One for the rubbish bins of all those organisations! A genuine maddie. TONY (talk) 16:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

~~WORLDHEALTH map~~
~~There is nothing else to do. An admin will review and process the request soon. -Regards Nv8200p talk 17:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)~~

~~I need to ask~~
I am at a loss here. It appears it has taken me 33 years and a Masters degree in English literature to learn I have no idea how to write. I need to know what it is you expect from me, because I do not intend to stop this process until the Solar System project is complete. You and I are stuck with one another, and I can't imagine you have enjoyed these encounters any more than I have, so please, tell me what it is you want me to do. Is there a book I could read? an aphorism I could swallow? A rabbit's foot I could rub? What? Serendi ous 22:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

~~MoS~~
~~I saw your edit here. How should US be formatted? With or withour periods? TY. --Efe (talk) 02:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)~~
I see. I thought your an American. But adding dots is not a breach to MoS. I could write with dots; but it sometimes annoy me. It looks lie, duh. Anyway, I'm not the editor of The Wiggles. It just happened that I contributed a review during its GAN. Thanks for your output in "Irreplaceable"'s FAC. Thanks for the reply. Im not English-native so Im learning from you. Thank again. Keep up the good work in FAC and FAR. =) --Efe (talk) 06:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

~~Thanks for the copyedit~~
I just rewrote the middle section at WP:GAU, and I think you'll like the tone better; I do. Feel free to suggest any useful changes, including copyediting. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 20:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

~~NFCC 8 revisited~~
~~You were involved in this discussion, so I thought you might be interested in Misplaced Pages talk:Non-free content#Criterion 8 objection. howcheng {chat} 21:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)~~

~~Copy editing being reverted~~
Hi, I just noticed this from last month, where you had to struggle to tidy the writing. If you find yourself being reverted like that again (on any page), where it really is just a question of cleaning up the writing, feel free to give me a shout. SlimVirgin 01:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I read the copyedit in question, I want to timidly add one point ... timidly because I only have the answer to one tiny question. We recently did some rewriting at WP:V. On a page like WP:V, where people are parsing with a fine-toothed comb, "legal" principles should, on occasion, win out over style questions, such as the "unnecessary" repetition of words. It's a trick lawyers use: if you minimize the number of words that can be broadly interpreted, then you speed up the rate at which the meaning of those words will be nailed down by common practice. You two may be way ahead of me on this, but I just want to make sure we have a meeting of the minds on the general principle: some policy pages should have language which doesn't "flow" in some ideal sense, because there are other considerations. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 12:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
For all their obscene hourly rates and the centrality of language to their job, lawyers in my experience have appalling language skills—worse, they're lazy and sloppy about writing, too. So I wouldn't put legal linguistic practice up as a benchmark, or accept lawyers' "excuses" for repetitions and ungainliness. I believe it's quite possible to write precisely and smoothly and in good style for legal purposes; pinning down meanings later does not belong in the same basket as these excuses. TONY (talk) 12:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Right, when you say "these excuses" it's clear you're referring to the text in question. To give a specific example of the general case I'm talking about: we just had a very well-attended discussion at WP:V, and I got some language to stick. Arguably, using variants of the word "reasonable" in back-to-back sentences is not great style. What I'm saying is that, if a wikignome dropped by tomorrow and made an edit and left a note saying "the language didn't flow", he would get reverted, and the reversion would probably stick, because of this principle that a lot of people paid careful attention to the language, and decided to deliberately leave language that perhaps was not the most stylistic English, because they thought or hoped that make the job of nailing down the interpretation easier. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 12:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Can you give me a specific example? TONY (talk) 12:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Sure. At WP:V, we had an RfC and invited WP:VPP in, and at the moment it looks like the end result is going to be that several of my edits are going to stick. One sentence that isn't mine (except for the word "reasonably") now reads: "Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed, but editors may reasonably object if you remove material without giving them sufficient time to provide references." I gave two reasons for the addition, the first being that "may" by itself could ambiguously mean "might" or "can", the second being that Blueboar and others who know what they're talking about seemed to feel that the word is one for which common practice has nailed down an accepted, workable interpretation.

My only real point here is a small one: to enumerate the exceptions to wikignomery being a good thing. This is one, I think: in a core content policy, which can have manifold unintended consequences if you screw around with it too much, when considering words which necessarily have a broad interpretation, it's best to use the words that have established "precedent", that have worked well "in the trenches", over other possible choices. There's a "reasonable" in the sentence after that, and theoretically, if a wikignome comes through and changes one of them, saying that it doesn't sound stylistically right to repeat the word, my argument would be that, in core content policies, it's more important to use the words that are well-defined than to use mellifluous words.

On a completely different subject: the more I think about summary boxes, the more I like them. I would like to do as many as I have the time to do; even though I like the camaraderie of article reviewing, and I will get up to speed on that soon, this seems more important. I need to do a lot of back-reading in style pages and archives, then I'll have some specific suggestions for what I think will be helpful. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 20:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

~~User claims that wp:mosnum mandates date links~~
There is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Bot_requests#Misconceived_links_to_date_fragments_such_as_Wednesday_and_April. Please look at the comments by User:Huaiwei. It indicates that there is confusion about what wp:mosnum means in respect of linking dates. Either it is compulsory or it is not, yet two experienced editors have read the text and one concluded that it is compulsory and the other concluded that it is not.
Your thoughts would be welcome. Lightmouse (talk) 09:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

~~Sorry, didn't mean to offend you~~
You're a long time editor, so I figured I could just tell stuff to you straight, and your skin would be thick enough. ;-)
I'm surprised you would be shocked, surprised or hurt by anything that happened re WP:NFCC, since each element contributing to this situation has been previously decently documented AFAICT, including consequences of getting it either right or wrong. Are there flaws in the documentation?
Sorry if I inadvertently offended you. Obviously you're a great wikipedian, and I appreciate seeing you around. :-) Can we assume good faith on each other's part? :-)
--Kim Bruning (talk) 12:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Talk pages are by far not as important as the actual pages they are attached to, and people typically patrol the actual pages, and ignore talk page discussion until and unless something comes up.

This is why edits to the actual pages are the decision points, and why it might take some time for a patrolling editor to pick up on a problem.

From that point of view, "I missed it" suddenly sounds like a fairly straightforward and logical explanation. This is such a common occurrence that we even have a policy at Consensus Can Change which documents why this is so, and that states that anyone may come along at a later date and make a change. This applies to articles as much as it does to policies.

I don't think your sympathy or lack of it (or any other feelings) have much to do with anything; it's a rational system, and that's just how the system works. This rationality needn't be a bad thing though, because rational agents also don't get hurt so much. :-)

Does that make sense?

--Kim Bruning (talk) 13:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Not really! TONY (talk) 13:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
*muttermutterhoistmuttermutterpetardmuttermutter*

Ok, where did I lose you? :) --Kim Bruning (talk) 13:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, my take is that if people are going to be so thingy about the policy, they should be watching the talk page. But let's put that behind us and see if we can move the wording on ... TONY (talk) 14:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Meh, probably true ;-) But they do have the right. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 14:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

~~Featured article reviewing~~
Tony, pursuant to your Dispatch, please have a look at sentiments expressed by reviewers here. As I read it, most reviewers are like I was: they don't want "prestige" or "clout" or more work; they just want to be thanked (Giano's chocolates). I want to work on that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

~~Request for Help: Synthesizer article~~
Hi Tony, hope you're doing well. Not sure if you remember me, but if not, you reviewed some FACs of mine and helped me out with copy-editing tasks in the past. Right now I am working on the synthesizer article. I have not copy-edited it. At the moment, my priority is on reorganizing the sections, removing stuff that makes no sense (there was a lot of that), and finding sources to provide good citations throughout. You can see what it looked like before I started working on it here. If you can help out at all (even a peer review would be good, see here) Just let me know by replying here on my Talk page (or on this talk page). Thanks! — Wackymacs (talk) 19:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
~~Bagel~~
~~Template:Bagel of Zion~~

~~Closed RfA~~
Hi. :) You seem to have inadvertently contributed a comment to a closed RfA, here. Since these are not meant to be changed so that the archived version preserves the discussion as of the time of closure, I just wanted to point this out so that you could remove your comment. Perhaps it could be placed at the RfA's talk page instead? --Moonriddengirl 15:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
~~I figured it was an accident. :D --Moonriddengirl 16:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)~~

~~FAC Review~~
~~Comments such as this do not belong in a Featured Article Review. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)~~
Well, I was quite concerned that I'd cop it too. You seem to have dealt with one of my colleagues already. TONY (talk) 16:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
If you are unable to WP:AGF, then maybe Misplaced Pages isn't the place for you. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Only going on the previous evidence and trying to protect myself. Looks as though it was necessary. TONY (talk) 17:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Is this your admission that you are unwilling to assume good faith and abide by standard Misplaced Pages rules? Ottava Rima (talk) 17:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
No. I think you're harassing me on my talk page, the very thing I asked you not to do. Please desist, and I encourage you to work on the nomination rather than bicker here. TONY (talk) 17:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)