Revision as of 01:59, 10 January 2009 editDabomb87 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users66,457 edits →Merge of WP:CONTEXT, WP:BUILD, and MOSLINK: aside← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 00:15, 12 January 2025 edit undoTony1 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Template editors276,517 edits →Use mdy dates for an Italian singer? | ||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
], including . '''But I recommend no one bother subscribing to it now—the standards are very low.''' | |||
{{Werdnabot|inc_cur=4}} | |||
{{User wikipedia/Anti-Administrator}} | |||
{{bots|deny=DPL bot}} | |||
{{User:Tony1/Writing exercise box}} | |||
{{Styletips}} | |||
== Errors in date style "fixes" == | |||
Hi Tony. Can I ask you to be careful when doing date style fixes, not to "fix" date ranges when there are mulltiple date ranges in close proximity to one another. This typically happens with football seasons, for example. Specifically, in , "their five-year winning streak in the championship between 1984–85 and 1988-89" is correct and "between 1984 and 1985 and 1988–89" is wrong; "Steaua managed a six consecutive championship streak between 1992–93 and 1997–98" is right and "between 1992 and 1993 and 1997–98" is wrong; "to make it to the Champions League group stage three years in a row between 1994–95 and 1996–97" is correct and "between 1994 and 1995 and 1996–97" is wrong. ] (]) 17:28, 17 March 2024 (UTC) | |||
By the way, why do you not link to your talk page archives? It would be useful for me to find out whether this has been brought to your attention before. ] (]) 17:33, 17 March 2024 (UTC) | |||
==Shipwreck lists== | |||
Please do not unlink flags in lists of shipwrecks or ship launches. There are hundreds of these lists and established practice is that the flags link. ] (]) 06:22, 27 March 2024 (UTC) | |||
== Noam Bettan == | |||
Hello, could you help me give more notoriety to the article ] if you have them but they opened this query hastily. ] (]) 04:42, 6 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
== April 19, 2024 == | |||
{{Signpost-subscription|right}} | |||
<font color=darkgreen><span style="font-size:15pt">'''Real-life workload: 3'''</span></font> | |||
Hello, this is Winter. I have noticed that some of your script assisted edits have not followed the documentation stated by infobox company. You are spamming these edits without properly reviewing what they are doing. Please take the time to review your edits. If you have a complaint, please move it to the company infobox talk page. <sup>]</sup><small>]</small><sub>]</sub> 14:30, 19 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
*'''1 = no work pressure''' | |||
:Can you give me some examples please? ] ] 22:56, 19 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
*'''5 = middling''' | |||
::On ], you changed many of the perimeters to be delinked and also changed <nowiki>]</nowiki> to Public company, even though the documentation stated that it has to be the original. On ], you changed <nowiki>]</nowiki> to Privately held company. This has already been revised, that is why the perimeter is "Company type" and not "Type" anymore. <sup>]</sup><small>]</small><sub>]</sub> 23:10, 19 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
*'''> 5 = please don't expect much''' | |||
::There was recently a discussion (but where?) on this point, with consensus that "Public" and "Private" are sufficient. By "perimeter", do you mean "field"? I don't follow your logic: if the perimeter is "Company type", why repeat the word "company"? ] ] 01:37, 20 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
*'''10 = frenzied''' | |||
== Shripad Amrit Dange == | |||
'''Please note that I don't normally (1) copy-edit articles, or (2) review articles that are not candidates for promotion to featured status.''' | |||
I did not insert links. Somebody else did and you removed them. Can you justify their removal? | |||
<inputbox> | |||
Do you take my point about the lakhs? | |||
bgcolor= | |||
Can you justify any of the other changes? ] (]) 08:50, 23 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
type=fulltext | |||
:The problem with lakhs is that no one else (non-Indian second-language speakers included) understands them. You need to insert conversions at the very least. en.WP rations links to the most likely to be followed by readers. Most of those links were common terms: we do ''not'' want a sea of blue, which disrupts the reader. This was decided a decade and a half ago; also, please read ]. ] ] 08:52, 23 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
prefix=Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Archives/Language | |||
::I agree about conversions. There are certain Americanisms in other articles which non-Americans do not understand (or which mean something else in British English e.g. "braces") which I have pointed out -not the spellings or the simple words that appear in US films like "faucet," | |||
break=yes | |||
::I'll have a look at the blue links when I get the chance. Can you justify the word changes you have made.? ] (]) 09:02, 23 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
width=60 | |||
:::In order to? Never use it. Amongst? No. Same for whilst. These are pretentious old-fashioned glutinous forms. ] ] 09:08, 23 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
searchbuttonlabel=Search language reference desk archives | |||
::::I strongly agree! —] 02:03, 25 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
</inputbox> | |||
:{{tpw}} @] On lakhs, please see ] and ]. On links, ] sets out that major geographical entities (countries etc), among other things, should not be linked to. Thanks. ]] 13:34, 23 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
::Spinney, if you need a quick run-through of another article you've worked on, please ask and I'll try (unless my workload is high at the time). ] ] 13:39, 23 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
== Hi Tony1 == | |||
{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" | |||
|- | |||
! style="background-color: #C0C0C0;" | '''FACs and FARCs urgently requiring review''' | |||
|- | |||
| | |||
{{User:Deckiller/FAC urgents}} | |||
{{User:Tony1/FAR urgents}} | |||
---- | |||
|} | |||
I am happy to see that you are still very active and, I hope, well. Have you ever considered publishing your excellent guidance on writing to a broader public than those who discover it on your User and Talk pages? Have you already done so? —] 02:16, 25 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" | |||
:Finell, it's available to the public already; all that's needed is to promote it outside WP. It desperately needs renovation, which will have to wait untill I finish a big job (should be in a few months). Thanks for your kind words. ] ] 02:20, 25 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
|- | |||
! style="background-color: #C0C0C0;" | '''Pre-automated archives (4 August 2005 – 25 June 2008)''' | |||
|- | |||
| | |||
*]: | |||
*]: | |||
*]: | |||
*]: | |||
*]: | |||
*]: | |||
*]: | |||
*]: | |||
*]: | |||
*]: | |||
*]: | |||
*]: | |||
*]: | |||
*]: | |||
---- | |||
|} | |||
<div style="padding: 10px; background: #FFFAF0;<!--#ddcef2;--> border-style: groove; border-width: 3px; border-color: olive; font-size: 106%; text-align:left; text-align: justify;"> | |||
{| align="center"} | |||
{| cellpadding=3 cellspacing=0 style="float:right; text-align:center; border:solid 1px black; background:rgb(230,245,230);margin=50" | |||
|- | |||
<div style="margin-top:0px;"> | |||
</div> | |||
<div style="background-color: #FFFAF0"> | |||
<table width="95%" bgcolor="#FFFAF0" style="background-color: "#FFFAF0" border="0" rules="none"> | |||
<tr bgcolor="#FFFAF0" valign="left" align="left"> | |||
<td align="left">__TOC__</td><td align="right"> | |||
</td><td align="right"></td> | |||
</tr></table> | |||
</div> | |||
|} | |||
== ]'s FAC == | |||
== Script error in downcasing? == | |||
Care to revisit? We worked on your issues :).<FONT FACE="Arial" SIZE="-1" COLOR="orange">Mitch</FONT><b>32</b><FONT FACE="Arial" SIZE="-1" COLOR="orange"><sup>(])</sup></FONT> 17:28, 2 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
Tony, in you changed ] to ]. This seems like a bug in the script you're using? ] (]) 04:24, 4 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
:Solved. I don't understand. Why do you want to limit what articles we get to FAC? Isn't that imposing big brother on FACing articles?<FONT FACE="Arial" SIZE="-1" COLOR="orange">Mitch</FONT><b>32</b><FONT FACE="Arial" SIZE="-1" COLOR="orange"><sup>(])</sup></FONT> 14:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
:Thanks, Dick. I've reported this to Ohconfucius. ] ] 04:48, 4 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
::i seem to remember having had this discussion before. Isn't it nonsense for someone to have "professor of University of Edinburgh" as an occupation? Are people not aware of the difference between a person's occupation and their job title? It isn't even a subtle difference. The occupation of the subject ought simply to be "educator" or "professor", don't you think? {{wink}}--<small><span style="background-color:#ffffff;border: 1px solid;">]</span></small>] 21:11, 4 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::Agreed. ] ] 06:36, 5 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
== Script-assisted flag fix errors == | |||
==Naming the project and the officers== | |||
I kind of like ] as a title for the process and the officers could be called ]. So would you prefer I now lock myself into the ] or the ]? ] ] 04:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
Hi, thank you for your many script-assisted fixes. I noticed that some of the {{tl|flagg}} fixes don't always render correctly, for example at ]. Also, I'm not sure if it is wise to replace {{tlx|flagg|cncie}} with {{tlx|flagu}} as a rule, because they aren't necessarily exchangeable, the former uses ] while the latter uses ] which doesn't always match. If you want to unlink the country name, you can use {{tlx|flagg|uncie}} instead. Thanks, --] (]) 15:49, 7 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
{| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;" | |||
|rowspan="2" valign="top" | ] | |||
|rowspan="2" | | |||
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: bottom; height: 1.1em;" | '''Civility Award''' | |||
|- | |||
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | I am not at all sure how you remain civil throughout all ] but you do, so I thought I would force this barnstar on you. "]" ] ] 04:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
|} | |||
==St. Michaels Historic District== | |||
== AdminReview == | |||
Tony1 - Thank you for your cleanup of ]. It is a busy tourist attraction during the summer. Any idea why the article is rated as Stub-class? ] (]) 19:06, 10 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
:! ] <sup>]] ]]</sup> 21:13, 10 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
::Thanks. ] (]) 15:48, 11 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
== ] moved to draftspace == | |||
Just a note that I have semi-protected both ] and ] for the time being following vandalism by a series of TOR Proxy IPs. Kind regards, --] (]) 07:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
Thanks for your contributions to ]. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because '''it needs more sources to establish notability'''. | |||
== script-assisted date/terms audit on British Airways Flight 38 == | |||
I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while. | |||
Please see more information at ]. | |||
When you go through an article stripping out date formatting like you did on ] can you please make sure that the dates are left in consistant formats, including those in the references - you made the one in the body of the text consistent but not those in the references, which were left in a mix of formats. Thank you.] (]) 15:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. ]]] <sup>]</sup> 23:44, 14 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
:I'm afraid that that inconsistency is what your readers have been exposed to for many years; the application of the script made that aspect neither better nor worse. MOSNUM states: | |||
<blockquote>Dates in article body text should all have the same format. Dates in article references should all have the same format.</blockquote> | |||
== Script errors == | |||
I hope this solves the problem for you. ] ] 16:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
A couple of errors I've noticed from recent edits: | |||
], good on you! Actually, Tony's edit was an improvement as it rectified some of the American formatted (mmm dd yy) dates, replacing them with British format, leaving only ISO formatted dates. I see you finished the job manually. There is no easy/automated way of dealing with ISO formatted dates. We have found that universal conversion of these dates applied all articles leads to undesirable conversion of dates which have been so deliberately formatted, so it has been abandoned. I am aware there is still a problem, which I also go around fixing, but it is a relatively minor one by comparison with the ] dates. We will think more about the problem and maybe there will be a solution n due course. ] (]) 02:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
* – introduced inconsistency with abbreviation of degrees (M.E. vs PhD) | |||
* – Woy Woy is not in Sydney | |||
* – grammatical error introduced ("served" changed to "had") | |||
] (]) 02:43, 1 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
*Thanks. (i) That inconsistency is built into the script. (2) Not the script: that's my fault. I'll fix it. (3) Again, my manual edit. I find "served as" for wealthy, powerful politicians rather self-serving. ] ] 03:24, 1 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
*Tony, Lightmouse and I could do with your input ], please. ] (]) 15:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
== |
== Redundant commas == | ||
Hi Tony! Recently a User made an edit to ], an article on my watchlist. The edit added 25 characters but most of the additions were redundant commas. See the . | |||
First, you should be aware that whoever was hitting your page and other spots last night, it was definitively '''not me'''. Using IP-sockpuppetry would, and the false accusation did, defeat the purpose of my ever posting. It was either other abused editors who felt the chance for some revenge or some mischief, or else it was an administrator(s) using TOR and IP sockpuppetry as a ] account. I personally suspect the latter, as it wouldn't be the first time that abusive administrators had used a ] operation in order to consolidate power, make supposedly "necessary" changes that would otherwise never gain consensus because they have only power-consolidation and imbalancing as their purpose, or simply to justify abusing an editor (e.g. "see, he's using sockpuppets, throw the book at him"). Please notice that even now, I'm not interested in cussing at people (why would I be?). If I ever did cuss, you're more than welcome to point it out from my . The abusive administrator(s) poorly impersonating me, by contrast, seems to be a true example of in action. | |||
I checked the User contributions for the User responsible and I could see that most of their edits insert commas where previously there were no commas. The majority are to insert commas at the end of dates that are embedded in sentences. For example, the following: , and . | |||
Before I write to the User responsible I want to check what resources are available to help Users with the matter of commas, and redundant commas in particular. Are you aware of any Misplaced Pages guidance that clarifies when commas are desirable, and when they are not? | |||
I see you have some useful guidance on your User pages. Do you have anything devoted to commas that might persuade the User responsible that extra commas don’t necessarily mean extra quality? Thanks for any assistance. ] ''(])'' 13:37, 1 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
:Please stop this user from inserting silly commas: they're like road-humps for readers. Unfortunately no "Comma workshop" yet, but perhaps later this year. ] ] 03:32, 2 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
::Thanks for your support. I found ] and ]. Unfortunately they do not support our preference for economy with commas around dates embedded in sentences. | |||
::Perhaps there is an opportunity to challenge this item in MOS. Insisting on a comma after a date looks like a relic from the 1950s. ] ''(])'' 10:51, 2 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::I dislike the addition of a comma to produce the "In 1952, she moved to England." format, which I think might be a "fronted adverbial", something I never came across in an old-fashioned academic education in the UK. But if a date is in the American format with an internal comma, I feel that there does need to be a date after the year too. ]] 11:09, 2 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::I don't see any difference across the Atlantic. It's rather difficult for a manual of style to legislate comma usage: it's complex. But adverbial and prepositional phrases at sentence start are just silly—a habit I fear editors see in others and adopt thinking it's required. BUT, if the initial phrase is medium to long, that sways a bit toward using the comma; and even after a short initial phrase a comma is useful for breaking up numerals; so "In 2011 1032 craters were detected on Mars" would possibly be improved with a comma. ] ] 11:18, 2 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::So many editors are adding those horrible commas after "In 1952" that I'd assumed it was correct, rather than reverting them as clunky prose, just as you say. I should be more assertive in the interests of decent writing. Thanks. ]] 11:39, 2 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::At ] there is actually a valuable ruling in the case of dates written as ''dd month year'' without an intervening comma. The Table shows that closing the date with a comma is incorrect. Hooray! | |||
:::::I was able to incorporate this in a message to the User in question. See my . | |||
:::::If the date is written as ''month date, year'' then the Table at MOS:DATE shows that a comma is required after the year, to close the date. ] ''(])'' 11:43, 2 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
*Comma therapy is especially productive when an article goes through the history of the subject, with almost every paragraph starting the same repetitive way. This needs the delete button to smooth things out. Watch for nested phrases, though, like: "In 2011, without hindsight, the troops went on the attack." ] ] 11:47, 2 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
*:What do you think of ? ]] 18:03, 2 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
*::I'm OK with that one—such a cluster of linked constituencies and wards. ] ] 05:24, 3 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
*:@] Please start a campaign to amend ] to include "Where not to use a comma". I hope you agree with , as I cited you as an authority! ]] 14:33, 9 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
*::Pam, I'll certainly be creating a "Comma workshop" tutorial page when I renovate them later this year. ] ] 05:41, 10 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
== single-ses == | |||
As regards your offer to communicate via email, what real assurances do I have that it would remain "confidential"? Misplaced Pages history is replete with examples of "confidential" emails not remaining so. For that matter, I actually did try clicking the "email" tab from the previous, only to find out that an admin is abusive enough to have clicked up the "deny email" button (I suspect, given his abusive and incivil history, that he simply does this by default whenever issuing a block). | |||
includes a change to "single-se'''s'''", which is clearly wrong. I can't tell if it is a manual typo or an error in the script that needs fixing. ] (]) 09:01, 16 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
As regards "a pitiful fool", I don't consider you such, but either you're hopelessly naive or you have never been on Misplaced Pages's IRC channel (or the administrators' channel), or you would know better than to or the people involved in it. | |||
:Sorry, manual error. I'll fix it now. ] ] 09:03, 16 June 2024 (UTC) PS I'm amused that this family of articles announces "single-sex" ''and'' "school for boys/girls". ] ] 09:04, 16 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
== W. David Marx Script-assisted styles fixes == | |||
Final point: I received a "was it you" email, obviously BCC'ed to a large number of people, to my main account's email early this morning. You'll forgive me if I consider my concerns about receiving abusive emails and phone calls on this topic 100% justified now. WW, ] (]) 19:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
:You'd just have to trust me. There's little incentive for me to break confidentiality in this case, and considerable risk in doing so. ] ] 01:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC) PS I wish you'd avoid (1) whole-class comments on admins, and (2) accusations of admins by name. If you've never met a hard-working, skilled, professional, NPOV admin, perhaps you should get to know some. Your blanket accusations are unfair and lack credibility—at the very least, I recommend you constrain the scope of your negative remarks to a ''section'' of the class in question. Accusing people by name is unacceptable on my talk page, for obvious reasons. You will immediately find that your comments gain greater traction if you give people a little lattitude; that is what you need from admins, so you could do no better than offering ''quid pro quo''. My offer to correspond by email remains open. ] ] 02:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
We seem to have a little problem then, since you have given me no reason to trust you and plenty of reason to distrust you so far. And there is plenty of incentive for you to break confidentiality, involving the "goodwill" of any number of abusive administrators who I am 100% sure would love to get their hands on anything that might "lead" them to my main account at this point. They've already begun trolling emails (and I bet a few checkusers were run, not that normal peons get to see when they are unless our ] deign to say so), to see if they can find me. | |||
Hi Tony1, | |||
''If you've never met a hard-working, skilled, professional, NPOV admin, perhaps you should get to know some.'' - I've met them before. The problem is, the good ones have '''already left the project''' being sick of what was going on. The behavior of the rest has gotten worse and worse over time, as places like WP:ANI have turned from being actual places for the work of the encyclopedia to get done, into echo chambers full of nothing but corrupt admins and game-playing wannabes who trade "support" of bad administrator actions for protection of their own bad behavior later. | |||
I can see that you are trying to use scripts to make changes on the article W. David Marx (Author). Having looked through your talk page, I can see that there are other people complaining about these edits. If you want to continue to edit on W. David Marx, please provide evidence and explanations for the changes you make, including taking out hyperlinks. Otherwise I will keep reverting them - without explanation I cannot understand why you are making these edits and therefore change my mind, if I am incorrect. | |||
I knew five good ones who quietly hung up their hat after the whole "Wheel War Policy" nonsense went down, because they saw precisely what its real purpose was; to further put up ] in the way of stopping bad administrator actions from being undone. Unblock requests used to be somewhat effective, before the ] policy. After that point, the good ones on Unblock patrol left the project, leaving us with the abusive types and newly-cut "admin from wannabe" WP:ANI hangers who "cut their teeth" by walking around, not investigating anything, and leaving decline notices like "this doesn't actually specify a reason for unblocking" or "declined because you said something bad about the admin" to users who point out that their blocks are unjustified via policy, then lock the page or extend the block just for spite. | |||
Thank you ] (]) 09:55, 26 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
You say, contradictorily, "''I wish you'd avoid (1) whole-class comments on admins, and (2) accusations of admins by name.''" Functionally, you can only have one or the other. Either they're collectively guilty (in the terms of "this is how administrators do X, Y, Z") or else I have to bring up a specific case. More often than not, these discussions have fallen into the administrators' favorite wikilawyering game of "your complaint is too generic, bring a specific case", followed by picking at the case like a murder of crows until they've completely threadjacked it, then following up by accusing the bringing user of "disruption" for "wasting their time" and throwing on a punitive block simply because that's how they behave. Either I speak generally about how the system works and is set up '''in practice''' with policies that have been tweaked to be completely tilted over the years by just such ] behavior as they did to me, or you want someone to spend their time looking for specific examples, but specific examples (like LessHeard VanU's abusive "default 31 hour" blocking procedures, which he has already said he has no intention of giving up) will naturally require '''naming names.''' | |||
:Yes, you are very much incorrect in linking common words like these: ] ] and culture ] who works and lives in ], Japan. Have you read ]? If you don't like it, I suggest you launch an RFC at ]. ] ] 10:35, 26 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
Now, if you believe ] is any help, if you really believe the argument that "''I do not believe that anyone will be more or less apprehensive of opening a complaint against an admin because their name is listed here,''" you really need to rethink yourself, especially since it was LessHeard who placed it. Every other project in the same scope as yours previously was derailed either by direct abusive action, or by co-opting it and twisting it into uselessness, and since a sizable majority of your "contributors" are themselves administrators '''and''' they're doing their level best to keep anyone else out who's willing to actually give your proposal the teeth it needs to work, you are already 9/10 of the way down that path. Take a , such as when ] was torpedoed and then ] got the corrupt arbcom added as a further bureaucracy blocking step before it was again torpedoed anyways. ] was killed for the same reason; it would have helped weed out the bad ones, the "sleeper admin" POV-clique protectors, and so forth. WW, ] (]) 17:51, 4 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
::With response to WT:MOSLINK, I understand why you have used the script. However, with this new information, I will happily go through myself and make these corrections individually if you don't mind. ] (]) 10:38, 26 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::I think "blazer" should stay linked. ] ] 10:40, 26 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::I have gone through and adjusted your changes. In hindsight I agree most of them are correct. With the Board of Directors one, as it is a specific Board of Directors (one at Human Made) that I am referring to, is it or is it not meant to be capitalised. As it is in the same sentence as Human Made, it could be written "the Human Made Board of Directors," in which case it would definitely be capitalised (according to a quick search). ] (]) 10:46, 26 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::The authoritative US and UK style guides, and our own ], say to minimise unnecessary capping. That includes "board of directors", "board", "board members", and "chair of the board". ] ] 10:57, 26 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
== June 27, 2024 == | |||
:QuisCustodio, your unhappiness is clear. You don't need to repeat yourself. It doesn't matter if 100% of admins acts badly, or if 0.01% of them acts badly. AdminReview is an attempt at improving bad administration where it occurs. You go to a lot of effort to predict our impending ]. We can't work with non-specific phrases like "you really need to rethink yourself". Frankly, I think you are being unfair to suggest that other people should fix the world for you. You have a chance to influence the process if you can make yourself understood. Right now, all I understand is that you are unhappy, think we are all doomed, and you are losing your audience. Try to shorten your contributions and offer an active positive suggestion for the future process. ] (]) 18:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
Oh please. | |||
Hello, this is Winter. I have noticed that some of your style fixes have gone against the documentation of <nowiki>{{infobox company}}</nowiki>. Public company should always be linked as <nowiki>]</nowiki>, and corporate titles always have to be linked. Please make sure your scripts comply with the documentation of <nowiki>{{infobox company}}</nowiki>. <sup>]</sup><small>]</small><sub>]</sub> 00:32, 28 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
''We can't work with non-specific phrases like "you really need to rethink yourself".'' | |||
:OK, pinging {{ping|Ohconfucius}}. ] ] 00:41, 28 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
That was directed squarely at the LessHeard-started "scare list" and the fact that Tony has let it sit, as well as Tony's credulousness with administrators in general. Were I to ] and apply ] I would be forced to conclude that you are reading what I write and really not getting it; otherwise, I would be inclined to believe you are being deliberately obtuse and pulling things out of context to irritate me. | |||
== Buggy script == | |||
''You have a chance to influence the process if you can make yourself understood.'' | |||
Funny, all I've gotten is abuse in return and the direct statement from at least one administrator that I am being persecuted in this way '''because of my views'''. Anyone else who stood up for me got threats and abuse as well. Given the sheer wikilawyering, and the nonsense about claiming that I should have "no fear" of posting from my own account even as they're engaging in hunting activity trying to find me, I am 100% justified, but that still leaves me (not to mention anyone else who might have wanted to contribute coming back to Misplaced Pages) now blocked off from contributing thanks to their ] (not to mention incredibly poor) impersonation of me and subsequent page-protection racket. WW, ] (]) 18:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
I reverted your script-assisted edits to ]. There was no reason I can see to remove the links to the UN or the centuries, removing that to ] was wrong as the structure matters, and changing "Paul heinrich von groth|Paul Heinrich von Groth" to "Paul heinrich von groth" is obviously wrong, even Google autocorrect knew this as I typed this message. Perhaps discontinue using it? ] (]) 08:53, 1 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
:Your first instinct is right 'I am reading what you write and really not getting it'. You have just posted another complaint about how awful your world is. Please try and contribute something other than complaints. Do you have an active positive suggestion for the future process? ] (]) 19:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
:Who doesn't know what iron is? If its structure is at issue, link to the relevant ''section'' of ]. Linking chronological terms is strictly discouraged, and has been since a community-wide RfC in 2009. I don't know how the von Groth thing happened. ] ] 09:44, 1 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
You appear not to understand the inherent danger of the number of admins who are now stalking the renamed AdminReview for the purposes of harassment, intimidation, outright threats, and the enforcement of ]. The difference between a toothless proposal (which this currently has been twisted into) and no proposal at all, is very, very small. Start with , "''Complaints that have even the appearance of vexatiousness will be removed promptly.'' Countdown to an admin-coordinator (or just an admin themselves) removing legitimate complaints and then blocking the complainer for "disruption" in 3...2...1... WW,] (]) 21:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
::I removed the chronological terms as updated to ], a good suggestion. The article needs major work, but is not at the top of my to-do list as yet, life is finite. ] (]) 10:19, 1 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
:Your use of the word "stalker" is inflammatory, and your apparent ability to foretell the future "... for the purposes of harassment, intimidation, outright threats, and the enforcement of ]" is little less than astonishing. There is no doubt in my mind that the majority of administrators do as good a job as they can, and that most of them would be just as happy as anyone else to see the few bad apples rooted out. And believe me, I have no reason to be soft on administrators. --] ] 21:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
:::Good work. ] ] 10:25, 1 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
== Alive! == | |||
Harassment, intimidation, outright threats, and enforcement of groupthink have already occurred. | |||
Tony, I am so happy to see you have resumed activity on Misplaced Pages! Your writing exercises were so much fun and have measurably improved my writing (if not my life!). Carry on my friend, and I hope to learn more of what you've been doing the past decade. What happened to your research on the human factors in musical sight reading? ] (]) 05:23, 4 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
''There is no doubt in my mind that the majority of administrators do as good a job as they can, and that most of them would be just as happy as anyone else to see the few bad apples rooted out.'' | |||
:Thanks for your kind words, Jeremy. The exercises are badly in need of renovation, which might happen by the end of the year. Research on sight reading? Since my PhD I haven't done anything in that area; but I ''am'' preparing something big in music theory. I don't think I ever left WP. ] ] 01:24, 10 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
== Help talk for new article == | |||
I, on the other hand, have witnessed the few good apples '''leave wikipedia already''' because they judged it impossible to reform the system even ''with'' the powers of an administrator. My "''apparent ability to tell the future''" is a mere knowledge of the past, and the fact that those who are unaware of the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them. WW,] (]) 22:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
Hello! I hope you're doing well.I've just created an article called ], but I'm not sure if it's totally ready to be on the Main article page or if I should move it back to a Draft page for more work. Your help with the ] I created was amazing, and I'd really appreciate it if you could take a look at this one too.Thanks a lot, and I hope to hear from you soon. ] (]) 11:56, 13 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
:I tend more towards George Bernard Shaw's view on the matter: "The only thing we learn from history is that we learn nothing from history." Also, perhaps unlike you, I do not share the view that there are no good apples left in the barrel. --] ] 22:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
==Happy First Edit Day!== | |||
If there are any good apples left in the barrel, they're not speaking here or on ]. WW,] (]) 00:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
<!-- ##RW UNDERDATE## --> | |||
:*Quite a lot, and paradoxically nothing, seems to have happened while I slept. We are told to 'watch out for the reds under our beds', yet there is nothing new nor concrete. Sure, we will take a look at the various initiatives which have been derailed and hopefully we will learn something. You (WW,]) seem to be well-educated, very conversant with the way WP works, you infer that all the admins who have had their names listed as watching AdminReview as corrupt, yet you offer ] evidence as to their wrongdoing. You appear to be completely paranoid - you may have good reason to be, but again, would you kindly put up or shut up. Yawn. I am sure you have heard of ]. I am quite tempted to blank this section out as completely unconstructive, and verging on the ] or ]. Tony has offered his ears, and you are not only downright sceptical, but bordering on insulting him. If you are so distrustful of Tony, I really don't know what you are doing here. I suggest you took your complaints elsewhere, because you have exhausted your share of ], and our indulgence, IMHO. ] (]) 02:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
{{ombox | |||
::*Yup, I'm starting to yawn deeply. I've gone out of my way to accommodate your right to a voice, but I'm desperate for more succinct, positive entries. We're all tiring of the constant accusations and conspiracy theories (perhaps ''you'' are an admin in disguise, trying to derail our AdminReview process? Ahem ....). ] ] 02:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| name = First Edit Day | |||
:::*The thought of an '']'' had crossed my mind. ] (]) 03:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| image = ] | |||
Fine. Here's a starter list of ''succinct'' problems I have with the current version and the talkpage. | |||
| imageright = ] | |||
| style = border: 2px solid CornflowerBlue; background: linear-gradient(300deg, AliceBlue, LavenderBlush 30%, LavenderBlush 70%, AliceBlue); | |||
| textstyle = padding: 0.75em; text-align:center; | |||
| plainlinks = yes | |||
| text = <big>'''Happy First Edit Day!'''</big><br />Hi Tony1! On behalf of the ], I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of the day you made and became a Wikipedian! ] (]) 08:00, 14 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
}} | |||
== Request for assistance in creating a Misplaced Pages article == | |||
<br>1. - I do not find the "list of admins watching this page" created by LessHeard to be helpful. On the contrary, I believe it to function as a coercive scare-tactic to keep people away. It will function in two manners; first, to tell abused users whether or not they can expect retaliation (should the admin or his friends' names appear), second, it gives a list of names that an abused user will likely consider all to be on "friendly" terms with most or all of the coordinators. Even if the administrators don't mean it this way, that is how many users trying to find a place to get a fair hearing (especially if reaching AR only after being abused elsewhere) are going to see it. | |||
<br>2. - ''Complaints that have even the appearance of vexatiousness will be removed promptly.'' - This much resembles the common WP:ANI line, and over at WP:ANI any complaint about an admin at all (no matter how well founded), save for those filed by other equally-connected admins, ever is viewed as anything other than "vexatious." Lacking a guideline on what a so-called "vexatious" complaint is, this becomes a clause to be abused at will. | |||
<br>3. - ''AdminReview may decline to take on a case, with or without the provision of a reason for its decision.'' - '''A reason should always be given.''' Part of the problem with abusive administrators is that their abuse often comes with either directly misleading, unhelpful, or nonexistent communications. I know several who, prior to the ] debacle, actually taunted blocked users to "go complain on wikipediareview.com they like your types there." Failing to communicate '''why''' a case was refused gives no input to the filing user as to what is going on or how they could improve their case for refiling. This is counter to the principle that AdminReview is supposed to be about "communication." | |||
<br>4. - ''Relevant policy pages'' - This section needs to more clearly delineate the difference between actual policy pages, and mere essays. Far too many people treat "essays" as having the force of policy. | |||
<br>5. - Likewise, for purposes of these procedures, any policy reference and decision needs to be made on the basis of '''the policy as it was written at the time of the user action(s) the admin claims as policy-based reason for the block'''; there are plenty of examples in the past in which an admin unilaterally changed a policy (adding/removing something to the policy page), and then issued a block based on their new change. | |||
<br>6. - Comment from Laizulasher: "''In Lazulilasher's dream Misplaced Pages: a process is created which is chaired jointly by administrators and regular editors.'' Given that I (and most petitioners I will suspect) have absolutely no trust in any administrator, because administrators fall far too high on the "power" scale and of course, '''absolute power corrupts absolutely''', I do not feel comfortable with much involvement of administrators as coordinators at all, much less 50% or higher involvement. He/she states "''I would feel more secure in judgments rendered by an impartial board with access to the highest possible amount of information''", and I submit that given the "godlike" power granted currently to administrators (analogous quite easily to "the power over who lives and who dies"), no board featuring admins in a heavy role will ever be "impartial" in dealing with other administrators. | |||
<br>7. - "''AdminReview aims to address the perceived lack of effective process for reviewing admins' actions and applying disciplinary remedies where the actions were unreasonable and/or in breach of policy, particularly as a block on a user remains permanently on their record even if the block is found to have been unjustified.'''' - Followup notes: first, not only do "blocks" remain on record permanently, administrators make a practice of "unblocking to lengthen" or "unblocking to shorten", and then considering the reblock as a '''new''' block when counting up the user's number of blocks for the ] harassment technique. I've seen editors leave the project because they'd only had two "blocks", but were given ten "blocks" on record (with an accompanying eight "unblock to modify" insertions), and nobody would ever take them seriously again because they were now "a user with ten blocks in a month." How is this to be addressed? '''IS''' there some method within the wikipedia system to address this that users can actually be steered to, or not? | |||
<br>8. - Are there basic standards that AdminReview insists on as supported by policy, or not? For example, ] lists the following notations: | |||
#''The community expects that blocks will be made with good reasons only, based upon reviewable evidence and reasonable judgement, and that all factors that support a block are subject to independent review if requested.'' - as if. | |||
#''Administrators must supply a clear and specific block reason which indicates why a user was blocked.'' - usually an unreadable template or worse. Templating a comment field is particularly nonsensical, but excessively common. | |||
#''Block reasons should avoid the use of jargon as much as possible so that blocked users may better understand them.'' - see above. | |||
#''incidents of disruptive behaviour typically result in 24 hours blocks, longer for successive violations;'' -- as per earlier discussion, many administrators already completely disregard this one and implement much longer blocks than necessary. Would a complaint about this be "vexatious"? | |||
How do we go about dealing with administrators who completely disregard policy on these points, to name just a few? What about administrators who insist (one of whom has already insisted so '''on AR's very talk page''') on continuing non-policy abuse? | |||
<br>9. - Users are regularly admonished to avoid wikilawyering, often even blocked for "disruptious wikilawyering" by vexatious administrators. How, in this process, are both sides to be held to the same standard for that? A common response on WP:ANI is that a user is being "vexatious" pointing out that something wasn't done according to policy, with things like ] or "the spirit of the policy", or even the old saw of "well we give administrators wide latitude so just suck it up." How do you intend to avoid this kind of problem (which makes it obvious to abused users that they're not being heard in anything resembling a fair manner)? | |||
<br>10. - Wording limits on filings are counterproductive. Some people are more verbose than others. Some disputes are going to take more time and description (how many diffs? how many instances of problem behavior to list?) than others. I would really hate to see an otherwise valid case rejected merely because someone needed 300 words to state their case. | |||
Hi Tony, hope you're doing well! I was referred to you by Meta AI as an experienced editor who can help me create a Misplaced Pages article about myself. I'd greatly appreciate your guidance and expertise in getting my article started. Please let me know if you're available and willing to help. Thanks in advance! ] (]) 13:13, 14 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
Well? There's some starter points. Your response? WW,] (]) 07:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
== "]" listed at ] == | |||
Also: | |||
] | |||
''Stage 3 will decide and write judgement on simple majority. A 'hung' verdict will go in favour of the Admin.'' - This should be reversed: a 3v3 tie between 6 coordinators should be a vindication for the editor that the administrator's action was '''not''' justifiable by review of policy. WW, ] (]) 07:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
The redirect <span class="plainlinks"></span> has been listed at ] to determine whether its use and function meets the ]. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 July 18#Distribution Center Management System}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> ] (]) 06:36, 18 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
== Removal of spouses in officeholder infoboxes == | |||
===Arbitrary section break=== | |||
Now, we appear to be going somewhere. I will not address all of your points, but would offer my personal view on certain points only: | |||
*1/I cannot help your feeling intimidated by it: your cup is half empty whilst mine is half full. You already see the process being corrupted by their involvement; I see the list as an indication of support of some admins, which we need in order for the project to be seen to be fair. | |||
*2/ Vexatious complaints - you must not dismiss the possibility that vexatious complaints will ever be completely eliminated. The mechanism, therefore, is an important one which balances the prima facie qualities of a case and the administrative burden. I have a feeling that having a guideline of what constitutes "vexatiousness" is just ], and would get the process bogged down on technicalities and ]. | |||
*3/ I do take your point. It is a "we reserve the right to.. " sort of clause, but I fully imagine that, in practice, a reason will be given for declining a case, however, it may not be as detailed as you may like. | |||
*4/ Not within the scope of this to define or delineate policy areas. However, I have sorted the list and removed the essays. | |||
*6/ Depends on what you might call "heavy role". You will note that the composition of the 'board' will be skewed towards non-admins. If you want them not to have a role at all, it's likely to be a deal-breaker, IMHO. I do not believe this project is some exercise of ]. For it to work, the whole community must work together, so we cannot have admins (as a group) disenfranchised. | |||
*8/ Then it would be patently obvious, and the coordinators are likely to find against the admin in question. | |||
*9/ the process would rely on fact and not arguments | |||
*10/ Nobody's going to stop reading when the wordcount gets to 300, but I do not expect case-handlers to have to wade through ], ], or ] to gain a basic understanding as to the complaints. | |||
*Stage 3: the ] and the ] are fundamental tenets of justice. Also, the full panel may not always be an even number. ] (]) 08:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
Good afternoon! I noticed you'd removed the spouse names in ] and ]. Is there any reason for removing these, so long as they're properly sourced? I know that for children, parents, or unmarried partners the guidance is to only include names if the individuals are notable, but that spouses are often included regardless of individual notability per the guidance in the basic biography ]. Wanted to make sure I hadn't missed some project discussion before I made any additional changes or edits. Thanks! ] (]) 01:13, 21 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
'''Response by Tony1:''' | |||
:Hi, they ''weren't'' properly sourced (nor the claim of three children in the Condor article), and it wasn't thought suffidiciently important to include mention (and sources) in the main text. Biographies are stricter about sourcing than other articles are. ] ] 01:37, 21 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
*(1) Stop the paranoia, please. While I'm not familiar with some of the names, those I know are fine people. Moni3 is highly respected at FAC, and something of a language guru. Black Kite does tremendous work protecting WP's pillar concerning reproducibility, specifically as it concerns our ] policy—I mean, highly skilled work that would do a top attorney proud. These are just two examples. I'm pleased that ?12 admins have come forward, some of them explicitly to support the page. What ''are'' you talking about? | |||
::@] Why leave Conder's wife in the text of the article, if she's not well-enough sourced for the infobox? Do different rules apply? ]] 05:26, 21 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
*(2) I will tone down the wording to "Complaints that appear to be vexatious will be removed promptly". Filtering out unreasonable complaints is one of the challenges of the new system, and the demands of natural justice ("everyone is entitled to a hearing" and "justice must be not merely done, but seen to be done") must be balanced against the need to be fair to admins, who can easily be unreasonably accused, and of a system that might otherwise be swamped. | |||
:Hi there, I added back both of the spouse names to the infobox. For Greer, I added a ref to the infobox since it's not otherwise mentioned in the article. For Conder, it's sourced at the mention in the main text. I very much understand the sensitivities for biographies, especially BLP, but in these cases the spouse's name would be considered non-controversial fact-of information and is (now) appropriately sourced. Perhaps it's worth a broader discussion as to whether or not non-notable spouses should be included in infoboxes? If that's the case, we should probably take the conversation to the ] talk or ] talk. Have a great day! ] (]) 00:04, 22 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
*(3) OK, I'll change it, but I don't want to impose unreasonable procedural burdens on coordinators by having to respond to every nuisance complaint. | |||
*(4) I agree; Ohconfucius has changed the wording. | |||
*(5) I agree; it's a finnicky point, but probably worth adding. Indeed, I foresee that policy ''will'' change more often in response to a proper process of review. | |||
*(6) Ohconfucius says it all. | |||
*(7) I do believe that the block log system needs a process of review and appeal, although it is not currently within the scope of AdminReview. Give the system a chance to evolve and gain acceptance; then we might see about recommending further changes. First things first. AdminReview is already a major step, even though no one is claiming that it will achieve its goals fully or immediately. | |||
*(8) "The community expects that blocks will be made with good reasons only, based upon reviewable evidence and reasonable judgement, and that all factors that support a block are subject to independent review if requested." AdminReview will inevitably be called on to provide such independent review, although not retrospectively. As for the other clauses you cite, I think these need to be codified and referenced in the "Specific policy requirements" on the AdminReview page. Remember that the whole process is about gaining ''trust''—of non-admins, admins, and the community as a whole. Please stop throwing around the word "abuse" quite so often; it's unhelpful. Moderate language is more effective in this context. | |||
*(9) See Ohconfucius's response. | |||
*(10) And huge, verbose statements are also counterproductive; this is one of the problems in other WP processes, and it causes backlogs, tardiness, and makes processes less accessible to many users. It is a useful exercise to self-edit a statement down to a word limit: the result is usually more persuasive. I make no apologies for allowing coordinators to edit down statements and rejoinders if they contain irrelevant fluff. It's called helping users to be relevant, and serves the narrow legalistic judicial framework that underlies AdminReview. That framework is there to protect all parties, as much as some people will inevitably criticise it as being bureaucratic bloat. However, I'll consider writing in some wriggle-room on the word limits. ] ] 12:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
== ISO 4 == | |||
1. -"''Stop the paranoia, please.''" - after everything you've seen me put through, including the bad-faith and poor impersonation of me in someone's lame ] operation, you call me "paranoid"? Right back at you, ''"What '''are''' you talking about?"'' Similarly, Black Kite's involvement/work on WP:NFC has no bearing on his ability (or from my perspective, lack of same) to be an honest admin. I also take it very seriously that the very person who '''declared his intent to continue issuing extra-long "default" blocks, deliberately flouting the blocking policy as notated above''' is the one who started the Threat List. | |||
<br>2. -''must be balanced against the need to be fair to admins, who can easily be unreasonably accused,'', as opposed to normal editors who not only can (and regularly are) unreasonably accused, but then unreasonably '''abused''' because they are seen as peons or worse and lack any power to fight back. | |||
<br>3. -If they think it's a nuisance complaint, it should be simple enough to point out a diff or two and say "we do not believe this case should be taken." | |||
<br>4. -I had no objection to essays being listed (they do offer at least a perspective on how some policies might be read). I simply did not like seeing them listed '''as policy''' rather than '''as essays'''. I'd rather when Ohconfucious had sorted the list, he'd done a sort and placed them in a "relevant essays" section. I'd do it myself, but thanks to the bad-faith ] protection of the page, I still can't directly edit it. | |||
<br>5. -It's not a "finicky point." Protection of users from ] "policy changes" is important. | |||
<br>6. -"''You will note that the composition of the 'board' will be skewed towards non-admins.''" - hardly, as the discussion from several admins on the page (now that they've half-locked the discussion) keeps wanting to push more and more admins into the coordinator circle. | |||
<br>8. -"Please stop throwing around the word "abuse" quite so often; it's unhelpful." To paraphrase one of the most nonsensical phrases bad admins love to use, "''if you don't like being called abusive, don't be abusive." | |||
<br>9. -I can hardly believe this would be the case. Where policy is involved, "interpretation" of policy is involved. Admins love to wikilawyer while simultaneously yelling at others for "wikilawyering" in response. | |||
<br>10. -Editing down is one thing and I have no objection to it; rejecting a request because someone's writing style is more verbose than another's is where the "hard limit" caps make for bad policy. I'm glad to see you are willing to soften this policy. | |||
<br>WW,] (]) 16:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
Please keep dots in the infobox. See ].  <span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">] {] · ] · ] · ]}</span> 23:47, 22 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
Re: Stage 3's pro-admin bias and ''the burden of proof and the presumption of innocence are fundamental tenets of justice.'' If admins collectively ever followed these, AdminReview wouldn't be needed in the first place. Presume the person '''not''' in a position to be corrupted by power is innocent for once. WW,] (]) 17:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
:Sure; what are the dots for? I'm pinging {{ping|Ohconfucius}}, who maintains the script. ] ] 00:12, 23 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
::The dots are used to indicate that a word is abbreviated. For example, ''J. Cell. Sci.'' could be for ''Journal of Cellular Science'', whereas ''J. Cell Sci.'' could be for ''Journal of Cell Science''. Dots can be omitted as a matter of style, but in the infobox it's clearer to use them. It will also prompt the creation of redirects (J. Cell. Sci. + J Cell Sci → Journal of Cellular Science) if they haven't been created.  <span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">] {] · ] · ] · ]}</span> 00:19, 23 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::On the topic of script fixes, same , where it ndashed an ISSN, which should always be hyphenated.  <span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">] {] · ] · ] · ]}</span> 00:29, 23 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::I usually correct the ISSN problem manually. I must have made a mistake. The dots: no, I remove them manually, which is not uncommon practice. Tellingly, the well-known Caltech ''Web of Science'' list of journal abbreviations does not dot them. https://images.webofknowledge.com/images/help/WOS/A_abrvjt.html ] ] 02:06, 23 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::Web of Science can use whatever abbreviation system it wants, but ] is dictated by the ]. based on the is the best way to get abbreviations for a given name, though sometimes it returns wrong answers in corner cases. Abbreviation look up is integrated in the infobox, but you need to enable it (]).  <span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">] {] · ] · ] · ]}</span> 02:29, 23 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
== Article not showing in google == | |||
to your points: | |||
*1/ Use of terms such as "Threat list" is extremely unhelpful and is an extension of your paranoia. We part company there, please don't keep bringing it back. | |||
*4/ I will put the essays back under its own heading. | |||
*5/ I am firmly of the school which believes that laws should not apply retroactively. However, I also believe that loopholes should be plugged as soon as practicable. ] (]) 02:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
hi tony, Can you guide me why my newly created article about Minh-Tam (Tammy) Tran not showing in google ] (]) 12:55, 28 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
===Basic question=== | |||
Fine, here's a basic question for you: '''who is to receive the benefit of the doubt in these proceedings?''' I say that if the admin gets "the benefit of the doubt", then this will quickly devolve into a WP:ANI-like situation where "the benefit of the doubt" justifies incivil behavior or worse, and it will accomplish nothing. WW,] (]) 01:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
== ANI discussion == | |||
:If we were talking about an outcome of 3:3, split along user/admin lines, then I would tend to agree. However, I have proposed that the decision mechanism will always have an in-built majority of non-admins as a safeguard. That being the case, I fail to see how it "justifies incivil behavior or worse", and would say without hesitation that that is where the benefit of doubt should lie, per my comments above. ] (]) 02:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
Regarding your latest comment at ], just in case you're not aware of it, you might want to have a look at ]. — ] (]) 01:48, 30 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
===New point=== | |||
From the newly-worded FAQ: | |||
"'''May I complain about past incidents?''' No; only admin actions or behaviour on or after may be the subject of a complaint. Complaints may only be lodged on actions which took place within weeks of the date of filing" | |||
== Links removal == | |||
I suggest that this be amended to read "Complaints may be lodged on actions which took place within weeks '''prior to''' the date of filing, or within weeks '''after''' the expiration of a questioned block." Users permablocked will have as their "only" option communicating via email, but it's certainly possible that other users either won't feel comfortable communicating via email, or otherwise may decide to simply wait out their block; letting them file 2 weeks after expiration (giving a full "2 week" time from the end of the admin action, given that blocking has a timeframe while other admin actions are "instantaneous") is only fair. WW, ] (]) 06:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
I would like to understand why the link to ] from ] was removed. It is helpful link but I don't understand the value of removing the link vs keeping the link. Could you please elaborate. Thank you otherwise. Also premier usually has capitalisation given it is a title. The script IMO is doing more harm than good without manual oversight removing assistive formatting where it was required. ] (]) 02:52, 31 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
== Help! == | |||
== Article Styles == | |||
*I think the ] page needs a lot of pretty obvious Strunk and White style tightening and a couple places need better logic in the statement. | |||
*I found the ] page hard to read and not engaging. Some imprecise complaints and discussion here. It's obvious that the editors care about the page a lot and put a lot of work into it, but imho are not making it reader friendly. Please take a look, see what you think and advise on that page: ]. ] (]) 07:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
::These are both pretty long articles. I don't normally copy-edit. I'll have a quick look at both. ] ] 06:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
:::No sweat, but then a comment like I see what you mean or you are out to lunch would still be helpful. ] (]) 01:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
Each article sets it's own technical style and I am not sure why style needs to be dictated by the script. I don't think it's helpful for changing the entire article style via scripting when this is not mandated I believe by WiKi? Often the technical style is friendly to the editor who has been intensively working with it and resetting the style can bring manual overhead that gets in the way to say. And some regional, country or jurisdictional contextes may require e.g. different capitalisation e.g. for titles like "Premier" that are specific to state level in Australia. Also if the script / automation is used should IMO document it's changes in iterative edits and not in one big edit mixing them to align better with changelog. I'm not against large manual edits but don't like to get steamrolled by scripts dictating it's own style on technical styling. ] (]) 03:01, 31 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
==AdminScourge== | |||
:You're getting basic things wrong, like the "S" in your title above. And please take care with "its" versus "it's". If you want to argue about individual items in that edit (which I've reverted), please do. Have you been here for long? I don't think you've absorbed the way things are done. And BTW the opening sentence of that article needs urgent work. ] ] 03:06, 31 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
::This is ] - please do not change the styles in entire article. Style is consistent across the article. I will stop working in Misplaced Pages if this continues. ] (]) 03:10, 31 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::I ''will'' change a style if it's contrary to WP's guidelines. Being consistent across a whole article is required, but it has to be an acceptable style. ] ] 03:38, 31 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::You are doing in bot-like and it is specifically against doing it bot-like manner. ] (]) 03:59, 31 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::Your English needs to improve before you edit WP. Most of the edits I did were manual. ] ] 04:04, 31 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::I don't want you are personally attacking me but I don't think you are being constructive. Most of your edits were stylistic in nature and changed the article wholesale. ] (]) 04:08, 31 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::::I am having trouble with the editor as it is very annoying in it's standard mode. I just don't think it is nice to resort to personal attacks instead of raising the issues merit basis. Please fix the attitude, I don't think I am staying because of crap attitude like that. ] (]) 04:10, 31 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::::Also mocking someone's language capabilities is just plain wrong. Making assumptions about someone's capabilities or character whilst bombing the articles with bot-like script auto-spam without edit summaries? I am not sure what the issue is really. ] (]) 04:12, 31 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::{{tpw}} @] I've fixed some of the problems in the article. In particular, note that section headings in articles always use at least two hyphens, and then subheadings go step by step. Also "it's" means "it is", while the adjective "its", as in "his, her, its" doesn't have an apostrophe. That isn't a choice of style, it's correct writing. Punctuation goes before references: not a style choice but ]. ]] 05:17, 31 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
*You need to stop editing, observe, and improve your English. I'm not mocking you. ] ] 05:00, 31 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
== As such ... == | |||
Tony, I've stickybeaked into the first part of your AdminPersecute page; hope I haven't fcuked anything up, but anyway do please look carefully at what I've perpetrated. | |||
Dear Tony1 and friends, over the years I have found numerous examples of the words “as such” in Misplaced Pages articles. These 2 words have usually been redundant so I have erased them without replacement. | |||
And now, off to bed. IFF my fiddling was, on balance, for the better, then I'll continue it within the next couple of days. -- ] (]) 16:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
Recently I found 2 articles in which the words “as such” were used clumsily in the first sentence of the lead section! I replaced them with what I hoped was a more appropriate word. See my and . Both my edits were promptly reverted by the same User who appears to be an advocate, or at least a defender, of the expression “as such”. Am I missing something about some inherent merit in the words “as such” in formal writing? | |||
*I would say the changes were for the better. ] (]) 02:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
**I agree. Methinks Hoary is in a different time-zone at the moment. Ohconfucius, we need to sort out the individual vs group approach to judgements, ]. ] ] 02:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
To his credit this User then left me a message on my Talk page pointing out some of my personal shortcomings. Apparently in my list of contributions to Misplaced Pages he can see that I have done a lot that is unacceptable but he didn’t clarify what or why. He also mentioned some of the shortcomings of medical doctors and students of medicine! See ]. | |||
== ] == | |||
Is this User a person in good standing with the copy editing community? Does he speak with any authority or credibility on matters of what constitutes good writing in an encyclopaedia, and what doesn’t? ] ''(])'' 14:22, 16 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
Hey there, Tony, I'm having a discussion with someone about the capitalization of ] and ] as the names of breeds. When you did some copyediting on ], you left them in upper case, and that's always been my understanding, also. Would you mind weighing in? GMG's going on the main page on Wed, so I'd appreciate it being in the best shape it can be! First horse article on the main page, ever! Whee! ] - ] 17:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
*I hadn't imagined a good use for "as such", but there it is. Very rare. ] ] 01:36, 17 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
== Coenred copyedit == | |||
== A new redundancy example for you, perhaps == | |||
Tony, per your request at the ], qp10qp has done a copyedit on the article. Would you mind taking another look? Thanks. ] ] 04:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
"'''American football''' is a ] played by two ''teams'' of eleven players on a rectangular ] with goalposts at each end." (bold in original, italics added by me) ] <sup>]] ]]</sup> 21:03, 23 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
:A number of problems with that sentence. Next month I hope to start renovating my tutorials at long last. ] ] 03:01, 24 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
::I am looking forward to seeing what that looks like! I still share them with people every few months. They're an incredible resource on and off Misplaced Pages. ] <sup>]] ]]</sup> 03:17, 24 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::That's kind of you to say so. They're so old by now. ] ] 08:02, 24 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
== ] == | |||
Hello, I have removed all sections that were considered to be advertising. Please review the article again. Thank you. ] (]) 09:03, 1 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
:Isn't it "Vietnam"? ] ] 11:52, 1 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
::It is a Corporation in Vietnam. ] (]) 13:36, 1 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
== Ms. Olympia == | |||
Hi, i saw your edits on ]. Don't you think it's necessary to maintain links to the edition pages over the years? ] (]) 16:33, 30 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
:OK, I've reinstated them, but not as "Easter egg" links (to plain years). Let readers know the specificity or they'll never click on them. Also, please note how range dashes are done. ] ] 01:00, 31 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
::Ok, thank you for your understanding and for the changes made. ] (]) 08:48, 31 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
== ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message == | |||
<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; background-color: #fdf2d5; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; "> | |||
<div class="ivmbox-image noresize" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">]</div> | |||
<div class="ivmbox-text"> | |||
Hello! Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2024|end}}-1 day}}. All ''']''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. | |||
The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. | |||
If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>] (]) 00:04, 19 November 2024 (UTC)</small> | |||
</div> | |||
</div> | |||
<!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2024/Coordination/MM/01&oldid=1258243333 --> | |||
== Trying to understand the rational for your date changes == | |||
== Thank you == | |||
Just looking at the difference on your edit to ] it looks like the vast majority of dates were dd-mm-yyyy and it was templated to that before your change. Shouldn't you have corrected the minority of dates to dd-mm-year, instead of changing them to mm-dd-yyyy order. What am I missing? ] (]) 04:06, 23 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
Thank you for not trashing me in the RFC. It is quite clear that if I remain, I will no longer be allowed to participate in FAC. However, I have enjoyed seeing your professional work and attitude. And I wish you the best. Regards, —] (]) 04:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
:Sorry, my mistake. I'll change it now (if you haven't already). ] ] 04:07, 23 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
::Glad I asked. Thanks for your attention. ] (]) 04:14, 23 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::Nice colouring on your username! ] ] 08:23, 23 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
== Thank you for your recent edit to Subnet (mathematics) == | |||
You changed the first sentence of the lead for ]. | |||
* old version: "In ] and related areas of ], a '''subnet''' is a ..." | |||
* new version: "In ] and related areas of mathematics, a '''subnet''' is a ...". | |||
This was absolutely the right thing to do as topology is already a broad area of mathematics and there was no need to have a link to the top level field of mathematics from a small topic within the category of topology. If a hypothetical random user lands on this particular page and wonders what this is all about, they can click on ], where they will see it's part of the large field of mathematics, with an accompanying link. | |||
== Sunderland A.F.C. FAC == | |||
I am ranting here a little, because I have edited some mathematics pages in the past to do the same change, only to see another editor put this back. | |||
Hi there, cheers a lot for your review of the Sunderland A.F.C. ]. I think your comments raised have now been addressed, and if you could have another look over it, that would be great. Thanks. ] (]) 21:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
Anyway, thanks for this. | |||
Also curious, did you have a script intelligent enough to do this automatically? ] (]) 04:46, 14 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
*We ''love'' satisfied customers. I just tested linked "mathematics" and "maths". It unlinks the former but not the latter. I'll ping ], who invented and manages the composite script. ] ] 04:58, 14 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
== |
== "All fixed"? == | ||
Tony, I replied to you ]. Regards, ] (]) 03:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
Tony, where I said "All fixed" at that RM, I meant the anomalies, not that the requested moves are done. It's not been closed yet. So I reverted your removal of it from ]. ] (]) 05:32, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
==Food for Admin Watch== | |||
:Ah, sorry Dick. ] ] 08:21, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
Tony. This “admin” needs to be watched… carefully: . And more childish, confrontational crap . Is this suitable for a test case? I doubt he will create more problems, but I can tell that if I hadn’t have been very proactive, he would have spiraled out of control. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">''']''' (])</span> 04:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
== University of Parakou == | |||
* I’m not going to let Ryoung122 get by with his stupid little post. The principle here (censorship) is too important and I’m not about to laugh it off with “oh well, we just got a little hot”. See ] for the latest entertainment and your viewing pleasure. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">''']''' (])</span> 15:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
Hi there! Your recent edit to the ] made some incorrect changes. Could you please check the script you're using? Thanks! ] (]) 03:39, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
== Has everything changed? == | |||
:Redone. ] ] 07:42, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
== FIFA Arab Cup == | |||
Has everything gone weird on Wikipeida i.e. the headings are no longer bold and the font's changed, or have I bugged up my options some how? ] (]) 05:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
Hi, I don't understand why this edit ? Regards. --] (]) 17:28, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:Yeah, fair enough: I've reverted it. ] ] 00:34, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::No problem, thank you and greetinks. --] (]) 08:46, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
== Redirect listed at ] == | |||
:Oh yeah it's fixed now, should've removed this message. Turns out Firefox has some sillyness, where you can shrink the text just by using the mouse lol! ] (]) 13:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
] | |||
== Dispatch thanks == | |||
A redirect or redirects you have created has been listed at ] to determine whether its use and function meets the ]. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink| Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 January 7#five gallon bucket }}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:Rfd mass notice --> '''] <sub>] ]</sub>''' 16:59, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
Thank you, Tony. Best, ] (]) 13:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
== Use mdy dates for an Italian singer? == | |||
== Merge of ], ], and ] == | |||
Hi, why edit? Regards.-- ] (]) 13:01, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
: |
:My edit there was nearly five years ago. And I continued the pre-existing mdy. Italy is not majority-English-speaking, so it can be either. ] ] 00:15, 12 January 2025 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 00:15, 12 January 2025
During my years at the Signpost I authored or co-authored 266 articles, including one that the WMF republished on their site. But I recommend no one bother subscribing to it now—the standards are very low.
Self-help writing tutorials:
Another styletip ...
Add this to your user page by typing in {{Styletips}} |
Errors in date style "fixes"
Hi Tony. Can I ask you to be careful when doing date style fixes, not to "fix" date ranges when there are mulltiple date ranges in close proximity to one another. This typically happens with football seasons, for example. Specifically, in this edit, "their five-year winning streak in the championship between 1984–85 and 1988-89" is correct and "between 1984 and 1985 and 1988–89" is wrong; "Steaua managed a six consecutive championship streak between 1992–93 and 1997–98" is right and "between 1992 and 1993 and 1997–98" is wrong; "to make it to the Champions League group stage three years in a row between 1994–95 and 1996–97" is correct and "between 1994 and 1995 and 1996–97" is wrong. Scolaire (talk) 17:28, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
By the way, why do you not link to your talk page archives? It would be useful for me to find out whether this has been brought to your attention before. Scolaire (talk) 17:33, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
Shipwreck lists
Please do not unlink flags in lists of shipwrecks or ship launches. There are hundreds of these lists and established practice is that the flags link. Mjroots (talk) 06:22, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Noam Bettan
Hello, could you help me give more notoriety to the article Noam Bettan if you have them but they opened this query hastily. Acartonadooopo (talk) 04:42, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
April 19, 2024
Hello, this is Winter. I have noticed that some of your script assisted edits have not followed the documentation stated by infobox company. You are spamming these edits without properly reviewing what they are doing. Please take the time to review your edits. If you have a complaint, please move it to the company infobox talk page. nterU 14:30, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- Can you give me some examples please? Tony (talk) 22:56, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- On Paramount Global, you changed many of the perimeters to be delinked and also changed ] to Public company, even though the documentation stated that it has to be the original. On Princess Pictures, you changed ] to Privately held company. This has already been revised, that is why the perimeter is "Company type" and not "Type" anymore. nterU 23:10, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- There was recently a discussion (but where?) on this point, with consensus that "Public" and "Private" are sufficient. By "perimeter", do you mean "field"? I don't follow your logic: if the perimeter is "Company type", why repeat the word "company"? Tony (talk) 01:37, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Shripad Amrit Dange
I did not insert links. Somebody else did and you removed them. Can you justify their removal? Do you take my point about the lakhs? Can you justify any of the other changes? Spinney Hill (talk) 08:50, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- The problem with lakhs is that no one else (non-Indian second-language speakers included) understands them. You need to insert conversions at the very least. en.WP rations links to the most likely to be followed by readers. Most of those links were common terms: we do not want a sea of blue, which disrupts the reader. This was decided a decade and a half ago; also, please read WP:OVERLINK. Tony (talk) 08:52, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- I agree about conversions. There are certain Americanisms in other articles which non-Americans do not understand (or which mean something else in British English e.g. "braces") which I have pointed out -not the spellings or the simple words that appear in US films like "faucet,"
- I'll have a look at the blue links when I get the chance. Can you justify the word changes you have made.? Spinney Hill (talk) 09:02, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- In order to? Never use it. Amongst? No. Same for whilst. These are pretentious old-fashioned glutinous forms. Tony (talk) 09:08, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- I strongly agree! —Finell 02:03, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
- In order to? Never use it. Amongst? No. Same for whilst. These are pretentious old-fashioned glutinous forms. Tony (talk) 09:08, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- (talk page watcher) @Spinney Hill On lakhs, please see MOS:LAKH and MOS:COMMONALITY. On links, MOS:OVERLINK sets out that major geographical entities (countries etc), among other things, should not be linked to. Thanks. PamD 13:34, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- Spinney, if you need a quick run-through of another article you've worked on, please ask and I'll try (unless my workload is high at the time). Tony (talk) 13:39, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi Tony1
I am happy to see that you are still very active and, I hope, well. Have you ever considered publishing your excellent guidance on writing to a broader public than those who discover it on your User and Talk pages? Have you already done so? —Finell 02:16, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
- Finell, it's available to the public already; all that's needed is to promote it outside WP. It desperately needs renovation, which will have to wait untill I finish a big job (should be in a few months). Thanks for your kind words. Tony (talk) 02:20, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
Script error in downcasing?
Tony, in this edit you changed University of Edinburgh to university of edinburgh. This seems like a bug in the script you're using? Dicklyon (talk) 04:24, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, Dick. I've reported this to Ohconfucius. Tony (talk) 04:48, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
- i seem to remember having had this discussion before. Isn't it nonsense for someone to have "professor of University of Edinburgh" as an occupation? Are people not aware of the difference between a person's occupation and their job title? It isn't even a subtle difference. The occupation of the subject ought simply to be "educator" or "professor", don't you think? -- Ohc 21:11, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
- Agreed. Tony (talk) 06:36, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
- i seem to remember having had this discussion before. Isn't it nonsense for someone to have "professor of University of Edinburgh" as an occupation? Are people not aware of the difference between a person's occupation and their job title? It isn't even a subtle difference. The occupation of the subject ought simply to be "educator" or "professor", don't you think? -- Ohc 21:11, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
Script-assisted flag fix errors
Hi, thank you for your many script-assisted fixes. I noticed that some of the {{flagg}} fixes don't always render correctly, for example at Special:Diff/1217808882. Also, I'm not sure if it is wise to replace {{flagg|cncie}}
with {{flagu}}
as a rule, because they aren't necessarily exchangeable, the former uses IOC country code while the latter uses ISO 3166-1 which doesn't always match. If you want to unlink the country name, you can use {{flagg|uncie}}
instead. Thanks, --Habst (talk) 15:49, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
St. Michaels Historic District
Tony1 - Thank you for your cleanup of St. Michaels Historic District. It is a busy tourist attraction during the summer. Any idea why the article is rated as Stub-class? TwoScars (talk) 19:06, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Imagicomm Entertainment moved to draftspace
Thanks for your contributions to Imagicomm Entertainment. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.
Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Clearfrienda 23:44, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Script errors
A couple of errors I've noticed from recent edits:
- – introduced inconsistency with abbreviation of degrees (M.E. vs PhD)
- – Woy Woy is not in Sydney
- – grammatical error introduced ("served" changed to "had")
ITBF (talk) 02:43, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks. (i) That inconsistency is built into the script. (2) Not the script: that's my fault. I'll fix it. (3) Again, my manual edit. I find "served as" for wealthy, powerful politicians rather self-serving. Tony (talk) 03:24, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
Redundant commas
Hi Tony! Recently a User made an edit to VH-RMQ, an article on my watchlist. The edit added 25 characters but most of the additions were redundant commas. See the diff.
I checked the User contributions for the User responsible and I could see that most of their edits insert commas where previously there were no commas. The majority are to insert commas at the end of dates that are embedded in sentences. For example, the following: diff 1, diff 2 and diff 3.
Before I write to the User responsible I want to check what resources are available to help Users with the matter of commas, and redundant commas in particular. Are you aware of any Misplaced Pages guidance that clarifies when commas are desirable, and when they are not?
I see you have some useful guidance on your User pages. Do you have anything devoted to commas that might persuade the User responsible that extra commas don’t necessarily mean extra quality? Thanks for any assistance. Dolphin (t) 13:37, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- Please stop this user from inserting silly commas: they're like road-humps for readers. Unfortunately no "Comma workshop" yet, but perhaps later this year. Tony (talk) 03:32, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for your support. I found MOS:DATECOMMA and MOS:DATE. Unfortunately they do not support our preference for economy with commas around dates embedded in sentences.
- Perhaps there is an opportunity to challenge this item in MOS. Insisting on a comma after a date looks like a relic from the 1950s. Dolphin (t) 10:51, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- I dislike the addition of a comma to produce the "In 1952, she moved to England." format, which I think might be a "fronted adverbial", something I never came across in an old-fashioned academic education in the UK. But if a date is in the American format with an internal comma, I feel that there does need to be a date after the year too. PamD 11:09, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- I don't see any difference across the Atlantic. It's rather difficult for a manual of style to legislate comma usage: it's complex. But adverbial and prepositional phrases at sentence start are just silly—a habit I fear editors see in others and adopt thinking it's required. BUT, if the initial phrase is medium to long, that sways a bit toward using the comma; and even after a short initial phrase a comma is useful for breaking up numerals; so "In 2011 1032 craters were detected on Mars" would possibly be improved with a comma. Tony (talk) 11:18, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- So many editors are adding those horrible commas after "In 1952" that I'd assumed it was correct, rather than reverting them as clunky prose, just as you say. I should be more assertive in the interests of decent writing. Thanks. PamD 11:39, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- At MOS:DATE there is actually a valuable ruling in the case of dates written as dd month year without an intervening comma. The Table shows that closing the date with a comma is incorrect. Hooray!
- I was able to incorporate this in a message to the User in question. See my diff.
- If the date is written as month date, year then the Table at MOS:DATE shows that a comma is required after the year, to close the date. Dolphin (t) 11:43, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- I don't see any difference across the Atlantic. It's rather difficult for a manual of style to legislate comma usage: it's complex. But adverbial and prepositional phrases at sentence start are just silly—a habit I fear editors see in others and adopt thinking it's required. BUT, if the initial phrase is medium to long, that sways a bit toward using the comma; and even after a short initial phrase a comma is useful for breaking up numerals; so "In 2011 1032 craters were detected on Mars" would possibly be improved with a comma. Tony (talk) 11:18, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- I dislike the addition of a comma to produce the "In 1952, she moved to England." format, which I think might be a "fronted adverbial", something I never came across in an old-fashioned academic education in the UK. But if a date is in the American format with an internal comma, I feel that there does need to be a date after the year too. PamD 11:09, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Comma therapy is especially productive when an article goes through the history of the subject, with almost every paragraph starting the same repetitive way. This needs the delete button to smooth things out. Watch for nested phrases, though, like: "In 2011, without hindsight, the troops went on the attack." Tony (talk) 11:47, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- What do you think of this example? PamD 18:03, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- I'm OK with that one—such a cluster of linked constituencies and wards. Tony (talk) 05:24, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Tony1 Please start a campaign to amend MOS:COMMA to include "Where not to use a comma". I hope you agree with this edit, as I cited you as an authority! PamD 14:33, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Pam, I'll certainly be creating a "Comma workshop" tutorial page when I renovate them later this year. Tony (talk) 05:41, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- What do you think of this example? PamD 18:03, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
single-ses
This "Script-assisted style fixes" includes a change to "single-ses", which is clearly wrong. I can't tell if it is a manual typo or an error in the script that needs fixing. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:01, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry, manual error. I'll fix it now. Tony (talk) 09:03, 16 June 2024 (UTC) PS I'm amused that this family of articles announces "single-sex" and "school for boys/girls". Tony (talk) 09:04, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
W. David Marx Script-assisted styles fixes
Hi Tony1,
I can see that you are trying to use scripts to make changes on the article W. David Marx (Author). Having looked through your talk page, I can see that there are other people complaining about these edits. If you want to continue to edit on W. David Marx, please provide evidence and explanations for the changes you make, including taking out hyperlinks. Otherwise I will keep reverting them - without explanation I cannot understand why you are making these edits and therefore change my mind, if I am incorrect.
Thank you Theobrad (talk) 09:55, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, you are very much incorrect in linking common words like these: American fashion and culture writer who works and lives in Tokyo, Japan. Have you read WP:OVERLINK? If you don't like it, I suggest you launch an RFC at WT:MOSLINK. Tony (talk) 10:35, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- With response to WT:MOSLINK, I understand why you have used the script. However, with this new information, I will happily go through myself and make these corrections individually if you don't mind. Theobrad (talk) 10:38, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- I think "blazer" should stay linked. Tony (talk) 10:40, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- I have gone through and adjusted your changes. In hindsight I agree most of them are correct. With the Board of Directors one, as it is a specific Board of Directors (one at Human Made) that I am referring to, is it or is it not meant to be capitalised. As it is in the same sentence as Human Made, it could be written "the Human Made Board of Directors," in which case it would definitely be capitalised (according to a quick search). Theobrad (talk) 10:46, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- The authoritative US and UK style guides, and our own WP:MOSCAPS, say to minimise unnecessary capping. That includes "board of directors", "board", "board members", and "chair of the board". Tony (talk) 10:57, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- I have gone through and adjusted your changes. In hindsight I agree most of them are correct. With the Board of Directors one, as it is a specific Board of Directors (one at Human Made) that I am referring to, is it or is it not meant to be capitalised. As it is in the same sentence as Human Made, it could be written "the Human Made Board of Directors," in which case it would definitely be capitalised (according to a quick search). Theobrad (talk) 10:46, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- I think "blazer" should stay linked. Tony (talk) 10:40, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- With response to WT:MOSLINK, I understand why you have used the script. However, with this new information, I will happily go through myself and make these corrections individually if you don't mind. Theobrad (talk) 10:38, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
June 27, 2024
Hello, this is Winter. I have noticed that some of your style fixes have gone against the documentation of {{infobox company}}. Public company should always be linked as ], and corporate titles always have to be linked. Please make sure your scripts comply with the documentation of {{infobox company}}. nterU 00:32, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
- OK, pinging @Ohconfucius:. Tony (talk) 00:41, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
Buggy script
I reverted your script-assisted edits to Crystallography. There was no reason I can see to remove the links to the UN or the centuries, removing that to iron was wrong as the structure matters, and changing "Paul heinrich von groth|Paul Heinrich von Groth" to "Paul heinrich von groth" is obviously wrong, even Google autocorrect knew this as I typed this message. Perhaps discontinue using it? Ldm1954 (talk) 08:53, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- Who doesn't know what iron is? If its structure is at issue, link to the relevant section of Iron. Linking chronological terms is strictly discouraged, and has been since a community-wide RfC in 2009. I don't know how the von Groth thing happened. Tony (talk) 09:44, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- I removed the chronological terms as updated to Iron#Allotropes, a good suggestion. The article needs major work, but is not at the top of my to-do list as yet, life is finite. Ldm1954 (talk) 10:19, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- Good work. Tony (talk) 10:25, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- I removed the chronological terms as updated to Iron#Allotropes, a good suggestion. The article needs major work, but is not at the top of my to-do list as yet, life is finite. Ldm1954 (talk) 10:19, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Alive!
Tony, I am so happy to see you have resumed activity on Misplaced Pages! Your writing exercises were so much fun and have measurably improved my writing (if not my life!). Carry on my friend, and I hope to learn more of what you've been doing the past decade. What happened to your research on the human factors in musical sight reading? Ke6jjj (talk) 05:23, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for your kind words, Jeremy. The exercises are badly in need of renovation, which might happen by the end of the year. Research on sight reading? Since my PhD I haven't done anything in that area; but I am preparing something big in music theory. I don't think I ever left WP. Tony (talk) 01:24, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Help talk for new article
Hello! I hope you're doing well.I've just created an article called 5 July Committee, but I'm not sure if it's totally ready to be on the Main article page or if I should move it back to a Draft page for more work. Your help with the other article I created was amazing, and I'd really appreciate it if you could take a look at this one too.Thanks a lot, and I hope to hear from you soon. Bruno pnm ars (talk) 11:56, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
Happy First Edit Day!
Happy First Edit Day! Hi Tony1! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of the day you made your first edit and became a Wikipedian! The Herald (Benison) (talk) 08:00, 14 July 2024 (UTC) |
Request for assistance in creating a Misplaced Pages article
Hi Tony, hope you're doing well! I was referred to you by Meta AI as an experienced editor who can help me create a Misplaced Pages article about myself. I'd greatly appreciate your guidance and expertise in getting my article started. Please let me know if you're available and willing to help. Thanks in advance! Alhaji Jatlaw (talk) 13:13, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
"Distribution Center Management System" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect Distribution Center Management System has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 July 18 § Distribution Center Management System until a consensus is reached. Tule-hog (talk) 06:36, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
Removal of spouses in officeholder infoboxes
Good afternoon! I noticed you'd removed the spouse names in William Morgan Conder and John Allen Greer. Is there any reason for removing these, so long as they're properly sourced? I know that for children, parents, or unmarried partners the guidance is to only include names if the individuals are notable, but that spouses are often included regardless of individual notability per the guidance in the basic biography template documentation. Wanted to make sure I hadn't missed some project discussion before I made any additional changes or edits. Thanks! nf utvol (talk) 01:13, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Hi, they weren't properly sourced (nor the claim of three children in the Condor article), and it wasn't thought suffidiciently important to include mention (and sources) in the main text. Biographies are stricter about sourcing than other articles are. Tony (talk) 01:37, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Tony1 Why leave Conder's wife in the text of the article, if she's not well-enough sourced for the infobox? Do different rules apply? PamD 05:26, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Hi there, I added back both of the spouse names to the infobox. For Greer, I added a ref to the infobox since it's not otherwise mentioned in the article. For Conder, it's sourced at the mention in the main text. I very much understand the sensitivities for biographies, especially BLP, but in these cases the spouse's name would be considered non-controversial fact-of information and is (now) appropriately sourced. Perhaps it's worth a broader discussion as to whether or not non-notable spouses should be included in infoboxes? If that's the case, we should probably take the conversation to the Template:Infobox person talk or Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Biography talk. Have a great day! nf utvol (talk) 00:04, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
ISO 4
Please keep dots in the infobox. See Template:Infobox journal#Parameters. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:47, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Sure; what are the dots for? I'm pinging @Ohconfucius:, who maintains the script. Tony (talk) 00:12, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- The dots are used to indicate that a word is abbreviated. For example, J. Cell. Sci. could be for Journal of Cellular Science, whereas J. Cell Sci. could be for Journal of Cell Science. Dots can be omitted as a matter of style, but in the infobox it's clearer to use them. It will also prompt the creation of redirects (J. Cell. Sci. + J Cell Sci → Journal of Cellular Science) if they haven't been created. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:19, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- On the topic of script fixes, same here, where it ndashed an ISSN, which should always be hyphenated. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:29, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- I usually correct the ISSN problem manually. I must have made a mistake. The dots: no, I remove them manually, which is not uncommon practice. Tellingly, the well-known Caltech Web of Science list of journal abbreviations does not dot them. https://images.webofknowledge.com/images/help/WOS/A_abrvjt.html Tony (talk) 02:06, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- Web of Science can use whatever abbreviation system it wants, but ISO 4 is dictated by the LTWA. Tokenzero's tool based on the LTWA list is the best way to get abbreviations for a given name, though sometimes it returns wrong answers in corner cases. Abbreviation look up is integrated in the infobox, but you need to enable it (Template:Infobox journal#Search links). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:29, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- I usually correct the ISSN problem manually. I must have made a mistake. The dots: no, I remove them manually, which is not uncommon practice. Tellingly, the well-known Caltech Web of Science list of journal abbreviations does not dot them. https://images.webofknowledge.com/images/help/WOS/A_abrvjt.html Tony (talk) 02:06, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- On the topic of script fixes, same here, where it ndashed an ISSN, which should always be hyphenated. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:29, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- The dots are used to indicate that a word is abbreviated. For example, J. Cell. Sci. could be for Journal of Cellular Science, whereas J. Cell Sci. could be for Journal of Cell Science. Dots can be omitted as a matter of style, but in the infobox it's clearer to use them. It will also prompt the creation of redirects (J. Cell. Sci. + J Cell Sci → Journal of Cellular Science) if they haven't been created. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:19, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Article not showing in google
hi tony, Can you guide me why my newly created article about Minh-Tam (Tammy) Tran not showing in google Naqqash6 (talk) 12:55, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
ANI discussion
Regarding your latest comment at Talk:All-purpose Lightweight Individual Carrying Equipment#Requested move 24 July 2024, just in case you're not aware of it, you might want to have a look at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Andy Dingley. — BarrelProof (talk) 01:48, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
Links removal
I would like to understand why the link to Political corruption from Corruption in New South Wales was removed. It is helpful link but I don't understand the value of removing the link vs keeping the link. Could you please elaborate. Thank you otherwise. Also premier usually has capitalisation given it is a title. The script IMO is doing more harm than good without manual oversight removing assistive formatting where it was required. MissAnonymous123 (talk) 02:52, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
Article Styles
Each article sets it's own technical style and I am not sure why style needs to be dictated by the script. I don't think it's helpful for changing the entire article style via scripting when this is not mandated I believe by WiKi? Often the technical style is friendly to the editor who has been intensively working with it and resetting the style can bring manual overhead that gets in the way to say. And some regional, country or jurisdictional contextes may require e.g. different capitalisation e.g. for titles like "Premier" that are specific to state level in Australia. Also if the script / automation is used should IMO document it's changes in iterative edits and not in one big edit mixing them to align better with changelog. I'm not against large manual edits but don't like to get steamrolled by scripts dictating it's own style on technical styling. MissAnonymous123 (talk) 03:01, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- You're getting basic things wrong, like the "S" in your title above. And please take care with "its" versus "it's". If you want to argue about individual items in that edit (which I've reverted), please do. Have you been here for long? I don't think you've absorbed the way things are done. And BTW the opening sentence of that article needs urgent work. Tony (talk) 03:06, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- This is MOS:VAR - please do not change the styles in entire article. Style is consistent across the article. I will stop working in Misplaced Pages if this continues. MissAnonymous123 (talk) 03:10, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- I will change a style if it's contrary to WP's guidelines. Being consistent across a whole article is required, but it has to be an acceptable style. Tony (talk) 03:38, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- You are doing in bot-like and it is specifically against doing it bot-like manner. MissAnonymous123 (talk) 03:59, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- Your English needs to improve before you edit WP. Most of the edits I did were manual. Tony (talk) 04:04, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- I don't want you are personally attacking me but I don't think you are being constructive. Most of your edits were stylistic in nature and changed the article wholesale. MissAnonymous123 (talk) 04:08, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- I am having trouble with the editor as it is very annoying in it's standard mode. I just don't think it is nice to resort to personal attacks instead of raising the issues merit basis. Please fix the attitude, I don't think I am staying because of crap attitude like that. MissAnonymous123 (talk) 04:10, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- Also mocking someone's language capabilities is just plain wrong. Making assumptions about someone's capabilities or character whilst bombing the articles with bot-like script auto-spam without edit summaries? I am not sure what the issue is really. MissAnonymous123 (talk) 04:12, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- (talk page watcher) @MissAnonymous123 I've fixed some of the problems in the article. In particular, note that section headings in articles always use at least two hyphens, and then subheadings go step by step. Also "it's" means "it is", while the adjective "its", as in "his, her, its" doesn't have an apostrophe. That isn't a choice of style, it's correct writing. Punctuation goes before references: not a style choice but WP:MOS. PamD 05:17, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- Also mocking someone's language capabilities is just plain wrong. Making assumptions about someone's capabilities or character whilst bombing the articles with bot-like script auto-spam without edit summaries? I am not sure what the issue is really. MissAnonymous123 (talk) 04:12, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- I am having trouble with the editor as it is very annoying in it's standard mode. I just don't think it is nice to resort to personal attacks instead of raising the issues merit basis. Please fix the attitude, I don't think I am staying because of crap attitude like that. MissAnonymous123 (talk) 04:10, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- I don't want you are personally attacking me but I don't think you are being constructive. Most of your edits were stylistic in nature and changed the article wholesale. MissAnonymous123 (talk) 04:08, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- Your English needs to improve before you edit WP. Most of the edits I did were manual. Tony (talk) 04:04, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- You are doing in bot-like and it is specifically against doing it bot-like manner. MissAnonymous123 (talk) 03:59, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- I will change a style if it's contrary to WP's guidelines. Being consistent across a whole article is required, but it has to be an acceptable style. Tony (talk) 03:38, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- This is MOS:VAR - please do not change the styles in entire article. Style is consistent across the article. I will stop working in Misplaced Pages if this continues. MissAnonymous123 (talk) 03:10, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- You need to stop editing, observe, and improve your English. I'm not mocking you. Tony (talk) 05:00, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
As such ...
Dear Tony1 and friends, over the years I have found numerous examples of the words “as such” in Misplaced Pages articles. These 2 words have usually been redundant so I have erased them without replacement.
Recently I found 2 articles in which the words “as such” were used clumsily in the first sentence of the lead section! I replaced them with what I hoped was a more appropriate word. See my diff1 and diff2. Both my edits were promptly reverted by the same User who appears to be an advocate, or at least a defender, of the expression “as such”. Am I missing something about some inherent merit in the words “as such” in formal writing?
To his credit this User then left me a message on my Talk page pointing out some of my personal shortcomings. Apparently in my list of contributions to Misplaced Pages he can see that I have done a lot that is unacceptable but he didn’t clarify what or why. He also mentioned some of the shortcomings of medical doctors and students of medicine! See User talk:Dolphin51#"Encyclopaedic language".
Is this User a person in good standing with the copy editing community? Does he speak with any authority or credibility on matters of what constitutes good writing in an encyclopaedia, and what doesn’t? Dolphin (t) 14:22, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- I hadn't imagined a good use for "as such", but there it is. Very rare. Tony (talk) 01:36, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
A new redundancy example for you, perhaps
"American football is a team sport played by two teams of eleven players on a rectangular field with goalposts at each end." (bold in original, italics added by me) Ed 21:03, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
- A number of problems with that sentence. Next month I hope to start renovating my tutorials at long last. Tony (talk) 03:01, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
- I am looking forward to seeing what that looks like! I still share them with people every few months. They're an incredible resource on and off Misplaced Pages. Ed 03:17, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
- That's kind of you to say so. They're so old by now. Tony (talk) 08:02, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
- I am looking forward to seeing what that looks like! I still share them with people every few months. They're an incredible resource on and off Misplaced Pages. Ed 03:17, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
Draft:CT Group Viet Nam
Hello, I have removed all sections that were considered to be advertising. Please review the article again. Thank you. Nguyenkimgs (talk) 09:03, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
- Isn't it "Vietnam"? Tony (talk) 11:52, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
- It is a Corporation in Vietnam. Nguyenkimgs (talk) 13:36, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
Ms. Olympia
Hi, i saw your edits on Ms. Olympia. Don't you think it's necessary to maintain links to the edition pages over the years? Lord Ruffy98 (talk) 16:33, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
- OK, I've reinstated them, but not as "Easter egg" links (to plain years). Let readers know the specificity or they'll never click on them. Also, please note how range dashes are done. Tony (talk) 01:00, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
- Ok, thank you for your understanding and for the changes made. Lord Ruffy98 (talk) 08:48, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:04, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Trying to understand the rational for your date changes
Just looking at the difference on your edit to sweet potato it looks like the vast majority of dates were dd-mm-yyyy and it was templated to that before your change. Shouldn't you have corrected the minority of dates to dd-mm-year, instead of changing them to mm-dd-yyyy order. What am I missing? 🌿MtBotany (talk) 04:06, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry, my mistake. I'll change it now (if you haven't already). Tony (talk) 04:07, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
- Glad I asked. Thanks for your attention. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 04:14, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
- Nice colouring on your username! Tony (talk) 08:23, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
- Glad I asked. Thanks for your attention. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 04:14, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for your recent edit to Subnet (mathematics)
You changed the first sentence of the lead for Subnet (mathematics).
- old version: "In topology and related areas of mathematics, a subnet is a ..."
- new version: "In topology and related areas of mathematics, a subnet is a ...".
This was absolutely the right thing to do as topology is already a broad area of mathematics and there was no need to have a link to the top level field of mathematics from a small topic within the category of topology. If a hypothetical random user lands on this particular page and wonders what this is all about, they can click on topology, where they will see it's part of the large field of mathematics, with an accompanying link.
I am ranting here a little, because I have edited some mathematics pages in the past to do the same change, only to see another editor put this back. Anyway, thanks for this. Also curious, did you have a script intelligent enough to do this automatically? PatrickR2 (talk) 04:46, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- We love satisfied customers. I just tested linked "mathematics" and "maths". It unlinks the former but not the latter. I'll ping User:Ohconfucius, who invented and manages the composite script. Tony (talk) 04:58, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
"All fixed"?
Tony, where I said "All fixed" at that RM, I meant the anomalies, not that the requested moves are done. It's not been closed yet. So I reverted your removal of it from WT:MOSCAPS#Current. Dicklyon (talk) 05:32, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Ah, sorry Dick. Tony (talk) 08:21, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
University of Parakou
Hi there! Your recent edit to the University of Parakou made some incorrect changes. Could you please check the script you're using? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 03:39, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Redone. Tony (talk) 07:42, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
FIFA Arab Cup
Hi, I don't understand why this edit ? Regards. --Fayçal.09 (talk) 17:28, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, fair enough: I've reverted it. Tony (talk) 00:34, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- No problem, thank you and greetinks. --Fayçal.09 (talk) 08:46, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
Redirect listed at Redirects for discussion
A redirect or redirects you have created has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 January 7 § five gallon bucket until a consensus is reached. consarn (speak evil) (see evil) 16:59, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Use mdy dates for an Italian singer?
Hi, why this edit? Regards.-- Carnby (talk) 13:01, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- My edit there was nearly five years ago. And I continued the pre-existing mdy. Italy is not majority-English-speaking, so it can be either. Tony (talk) 00:15, 12 January 2025 (UTC)