This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I did the Patrick White navbox basically at random. After my first 20 or so navboxes, I ran out of authors that I'd read or was personally interested in, so now I'm picking authors who I've heard of and who have enough articles on their works to justify a navbox.-- INeverCry 18:19, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Hello Tony,
Which of "dependently typed programming language" and "dependently-typed programming language" would be correctly hyphenated? I have difficulty choosing between "Do not hyphenate between an “-ly” adverb and an adjective" and "Hyphenate between two or more adjectives when they come before a noun and act as a single idea."? (Here it are the "types" which are "dependent".) Cheers, — Ruud 19:56, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi there Tony! I accidentally closed some of your recent move requests a couple days early. Since they seem fairly non-controversial I will leave them for now, but if anyone questions what happened, just send them to me and I will relist the discussion. Cheers mate, Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 20:24, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure if you saw the Signpost or my edit but FS is officially inactive. If you would like to discuss I am open. I just ask you put a note on my talk page if you reply here. cheers -- Guerillero | My Talk 20:12, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
|
Hi Tony, I thought it was probably about time that we moved your sandbox over to WP Linguistics and start the SFL task force going officially. With your permission, I'll move the page over to Wikipedia:WikiProject Linguistics/SFL and get the infrastructure set up. Do you have an image we can use for the task force on Template:WikiProject Linguistics, by any chance? Nothing obvious really jumped out at me. Also, for the name, would you be happy with "Systemic Functional Linguistics Task Force", or would you prefer something else? Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 04:29, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi Tony1, first I appreciate your huge work on correct capitalization, but I have reverted the one on Business Process Model and Notation. I don't find any discussion initiated on this one, and I'm not sure this will be an accepted one. You can still intiate a requested move procedure if you like. -- SchreyP ( messages) 14:00, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Hey Tony1/Archive 12! I'm just dropping you a message because you've commented on (or expressed an interest in) the Article Feedback Tool in the past. If you don't have any interest in it any more, ignore the rest of this message :).
If you do still have an interest or an opinion, good or bad, we're holding an office hours session tomorrow at 19:00 GMT/UTC in #wikimedia-office to discuss completely changing the system. In attendance will be myself, Howie Fung and Fabrice Florin. All perspectives, opinions and comments are welcome :).
I appreciate that not everyone can make it to that session - it's in work hours for most of North and South America, for example - so if you're interested in having another session at a more America-friendly time of day, leave me a message on my talkpage. I hope to see you there :). Regards, Okeyes (WMF) ( talk) 14:33, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
i love animals | |
i love animals so much it could kill me. Kickback98 ( talk) 19:40, 2 November 2011 (UTC) |
Can you take another look at the move you've just made - surely this article is about a specific system so the capitals are correct (as in references). DexDor ( talk) 09:04, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
The first paragraph of the new article " Global Editors Network" is the following.
Global Editors Network ( GEN) is the first non-profit, non-governmental association that brings together editors-in-chief and senior news executives from all platforms – print, digital, mobile and broadcast [1]. Its goal is to break down the barriers between traditional and new media, so that information can be gathered and shared with each other to define an open journalism model for the future and to create new journalistic concepts and tools [2].
The official website is
http://www.globaleditorsnetwork.org/.
—
Wavelength (
talk)
19:29, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
I loved your changes on Human systems engineering, though both universities who offer such a program write it in upper case. But the changes you made in the text convinced me that you are right.
Beyond this you seem to be a very interesting guy in matters of prof. activity and probably also privately.
Congratulations, thank you and warm regards, christa
Christa.muth (
talk)
23:52, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
I think you would be interested in this. Actually I kind of hope you can fill it out when you have the time ;). Cheers, Res Mar 02:05, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Hey Tony! I've got your questions and requests filtering through the woodwork now. Re calls to action, there will definitely be an effort to improve them - this will come after the basic framework is in place and confirmed :). Oh, and 3am UTC on Saturday features a stripped-down office hours session for australiasians and east asians in #wikimedia-office. It'll just be me (everyone else has, y'know, a life) but I hope to see you there :). Okeyes (WMF) ( talk) 13:04, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi Tony. I wanted to start by saying that I agree with at least 95% of your title changes. I also appreciate that you've stopped changing the case in articles where you've requested a move until after the move is made. However, when you do change the case somewhere, your edit summary of "fixed dashes using a script" ( here, for example) can be a little misleading, considering that you aren't fixing dashes, but changing cases. Just makes it harder for editors to keep track of what's going on. If you wouldn't mind changing how you word the summary in the future, I'd appreciate it. Thanks. Dohn joe ( talk) 21:47, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Are you any good with templates and whatnot? I'm trying to find a decent way of doing prominent pull-quotes at the sides of Signpost stories to draw reader attention but WP doesn't seem to have anything appropriate (because magazine-style pullquoting doesn't belong in an encyclopaedia). See last week's ITN for the current hackaround. Skomorokh 13:26, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Any thoughts on the format of the Discussion report? The combination of third- and fourth-level headers are really not working for me; too little visual distinction between them, too much visual clutter overall. A change in font, linking, moving level-four headings to bolded bullets? Skomorokh 13:54, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi Tony - it's been to long. I wonder if you might give me your opinion. We've got an article called November Group (German) which all of my english texts refer to in the german as 'Novembergruppe'. MOS seems to suggest the article is correctly named in that it has anglicised the German. But I'm minded that the similar and related articles Bauhaus, Arbeitsrat für Kunst, Deutscher Werkbund all retain their original names (not least because Bauhaus is actually quite nuanced and difficult to translate I believe.) Any thoughts? -- Joopercoopers ( talk) 21:19, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi Tony - I'll respond to your new question on my candidate question page later this evening; you're raising an important point and I want to ensure that I answer thoroughly. I will probably be longwinded for this one, so apologies in advance. Risker ( talk) 18:27, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Why were all articles about the Vietnamese dynasties being renamed with the de-capitalization of the word "dynasty"? Moreover, if we did that, then we HAVE TO APPLY it with every other similar articles as well. We should also rename all such articles about the Burmese and Chinese dynasties. That would be fair, I guess. Waorca ( talk) 21:53, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
No idea what you mean, didn't create the article about 2030. The population growth article, yes.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:41, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
( talk page stalker) Per WP:UNLINKDATES:
Dates should not be linked purely for the purpose of autoformatting (even though linking was previously recommended). Dates should only be linked when they are germane and topical to the subject, as disussed at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking#Chronological items.
2030 is not germane to population growth and when editing it is common practice to set aside one's predispositions, Wikipedia is built on consensus, if you disagree with a policy or guideline suggest a revision on the relevant village pump or talk page, don't take it up with the user who was merely following standard practice. — James ( Talk • Contribs) • 8:44pm • 10:44, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
I found a link to this page at Wikipedia talk:Vital articles. I am aware that your available time is restricted, but you might wish to bookmark it for future consideration when you can spend more time in reading it.
— Wavelength ( talk) 21:51, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Tony. Are you still active? If yes, and if you're interested, could you take a look at Luís Alves de Lima e Silva, Duke of Caxias and help me out with any spelling or grammar errors and if necessary, improve its prose? The article is now a FAC and I want to be sure that it looks good. Kind regards, -- Lecen ( talk) 14:47, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed that you commented at the Signature image processing article talk page within the last few months. About a week ago I indicated that I plan/propose to roll this article into a broader article on weld monitoring, testing and analysis, roughly per the outline in my August post. In case haven't been watching the article but would like to give input on this I thought I'd drop you this note. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 12:43, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Regarding WP:MOSPOST, you are our style guru so I am happy to defer to whatever you think best, but a means of distinguishing direct quotation from paraphrase is needed, and that's one in use in newspapers. No strong feelings on the issue, so by all means be bold. Skomorokh 10:13, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Hello
I have a proposition: its possible to put on sites like Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-11-28/Featured content list (only list) of Good articles? They are also goodl articles, so is also quite nice info. I understand that full description will take too much time - but list of GA from last week shouldn`t be hard to take. PMG ( talk) 07:58, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Hey, all! A quick update on how version 5 of the Article Feedback Tool is developing. I'm sending this to both newsletter recipients and regular participants, because I appreciate we've been a bit quiet :).
So, we're just wrapping up the first round of user contributions. A big thank you to everyone who has contributed ideas (a full list of which can be found at the top of the page); thanks almost entirely to contributions by editors, the tool looks totally different to how it did two months ago when we were starting out. Big ideas that have made it in include a comment voting system, courtesy of User:Bensin, an idea for a more available way of deploying the feedback box, suggested by User:Utar, and the eventual integration of both oversight and the existing spam filtering tools into the new version, courtesy of..well, everyone, really :).
For now, the devs are building the first prototypes, and all the features specifications have been finalised. That doesn't mean you can't help out, however; we'll have a big pile of shiny prototypes to play around with quite soon. If you're interested in testing those, we'll be unveiling it all at this week's office hours session, which will be held on Friday 2 December at 19:00 UTC. If you can't make it, just sign up here. After that, we have a glorious round of testing to undertake; we'll be finding out what form works the best, what wording works the best, and pretty much everything else under the sun. As part of that, we need editors - people who know just what to look for - to review some sample reader comments, and make calls on which ones are useful, which ones are spam, so on and so forth. If that's something you'd be interested in doing, drop an email to okeyes@wikimedia.org.
Thanks to everyone for their contributions so far. We're making good headway, and moving forward pretty quickly :). Okeyes (WMF) ( talk) 16:40, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Tony, I finally bothered to read your user page after you'd recently posted on my talk and I find it absolutely hilarious. The first six items in the list of things your dog hates are things I agree with, but they're written in such a hilarious fashion I found myself sitting here at work just laughing nearly to the point of tears. You may not have intended such things to be humorous, because they are serious issues, but I tend to see humor in the most unsuspecting places. What really sent my laughter over the edge though, was the perfect way you've expressed the overlinking problem. I don't think I could have said it better. Always nice to come across another grant writer; I think I'll be taking a look at some of your writing guides. John Shandy` • talk 18:20, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Hey Mr Styletip Person, how badly do you think this recent edit has debased that article's meaning, readability, etc? -- Hoary ( talk) 01:47, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
|
A heads up as you had participated in the discussions on this. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Weld monitoring, testing and analysis Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 11:31, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
As an election coordinator I should probably shut up. But one editor whose judgment I trust has made the point that my role is rather functional this year. In any case my time-budget for WP is regrettably small at the moment, so I'm not heavily involved. I'm voting "oppose" for most of the candidates not mentioned here, but I don't want to focus on this.
Here are the editors I believe we're lucky to have as candidates, and I strongly recommend that voters support them:
AGK
This guy is on the mark. I don't mind a technocrat on board. :-)
Courcelles
Ideal new blood on the committee.
Hersfold
I will vote Support for him, giving him the benefit of the doubt.
Kirill Lokshin
Solid arb, still fresh: a big tick.
Roger Davies
A stand-out for his professionalism, pragmatism, and intelligence.
Tony (talk) 13:10, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Tony1 you made an edit consisting of two postings to ANI with the comments "My block of admin PBS - review please: Good block. Voluntary recall is very appropriate in this case". Yet you wrote "The WP:INVOLVED policy is quite clear: admins should avoid even the appearance of conflict of interest. It is easy enough to seek an uninvolved admin's opinion. ..." I was not the involved admin. I took an administrative position over a talk page and issue that I have not been involved for 5+ years. The people involved in the current dispute who have complained about what I did are those advocating the same outcome for the recent move I advocated 5+ yeas ago. My premature closing would have left the page at the name I argued against 5+ years ago, so it can not be said that there was any apparent conflict of intrest.
The administrator who put a block on my account first expressed an opinion in the current survey in favour of moving the page. So which of the two administrators were WP:INVOLVED and which administrator showed a conflict of interest through that involvement?
You can criticise me on two issues. The first is the initial premature closing of the debate. The second is placing a 3 hour block on the talk page. As both are matters of opinion and judgement. But to accuse me of involvement when the policy says "One important caveat ..." seems to me to be unreasonable. I would like you to ponder and then consider if you still think what you posted was a fair and accurate summary. -- PBS ( talk) 12:03, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
I notice your recent edits have been moving overcapitalised article titles. Good for you! I am now using AWB to go through these moves and adding the R from other capitalisation template Lmatt ( talk) 15:10, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Hey Tony1/Archive 12; another Article Feedback Tool office hours session! This is going to be immediately after we start trialing the software publicly, so it's a pretty important one. If any of you want to attend, it will be held in #wikimedia-office on Friday 16th December at 19:00 UTC. As always, if you can't attend, drop me a line and I'm happy to link you to the logs when we're done. Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) ( talk) 22:31, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your writing tutorials! Braincricket ( talk) 05:52, 15 December 2011 (UTC) |
Please stop. Your renaming of numerous technical analysis articles to lowercase disagrees with reliable sources (including the inventors) usage of these names as proper nouns. ~ Amatulić ( talk) 02:00, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Ok, sounds good, thanks for the update! Bbmaniac ( talk) 05:22, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Sorry about this, I'm not really sure what happened. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:59, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
YouTube is packed with excerpts from his debates, addresses, and Q&As. The address and Q&A he presented in the authors@google series at their headquarters is Hitchens at his best, and well worth committing the hour (high-res vid) if you want a brilliant lesson in rhetoric and plain-speaking, piercing logic. And it's entertaining. I also recommend it to anyone who still hasn't quite broken loose from the grip of religion. It's listed at the top of a google search for <hitchens authors at google>.
YouTube contains many excerpts from his early appearances on American TV, too—back to the 80s, I think—answering viewers' questions live. There, he's strikingly handsome (despite the nicotine bags under his eyes, if that's possible) and just as lucid as he was to the end.
In my view, his genius on the stage is not matched by his writing, which is far too discursive for my taste. But that's probably a personal choice.
Tony (talk) 13:28, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
This is a reminder that even just potentially contentious title moves should go through the formal WP:RM process, and that changing a title merely to make it more descriptive when it is already at a title with which there is no conflict in Wikipedia (a.k.a. "predisambiguation") as you did recently when you moved Life Safety Code to Life safety code (US fire protection), is inherently contentious. Next time, please go through WP:RM instead of unilaterally moving an article like this again. Thank you. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 07:26, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
As to raising this issue at WT:Article titles... it's been done a number of time, and each time goes down in flames for good reason: it's unclear what exactly you're suggesting we do instead of adhering to the practice of making titles precise, but only as precise as necessary to disambiguate from other uses in Wikipedia. You seem to want to disambiguate from other uses Tony might imagine, or something equally ephemeral. In other words, you're not even proposing an alternative. To appreciate the problem, see if you could even come up with some specific wording changes to WP:Article titles that you think would at least address this issue to your satisfaction, much less to that of the community. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 18:52, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Tony, I understand your concern. However RM is not a contest, nor is it a binding process. Any RM discussion can be immediately restarted (especially no consensus ones) (several examples of that underway now) by any editor, and as you know, unless someone move protects the article, the title change can be made unilaterally anyway. Since RM closes can happen at anytime after 7 days, when an editor asks me to reopen the discussion in a no consensus debate, I generally do. Further civil discussion to reach consensus is always better than festing contentiousness over a title. As for the potential of WP:CANVASS issues, that's something you'll have to deal with outside of RM. FYI, when I revert my closes, I generally don't do the subsequent close to preclude involvement concerns.-- Mike Cline ( talk) 14:53, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:59, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at WP:AN regarding repeatedly reverting without substantive objection. The thread is " Uninvolved admin - please take a look".The discussion is about the topic Wikipedia:Article titles. Thank you. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 09:26, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost Barnstar | ||
So we have this barnstar laying around, gathering dust; and I feel as though none of the editors that put pen to paper every week to produce the much-demanded Signpost has been properly compensated for their efforts. You deserve this :) Res Mar 05:28, 22 December 2011 (UTC) |
Let's look at what happened. Yesterday, I boldly edited WP:Article titles and explained the edit on the talk page. You reverted this. Okay, that's 2 out of 3 on the WP:BRD scale. But where is the D? You did not discuss. You even admitted not even thinking about the change or reading the explanation, and refused to do so. Instead you ranted on and on about me and my behavior. I'm really trying to AGF here, but I'm having trouble seeing it. Can you help me see it?
Also, what about AGF regarding my initial edit? Why not take a look at it? Why not read my explanation? Why not comment on that? Why assume the worse and revert without giving it any consideration whatsoever? What about recognizing that I'm merely restoring the longstanding wording and meaning that was there just a few months ago? You obviously had enough time and energy to comment about me and my behavior... how is that productive? Where is the AGF? How is all this not disruptive? If you can help me see that too, that also will be appreciated. Thanks. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 06:14, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Here's something I would like from you... an acknowledgement that your revert yesterday was contrary to AGF (not because you reverted, but because you reverted without evaluating the change; without good reason; without Discussing the change substantively after the revert), and a promise that you will assume good faith regarding me and my actions in the future. Can you do that?
Is there anything that you need or would like from me? -- Born2cycle ( talk) 08:10, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
So your position is that "not discussed" is a perfectly fine and reasonable reason to revert? What's the point of WP:BOLD, then? Yes, I know significant change to policy is an exception, but this was a restoration of longstanding wording and meaning. I explained all that fully in my talk page comment, how I researched it, how I discovered the implication of the change clearly was not discussed nor intended. Why is that not good enough? Why does it also have to be "discussed"? I mean, if you had something specific to discuss, sure. But you didn't.
This goes far beyond this particular instance, but how in general we treat each other, and changes to policy. Again, undiscussed changes happen all the time. Reverts are fine - but they should not be based entirely on "not discussed". You really should have a substantive objection to a change to revert a change, and be prepared to discuss it.
People reverting solely because a change was "not discussed" is simply disruptive. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 08:50, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Okay, here's a good starting point. Have you seen WP:REVEXP? Do you agree or disagree with what it says? Thanks. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 09:31, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Every schoolgirl in the world should see this engaging and touching exposé of a woman's pathway to a leading position in her mathematical field.
But apart from this, the vid shows how the Foundation might approach the production of a series of YouTube-style vids exploring the individual experiences of women (and men) in their own lives and field of interest, and how they came to be active members of the WP community. There has to be something special about such vids to get high hit-rates and wide impact. It might be hard to get the depth ... but it's worth thinking about. Tony (talk) 08:47, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi Tony--
I have just accidentally stumbled upon this Wikipedia talk:Article titles page.
First let me introduce myself: User:Milkunderwood, if you would care to glance at my userpage. I have made a few WP edits here and there, but mostly have asked a lot of questions, and definitely consider myself to be a user in the sense of "reader" rather than an "editor". If you look down at the bottom of my page you'll find my WP "motto" - or rather anti-motto: Remember, the reader is the enemy.
I've only very lightly skimmed and skipped through all of the discussion at Article titles, and certainly haven't looked at any of the esoteric examples thrown out by everyone. That whole discussion reminds me of the cliche of medieval clerics arguing about the number of angels dancing on the head of a pin.
As a user, I will say that never once have I ever looked at a "Categories" section of any page.
And as a user, I have to say that in the arguments on article titles that I have looked at, you are right and the editors who keep quoting rules and policies and guidelines are wrong.
I'm just posting this to you here, because I have no intention of getting involved at that discussion. But perhaps my reaction may help. Milkunderwood ( talk) 23:53, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Back on May 8 2011, using the reasonably common search term Mozart violin sonatas, this article concerning a single CD of four miscellaneous sonatas performed by Hilary Hahn was the first Search suggestion that popped up, rather than the listing I had expected to find. At that time it was then named simply Mozart: Violin Sonatas. To try to avoid this problem I "moved" the page to a new name, adding the specific K. numbers included on the disc. I also left a message on the article's talk page, which has never been responded to. However, even now, as soon as I type in the Search box no more than "Mozart v" this same suggestion continues to pop up as first choice.
(disregard as irrelevant):
You may be interested in this external article.
— Wavelength ( talk) 18:23, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Season's greetings! | |
I hope the holiday season is relaxing and fulfilling, and that 2012 will be fruitful for you. -- John ( talk) 00:40, 25 December 2011 (UTC) |
FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 13:02, 25 December 2011 (UTC).
Hey, Tony; I've reverted your move here because "Prerogative", with the capital letter, is the correct and formal title. If other articles say different, other articles say wrong - although I note that, actually, the other articles do capitalise it in a Commonwealth context. Ironholds ( talk) 13:05, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Seasons Greetings | |
Apologies, slight technical problem in the Christmas Cheer Distribution Network Automated Felicitations System (no electricity) meant a small delay in getting my greetings out this year ... Chaosdruid ( talk) 17:03, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Please don't lowercase the name of specific entities with proper names, even if they appear to be generic names. For example Integrated Electronic Litigation System. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 15:24, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
If you guys are going to be moving things around, it would be decent to at least make sure there's at least one referenced source that supports your point of view. Enric, you've moved several articles that have no refs at all. Tony, I've seen you do that, too. In the case of the "iELS", the sources seem pretty clear to me: of the few sources that we have, few or none support the idea that it's a proper name. Even the official roadmap doc doesn't support that interpretation. Dicklyon ( talk) 18:00, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
See Talk:Cognitive_process_profile. This is a specific computer program sold by a specific company, and it's capitalized in the few sources that it has in google books. The article was created with this capitalization. Make a RM if you wish, but please don't make moves that go against all available sources. P.D.: I think that you didn't realize that you had already moved that article. P.D.D.: just to clarify that I agree with many moves that you make, we are arguing only about a subset of them. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 15:14, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi Tony, I wonder why you made this page rename when the Irish government sources, other than the one initial sentence of this page, use the capitalised name for the tax, as it also does for the abbreviation. Seems like WP:COMMONNAME applies. ww2censor ( talk) 17:02, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Tony:
You recently edited the subject article by changing "Flue gas" to "Flue-gas" and "fossil fuel" to "fossil-fuel" in the article's title and first sentence. I do not find those changes particularly objectionable but I do wish to know why you felt the hyphenation was needed.
I am a retired engineer and had a 60 year working career that involved designing and operating industrial combustion furnaces in power plants, refineries, petrochemical plants and other similar industrial facilities. During those 60 years, I rarely (if ever) encountered the hyphenation of either "flue gas" or "fossil fuel"
I assume that you are aware that the rest of the text in the subject article has many more occurrences of "flue gas" and "fossil fuel" which you did not revise. I am at a loss to understand why you felt that the article's title and the first sentence needed the hyphenation but not the other occurrences of those same un-hyphenated words in the same article.
I also assume the you are aware that the words "fossil fuel" and "flue gas" (without hyphenation) occur perhaps hundreds of times in many other Wikipedia articles. Is it your intention to also hyphenate all of those occurrences as well?
Tony, I would appreciate knowing why you felt those changes to the subject article were needed. mbeychok ( talk) 17:57, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Hey guys! Another month, another newsletter.
First off - the first bits of AFT5 are now deployed. As of early last week, the various different designs are deployed on 0.1 percent of articles, for a certain "bucket" of randomly-assigned readers. With the data flooding in from these, we were able to generate a big pool of comments for editors to categorise as "useful" or "not useful". This information will be used to work out which form is the "best" form, producing the most useful feedback and the least junk. Hopefully we'll have the data for you by the end of the week; I can't thank the editors who volunteered to hand-code enough; we wouldn't be where we are now without you.
All this useful information means we can move on to finalising the tool, and so we're holding an extra-important office hours session on Friday, 6th January at 19:00 UTC in #wikimedia-office. If you can't make it, drop me a note and I'll be happy to provide logs so you can see what went on - if you can make it, but will turn up late, bear in mind that I'll be hanging around until 23:00 UTC to deal with latecomers :).
Things we'll be discussing include:
If you can't make it to the session, all this stuff will be displayed on the talkpage soon after, so no worries ;). Hope to see you all there! Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) ( talk) 04:49, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Are these two better for thumb view? Crisco 1492 ( talk) 08:06, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Tony, I'll work with Noetica if he decides to pursue this. -- Mike Cline ( talk) 14:40, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
|
Could you have another look at the title of this article? — Ruud 20:28, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
They are among the most misused aspects of English. Their use can make reading easier, especially for non-experts. I'd say downcasing would make text an easier read for experts in some cases, too. When you say "not certain", that is a fair comment, but I generally am certain. It's just that I make the occasional mistake. In some fields, it's as though newbies/anons come along (at our encouragement, regrettably) and make a one-line stub article on anything they remember from their undergraduate course; but they're not aware of WP's rules on the casing of titles. This leads to massive upcasing in article titles where the creators would be fine about downcasing if the matter were pointed out. The damage this does to the language is in encouraging the indiscriminate upcasing of everything in sight. We don't need to encourage this. Tony (talk) 04:09, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
I noticfe that you have proposed a rename for this category to "Advanced technology attachment". First, this is incorrect as the subject here is a proper name for an interface standard, not a generic term. Second, you did not actually start a discussion at the CfD archive page. Third, the actual name of the standard (as described on the Parallel ATA page) is "AT Attachment." Per the standards committee that created it and the standards they published (all linked in that article) it is not and has never been called "Advanced Technology Attachment" (regardless of case), except by people who know not whereof they speak. If this is properly opened up for a rename discussion then I and others who are familiar with the subject will argue strongly for "AT Attachment". WP should follow authoritative sources. Jeh ( talk) 00:35, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi Tony, happy new year to you. Would you be kind enough to do me a massive favour? The blurb on the 9 January 2012 WP:TFL reads pretty poorly to me, I was hoping you'd be able to copyedit it before next Monday? Any help is very much appreciated. All the best, The Rambling Man ( talk) 14:45, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Note the use of "the Procedural Reasoning System" versus "a procedural reasoning system". — Ruud 19:14, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi mate, you recall when we last talked about awards and decorations and their ribbons in articles? Well we've had no further discussion in MilHist but, in case you haven't seen, there is this at the Australian Wikipedians' notice board... Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 13:30, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
FYI. [5] SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 04:53, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Hey guys! A couple of highly important things to do over the next few weeks:
Regards, Okeyes (WMF) ( talk) 18:53, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I noticed the RFC at WT:DYK. I'll look into it; I haven't done an interview for this week, so I could do a writeup on this instead. Regarding an interview, she and I have never had positive communication and I don't know if she is the kind to hold grudges, so it may be better for you to do it. Crisco 1492 ( talk) 06:36, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
It's not at all difficult, Tony1-- look at this edit summary, and then consider how that felt from my chair, after I resigned so I could resume editing as an unpaid volunteer. You put the sun down on me (that's unintended bias whether one sees it or not, and I don't assume it was intentional) and your edit summary indicates you thought that was peachy. Insensitive. Now, I may not expect Crisco to have seen that, but I did expect you to think of that, hence what offended me is your edit summary and lack of sensitivity in considering how it felt for me to have The Signpost putting me out to pasture. The hallmark of our friendship, Tony, was that I always thought of you and your feelings, while you in return frequently reamed me out over any minor disagreement. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:00, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
You looked at Confrontation analysis article the other day and added a copyedit box to it. I am concerned as I am the main author of this article, and hoped that the things I write were not so bad I needed such a label.
I would really appreciate it if you could glance at the article again and let me know:
1) What do you think is the single most important thing I could do to improve my writing style?
2) What would I have to do to get the copyedit box removed?
Thank you very much indeed. Mike Young ( talk) 22:53, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Good point, I'll do that from now on. It's annoying nagging people about how broken RfA is, anyway. Res Mar 03:02, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Because of your previous input on various iterations of the debate about the lower-casing vs. capitalization of the common names of animals (domestic cat, blue whale vs. Domestic Cat, Blue Whale), you may be interested in this thread proposing key points that should be addressed by the guidelines: WT:Manual of Style#Species capitalization points. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 05:49, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi. When you recently edited List of Britain and Ireland's Next Top Model contestants, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Reading ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:56, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi Tony. Your name was been mentioned here in connection with the Requested move at Moonlight Sonata to Piano Sonata No. 14 (Beethoven). This discussion was closed yesterday [6]. This was then reverted early this morning [7].
I wonder whether you might consider re-closing it? I realise this is a onerous chore, but we don't have any other 'candidate' for this at the moment. Getting us out of this situation would really be much appreciated. Best regards. -- Klein zach 00:15, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
More thoughts. During the debate above, various people cited WP:COMMONNAME. My own view is that this policy is not clear enough — for example there is actually no definition for 'common name'. If you agree that the policy section could be improved — would you (and maybe Noetica) be willing to work with me on it? Best. -- Klein zach 05:29, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Tony, look at this RM from a capitalization perspective [8]. Shouldn't anti-Partisan offensive really be anti-partisan offensive. Thanks - Mike Cline ( talk) 20:45, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi, since your name's down on this project, I'm just writing to let you know that there's a discussion going on at the moment on how to format events – and in particular, events that go on for multiple days – on year pages. Your input would be appreciated. — Smjg ( talk) 18:24, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
i think you accidentally voted twice in the same section of Wikipedia:SOPA_initiative/Action. i put a brief comment there. Boud ( talk) 14:52, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Nominations for the " Military Historian of the Year" for 2011 are now open. If you would like to nominate an editor for this award, please do so here. Voting will open on 22 January and run for seven days. Thanks! On behalf of the coordinators, Nick-D ( talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:42, 16 January 2012 (UTC) You were sent this message because you are a listed as a member of the Military history WikiProject.
[9] What is your justification for this edit, Tony? Gimmetoo ( talk) 13:00, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
It's fine. Thank you very much. -- Lecen ( talk) 13:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
You commented at the Newsroom on my opinion piece:
"Looks way too long, and has a rambling feel to it. Tony (talk) 07:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)"
The piece is 173 words shorter than the previous opinion piece and 814 words shorter than the one before that. Please cite just one example of a paragraph that you think is "rambling". Carmen Yarrusso ( talk) 14:18, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Carmen Yarrusso ( talk) 18:11, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi Tony, I just co-nominated an article at FAC for the first time and was wondering if you'd be interested in reviewing it. I saw your comments on your userpage about "the supernatural industry", and I think the subject of my article, Prosperity theology, is an interesting fusion of commercialism and supernaturalism. Also, thanks for coming up with all those writing exercises, I think they have really helped my prose. Regards, Mark Arsten ( talk) 17:01, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello. You have a new message at SMasters's talk page.
I still get confused: is Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Franco-Mongol alliance/archive2 correct? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:15, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Tony thanks for you help at IMOS and MOSLinking. The reason I brought it up in the first place is the removal of overlinks runs against IRE-IRL. As I have discuused with other editors guidelines can conflict, these need to be cleared up (not just IMOS). And also yes WIKI is slow , logs me out and is a pain since the day before the blackout, I dont know why. Again thanks for you response on the issue. Murry1975 ( talk) 15:12, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Tony- I responded to you comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Maniac Mansion/archive1. I also had a follow up question that I'd appreciate your input on. Thanks. ( Guyinblack25 talk 15:51, 19 January 2012 (UTC))
Hey guys; apologies for the belated nature of this notification; as you can probably imagine, the whole blackout thing kinda messed with our timetables :P. Just a quick reminder that we've got an office hours session tomorrow at 19:00 in #wikimedia-office, where we'll be discussing the results of the hand-coding and previewing some new changes. Hope to see you there :). Okeyes (WMF) ( talk) 21:45, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
diff. I've been struggling for the right words as I did not want to inflame the situation. He seems to respect you, so hopefully that will calm the storm. — Ched : ? 10:38, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
My laptop died at RCC, so I'm more likely than not going to be unable to work on the Signpost until it gets fixed. Crisco 1492 ( talk) 11:13, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Can you continue the suggestions you started on the Jaws FAC? The previous ones covered only the first parts, but were much helpful! Thanks. igordebraga ≠ 21:34, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Hey Tony. I was just glancing through the RM backlog and there's a question for you on one of your noms, see Talk:Systemic linguistics. Best, Jenks24 ( talk) 09:33, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
I'd be grateful if you could have a look at: Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles#Common_names. Thanks. -- Klein zach 01:33, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
You might be amused or gratified to see my reply to an accusation of carelessness that popped up on my talk page today. If not, sorry to interrupt you. Cheers! Chris the speller yack 15:57, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi,
I answered on my talk page. Aside from my hesitations voiced there, I'd need to know where Crisco gets the FC stats from. MathewTownsend ( talk) 17:15, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
My statement to Elen of the Roads ( talk · contribs) about our dispute regarding WT:AT recognizability was so long I put it in a separate file, User:Born2cycle/DearElen. If you have a chance to look it over, and let me know if you find any inaccuracies or other problems with it, I would appreciate it. If you don't mind, please leave comments about it at User talk:Born2cycle/DearElen. Thanks! -- Born2cycle ( talk) 18:57, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
I have filed a request for the Arbitration Committee to look at long-term issues with editing in the Article Titles and MOS areas at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Article titles/MOS. Your input would be welcome. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:51, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
A request for comments has been opened on administrator User:Fæ. You are being notified due to your prior participation in ANI, RfA, or RfC discussions regarding this user. Thank you, MadmanBot ( talk) 20:05, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
An arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation/Evidence. Please add your evidence by February 12, 2012, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri ( talk) 15:04, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello Tony1,
thank you for your contribution to the discussion about a requested move of Freedom and Justice Party/ Freedom and Justice Party (Egypt). I have replied to you arguments and concerns. If you want, you can check again if I was able to convince you and dispel your concerns. Kind regards -- RJFF ( talk) 16:23, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi Tony. Can you please help let me know the relevant policy related to the issue discussed on User_talk:SandyGeorgia#Wikipedia:Peer_review.2FAhalya.2Farchive2. Thanks. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 17:49, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
I think most of us participating in the WP:AIRPORTS discussion about linking are fully aware of WP:NOTVOTE---the problem was caused by a certain user who, in the space of a couple of hours, went off on a rampage of disruptive editing because (s)he was offended by something trivial. That said, now that they've gone away, a sensible discussion of the issue at hand (whether destination airports should be wikilinked in the lists of "Airlines and destinations" on airport articles) seems to be going on. The page history should tell you the story, if you're really interested! Thanks, -- RFBailey ( talk) 07:06, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi Tony - I've finally replied to your comment on the FAC here. Sorry for the delay. No need for you to do anything if it isn't convenient. Grandiose ( me, talk, contribs) 23:27, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
It seems difficult to get closure on this question. Since you contributed to the discussion on the first move proposal, perhaps you have thoughts on the second proposal. Thanks, Aymatth2 ( talk) 04:25, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Why did you move it to Guidance, navigation and control (engineering) when the (engineering) part wasn't needed? Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 20:43, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Hey there, I responded to your comments on this fac, would be glad to address any remaining issues Shann º n 03:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi Tony. There's a technical request at RM at the moment which proposes moving "Post-9/11" to "Post–9/11". Not sure about it myself; seems a bit like overkill really—why would anyone think the "post" applies only to the 9? Anyway, MOS:ENDASH wasn't much help so I'm wondering what you or your talk page watchers think about it. Cheers, Jenks24 ( talk) 11:30, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
— David Levy 18:13, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Tony On what do you base your statement that "chronological articles do not include 'year in x' articles"? Deb ( talk) 08:22, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Sorry that you feel that way. I know that you regard the 2009 decision as something of a personal victory, but the fact remains that Year in Topic articles are chronological articles and therefore exempted. If you want to fiddle around with dots and dashes to get your edit count up, feel free, but don't remove useful links. I don't have to justify myself to you, as I am conforming with the community decision. I have never been blocked for failing to do so. Deb ( talk) 15:45, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
I looked at the page and got the same error! Mysterious; very mysterious. I'm stumped, this certainly isn't supposed to happen. Res Mar 21:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
I know you were part of a page that collected examples of horrible overlinking, so I figure I'd share this with you. Cheers, Sven Manguard Wha? 01:54, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
You popped up on my watchlist having run a script to fix emdashes to endashes. As someone who has no idea how this is done, I wonder if I could ask a favour: could you run the script on Category:Electoral districts of New South Wales and Category:Former electoral districts of New South Wales? Both have a lot of emdashes that should be endashes. There's absolutely no rush. Frickeg ( talk) 00:00, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Tony, are you aware of this discussion? Your name is being bandied about:
Milkunderwood ( talk) 05:28, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Dear Tony1, thank you for stopping by the Teahouse. Wikipedia is a community of people working together to make knowledge free. You are an important part of that effort! Sarah ( talk) 16:06, 7 March 2012 (UTC) |
Hi! Welcome to the first edition of The Tea Leaf, the official newsletter of the Teahouse!
You are receiving The Tea Leaf after expressing interest or participating in the Teahouse! To remove yourself from receiving future newsletters, please remove your username here. Sarah ( talk) 16:09, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
No my understanding is Ndash should be used in the scores as it is in the majority of football season articles. Also used in page titles and when representing scores in player articles. I may be wrong but thats what the others use so i use it. Which is what N dash should be used for football scores my edit summary says Edinburgh Wanderer 14:35, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Here are three photos of me I found on the Commons; one of them would probably suffice. Rob SchnautZ (WMF) ( talk • contribs) 19:13, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
The answer I'm afraid when it comes to this perticlular user is no. I have no intention of having further conversation with him. I've dealt with Jenks and thumperwad to find out the correct info. I'm happy to speak to yourself but not him. What I have established is that the HTML code can be used per the top line of mos for dash. It's preference and if someone wishes to use that there isnt really a pressing reason why it needs to be changed. I appreciate we all have our areas but the minute he started having a go at me about grammar and making childish remarks like it takes me for ever to parse with you. Or haha or just been cheeky towards me I see no reason to work with him. He isn't interested unless it's his way and the minute I realised that there was no policy against not using it he started it. The truth is I won't take that from anyone. It's uncivil and to be honest I see it as lies. I will work with you or Jenks if need be. I would also like to say in regards to the initial edit summary it wasn't contradictory in my eyes. To me it read like you should use the code rather than a keystroke. It appears you didnt see it as that but that's how I look at it. As I say I won't be communicating with him do you don't have to worry about that. But really it's sorted I'm speaking to Jenks about running the script on the season articles to take it off his list. Edinburgh Wanderer 14:06, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm running out the door, but will be taking a run at compiling the Schnautz interview later. I've been up to my neck in the education business and am pondering how much of it would be of interest to the general reader, what stands out, what needs context and so on.
I'd initially planned the real-time interview to see for myself the difference between that model and the prepared questions-delayed response model I used when conducting the Gardner interview, before wading into the debate between HaeB and yourself, but time is pressing today so if you have any insights or thoughts on what's noteworthy in the transcript, they would be very much appreciated. Skomorokh 15:59, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Tony - I replied to your posting at the Arbcom talkpage. I tried to make it clear that I'm not trying to accuse anyone of bad faith, or rightness or wrongness. There's simply something about this particular combination of editors that leads to problems. With PMA/JCS gone for a while, that should help. And because of that, I might be sticking my foot in my mouth for no great advantage to the discourse. I just wanted to lay out my observations. Again - I think you're a good editor. I've told you that before on your talkpage, and I said it at the Arbcom page. And I apologize if my tone seemed accusatory. I think that's a byproduct of the Arbcom setting. I know from your page that you've been under real-world stress lately. It was not my intention to add to that in any way, and I also apologize for that. As I said at Arbcom, I just want good editors to work together productively on this great project. Dohn joe ( talk) 19:04, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Just in case your question is still open: [13] ... Tomeasy T C 08:26, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
interest in knowledge being interesting | |
Thank you for raising the level of quality at DYK last summer, – admitting that what you asked at first seemed an extra load and complication, but thinking now that you achieved a lot in terms of more interesting, more concise information. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 09:41, 20 March 2012 (UTC) |
Shot you a belated reply; out for the day now but will look in tonight UTC. Best, Skomorokh 11:01, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi Tony! Thank you for signing up to be a future host at the Teahouse. Well, great news - the future is here, we'd love you to be a Teahouse host! During this pilot time, Teahouse hosts do more than just ask questions - they invite new users to the Teahouse and track those invitations, they also provide input and insight into the development of the Teahouse. A few things I'd love to see you do as a Teahouse host:
I'm so happy that you volunteered to lend a hand at the Teahouse. I look forward to following your contributions and invitations, and your assistance in making the Teahouse a great and warm place for new Wikipedians. See you there :) Sarah ( talk) 21:54, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Dear Tony1, I just asked a question at the Teahouse that you might have interest in! I hope you'll stop by and participate! Sarah ( talk) 01:33, 21 March 2012 (UTC) |
In
your recent edit, you added an explicit "A$" in the cost=
field of the infobox. However, the value is used as {{
AUD}}, a template that automatically inserts that dollar-symbol (and even links it to an article about this type of currency). Could you remove the now-doubled symbol you inserted?
DMacks (
talk)
11:33, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Could you weigh in here, as a former writer of the featured content section? Mathew and I are having a disagreement over what should be included in the Featured Picture blurbs, and he has said something about agreeing with you. Crisco 1492 ( talk) 03:57, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
...for your helpful tweaks to the Teahouse db report page. - J-Mo Talk to Me Email Me 06:16, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi Tony! I saw you were inviting folks to the Teahouse! That's awesome, as that is the #1 area that we need help with during this pilot period. However, we do need your help in a more specific aspect - tracking your invitations. During this pilot, we need to track all of our invitations, as this tracking will help us gauge the success (or failure) or the project in various areas. You can do this by using the templates we have created here and by tracking them, as mentioned here. I noticed that you also aren't using the template, while that is okay, and I appreciate your own personal spin on the template, if you aren't using the template, it's really really really (REALLY!) important to track your invites in the tracking document mentioned in the "Track who was invited" section I link above. Thanks Tony for helping during this pilot program (And hopefully beyond!). Sarah ( talk) 14:15, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi,
You incorrectly stated that I requested that you comment on Skomorokh's page. [14] I didn't. And I don't know where my request there on his page has gone. I had wanted to have a discussion with Skomorokh but my comment has been removed. In any case, being the new person, I'm beginning to feel very uncomfortable with what's going on, so I think I'll just bow out for now and let you all handle it. Perhaps you'll discuss my concerns somewhere. You, of course, are free to add back the "Lesbian kisses." Best wishes, MathewTownsend ( talk) 14:06, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
(ec) I don't know the rules, I guess, so I'll bow out and Crisco will do the Featured content section. Of course you can weigh in on my request to Skomorokh, whether or not I requested you to. Unfortunately, he removed my comment. Perhaps he wouldn't have removed it if you had not entered, and I could have continued the conversation just with him and come to a satisfactory conclusion. Now my comment is gone with no feedback. In any case, I don't support material that is not sourced being included in FP, especially since the other Featured content items are bound by it. Crisco is apt to include promotional material to hype his images from various articles not mentioned on the promotion page, material that is not sourced. MathewTownsend ( talk) 15:15, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
What was the answer to my question? Crisco says above that it was answered. What was the answer? Should I do as suggested above and reinsert my question on Skomorokh's page? MathewTownsend ( talk) 22:04, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
An arbitration case regarding article titles and capitalisation has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri ( talk) 22:57, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Best wishes for a speedy recovery. ``` Buster Seven Talk 13:05, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
China and Japan do not use dmy formatting for dates, so I do not think it is proper for you to add {{ use dmy dates}} onto articles with East Asian subjects.— Ryulong ( 竜龙) 16:50, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Oh? Could you point out where? I don't remember doing this. Cheers. Omg † osh 17:02, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
The interview appears workable. Probably on the Sunday depending on what the people are doing then. Monday won't work because my flight leaves at 10 am. Eclecticology ( talk) 02:56, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Hola, I've left note in the newsroom to help coordinate the activities of the interested reporters re: the Berlin conference – obviously we don't want to document planning best done in private, but status updates on availability and areas of focus should be helpful. Contactable only on-wiki for the next five hours or so; otherwise will aim to catch up on email tonight (within 12 hours). Cheers, Skomorokh 10:40, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi,
I've roamed around your "self-help writing tutorials" and value your insights. Do you mention "that" anywhere? Sometimes "that" is useful/necessary in a sentence, but occasionally I see "that"s put in when none are needed. What is your view on the use of "that"? (Also, I prefer "that" over "which" most of the time when one or the other is needed. What do you think?) Regards, MathewTownsend ( talk) 14:50, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi Tony -
I came across one of your edits calling for metric conversions at Martese. I then noticed that you made a similar plea at Mountain weasel. I went ahead and made the conversions, but was wondering if you knew about Template:Convert? It's an easy way to get conversions into text, and is one of my favorite wikignoming activities. I usually use the default units, and add "abbr=on" to put unit abbreviations in the text and keep things shorter. It doesn't take long to learn (although I do have to go back to the template page now and again for some of the odder units). If you want to start using it, that'd be awesome; if not, feel free to ping me with pages that need conversions. Thanks! Dohn joe ( talk) 17:32, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi,
This week I've stripped the blurb size down just a bit on the notion that the blurb should give a general idea of the article and not be replete with facts (and especially) figures. If you get a chance, let me know what you think. (I expect some flak.) MathewTownsend ( talk) 22:49, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
You did read my talk page. My other account is User:Waorca. It's legit if I don't use both accounts to support each other or voting support/oppose. Check both edit histories of the 2 users, I've never done anything like that. I use both users like a separated person. Also, I change the titles due to WP:RETAIN. Like I'd said last time: if you renamed some articles by un-capitalizing the word "dynasty", well then every other articles of the similar subjects should be renamed too. Why did you only rename some articles while not all of them? Last time, someone else already explained to you when I ask you should also rename the Burmese/Chinese dynasty articles, but you ignored that. Why is that? ༆ ( talk) 01:01, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
I've missed an important point: WP:RETAIN on no account functions between articles—only within each individual article. Please do not use this misinterpreted principle. Tony (talk) 02:24, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Would appreciate any comments you would have on the discussion here. Thanks. GoneIn60 ( talk) 03:48, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
This article discusses Web searches and imminent changes. There is an embedded YouTube video with a duration of 12:47.
— Wavelength ( talk) 02:12, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Editors can use this link to find online resources about writing and speaking.
— Wavelength ( talk) 18:56, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Tony1. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click
HERE to participate. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 12:00, 5 April 2012 (UTC) |
Hi! Welcome to the second edition of The Tea Leaf, the official newsletter of the Teahouse!
You are receiving The Tea Leaf after expressing interest or participating in the Teahouse! To remove yourself from receiving future newsletters, please remove your username here. -- Sarah ( talk) 21:48, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
you said to ask you about editing but thats not what im having trouble with...the problem is editors keep deleting my contributions any help? especially on the "al ahbash" article...the article is not even close to NPOV and its a stub. Baboon43 ( talk) 01:29, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi Tony1, your note leaves me worried. Get well soon, but take all the rest needed! Looking forward to reading your piece in the next issue. Regards, HaeB ( talk) 21:02, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
I heard one of our Signpost editors is laid up...hope it's nothing tragic! Get well soon! Rob SchnautZ (WMF) ( talk • contribs) 18:38, 3 April 2012 (UTC) |
Rob, it's very kind of you to leave this message. Thank you! Tony (talk) 12:13, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
I am in communication with Tony, and will pass on to him the expressions of concern above. He has undergone surgery a second time, and is in good care. Of course he is without internet access, and anxious to get back to Wikipedia. It seems he will be out of action till Friday at least, and probably till the weekend. If this changes I will post a follow-up note.
Hi. When you recently edited Elisha Lawrence (loyalist), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cardigan ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 15:22, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
My heart-felt thanks to well-wishers, whose messages I heard about via a text-message from Noetica. My laptop wouldn't talk to the network device someone brought in for me, but in any case I wasn't well enough to do anything useful on WP.
I was discharged about 10 hours ago. So there goes a week of my life I'll never get back; and the expenditure of a ton of taxpayers' money—all unnecessary, since my emergency admission and operation last Monday could have been avoided had I been given proper instructions about warning signs after the first operation three weeks ago (which was straightforward and planned). You soon learn that the admixture of 19th- and 21st-century communications and record-keeping systems come at considerable systemic cost to both patients and staff.
This time, an extended stay in hospital allowed me not only to gaze at a million-dollar view from my bed, but afforded time to observe the worst and the best of what goes on in modern healthcare. There was the night nurse who took out her dislike of a patient who didn't want to be treated as stupid, stabbing a cannula into the back of my left hand with such apparently wilful sloppiness that the infusion machines played up when connected to it (the area is still swollen and painful). But some of her colleagues—perhaps a quarter—rose above the utterly humdrum low-grade duties of nursing to show that skilful engagements with patients, and medical knowledge and curiosity, can really make a difference. BTW, there was a gender skew among nurses that still approximates WP's 87–13% ratio, both of which I find strange and undesirable.
Unseen doctors and patients behind curtains conducted conversations that fascinated; lying in a half-awake state with all the time in the world, I got much out of listening to the interpersonal grammar of their dialogues, particularly as played out in their intonation patterns—only a language-nerd would do that! One doctor talked of "an exciting urine test", leading the bemused patient to ask who would be excited and about what. A man whose broken leg was chronically unhealed was told he risked losing the whole limb without an operation. I later hobbled over and encouraged him to take the advice of his doctors, having heard the tension in their voices. He was bed-wheeled back from the five-hour op involving multiple skin grafts. The orthopaedic surgeons sent up the junior anaesthetist, of all people, to explain the complex details of care to a nurse; but the ensuing doctor–nurse interaction of the highest imaginable professional standard on both sides showed that their delegation spoke to the junior's brilliance, not to their wish to get away early.
Now, just eight hours "out", real-life is losing its sense of bewildering novelty; but several phone conversations have already exposed the temporary damage to my working memory and lexical access wreaked by the general anaesthetic; I believe the effects last from two to four weeks. (Fortunately, the previous op involved only a spinal block after I'd huffed and puffed for that alternative.) Tony (talk) 12:13, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Interested in your opinion. Judicatus ( talk) 08:24, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Just a note that replacing a hyphen with an en dash in negative coordinates, as you did here, makes the coordinates unparsable by GeoHack, which therefore displays the wrong location when the coordinates in the article are clicked on. It's not a good idea to do this. Deor ( talk) 13:40, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, you're right. Replied on Deor's page. Tony (talk) 01:07, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi Tony1, I was quite surprised to see this edit despite Date and time notation in Republic of Ireland. WP:MOSNUM doesn't advocate MDY over DMY and the version used in the relevant country/ies is DMY, so is there any chance you can run your script to revert to DMY, unless there's a reason I've missed? Thank you, Cloudz 679 16:19, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
He was despised - wishing you good recovery and spirits, -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 23:05, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Tony, I am new to Wiki editing. I have just completed "Subra Suresh" entry, having completely revised and adding a photo/portrait. However, the Question Book text at the top of the entry has not changed since my edits were accepted last week. Who edits this box and when? It is out of date with its reference to a lack of primary sources, etc. Thanks, in advance, for your help. -- LeeHerring ( talk) 20:13, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Just a comment: you may wish to see this. Sorry for the confusion! :) Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation ( talk) 22:04, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi. When you recently edited Sparkling wine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page La Rioja ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 10:56, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Hey Tony. Looks like we're really going to need you on this one—in short, I'm going to be handling E-in-C duties this week, but I'm not going to have the time to provide the "the buck stops with me" approach to N&N that most E-in-Cs do. In other words, any help appreciated, particularly this week. Thanks! - Jarry1250 Deliberation needed 19:25, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I did the Patrick White navbox basically at random. After my first 20 or so navboxes, I ran out of authors that I'd read or was personally interested in, so now I'm picking authors who I've heard of and who have enough articles on their works to justify a navbox.-- INeverCry 18:19, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Hello Tony,
Which of "dependently typed programming language" and "dependently-typed programming language" would be correctly hyphenated? I have difficulty choosing between "Do not hyphenate between an “-ly” adverb and an adjective" and "Hyphenate between two or more adjectives when they come before a noun and act as a single idea."? (Here it are the "types" which are "dependent".) Cheers, — Ruud 19:56, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi there Tony! I accidentally closed some of your recent move requests a couple days early. Since they seem fairly non-controversial I will leave them for now, but if anyone questions what happened, just send them to me and I will relist the discussion. Cheers mate, Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 20:24, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure if you saw the Signpost or my edit but FS is officially inactive. If you would like to discuss I am open. I just ask you put a note on my talk page if you reply here. cheers -- Guerillero | My Talk 20:12, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
|
Hi Tony, I thought it was probably about time that we moved your sandbox over to WP Linguistics and start the SFL task force going officially. With your permission, I'll move the page over to Wikipedia:WikiProject Linguistics/SFL and get the infrastructure set up. Do you have an image we can use for the task force on Template:WikiProject Linguistics, by any chance? Nothing obvious really jumped out at me. Also, for the name, would you be happy with "Systemic Functional Linguistics Task Force", or would you prefer something else? Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 04:29, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi Tony1, first I appreciate your huge work on correct capitalization, but I have reverted the one on Business Process Model and Notation. I don't find any discussion initiated on this one, and I'm not sure this will be an accepted one. You can still intiate a requested move procedure if you like. -- SchreyP ( messages) 14:00, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Hey Tony1/Archive 12! I'm just dropping you a message because you've commented on (or expressed an interest in) the Article Feedback Tool in the past. If you don't have any interest in it any more, ignore the rest of this message :).
If you do still have an interest or an opinion, good or bad, we're holding an office hours session tomorrow at 19:00 GMT/UTC in #wikimedia-office to discuss completely changing the system. In attendance will be myself, Howie Fung and Fabrice Florin. All perspectives, opinions and comments are welcome :).
I appreciate that not everyone can make it to that session - it's in work hours for most of North and South America, for example - so if you're interested in having another session at a more America-friendly time of day, leave me a message on my talkpage. I hope to see you there :). Regards, Okeyes (WMF) ( talk) 14:33, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
i love animals | |
i love animals so much it could kill me. Kickback98 ( talk) 19:40, 2 November 2011 (UTC) |
Can you take another look at the move you've just made - surely this article is about a specific system so the capitals are correct (as in references). DexDor ( talk) 09:04, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
The first paragraph of the new article " Global Editors Network" is the following.
Global Editors Network ( GEN) is the first non-profit, non-governmental association that brings together editors-in-chief and senior news executives from all platforms – print, digital, mobile and broadcast [1]. Its goal is to break down the barriers between traditional and new media, so that information can be gathered and shared with each other to define an open journalism model for the future and to create new journalistic concepts and tools [2].
The official website is
http://www.globaleditorsnetwork.org/.
—
Wavelength (
talk)
19:29, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
I loved your changes on Human systems engineering, though both universities who offer such a program write it in upper case. But the changes you made in the text convinced me that you are right.
Beyond this you seem to be a very interesting guy in matters of prof. activity and probably also privately.
Congratulations, thank you and warm regards, christa
Christa.muth (
talk)
23:52, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
I think you would be interested in this. Actually I kind of hope you can fill it out when you have the time ;). Cheers, Res Mar 02:05, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Hey Tony! I've got your questions and requests filtering through the woodwork now. Re calls to action, there will definitely be an effort to improve them - this will come after the basic framework is in place and confirmed :). Oh, and 3am UTC on Saturday features a stripped-down office hours session for australiasians and east asians in #wikimedia-office. It'll just be me (everyone else has, y'know, a life) but I hope to see you there :). Okeyes (WMF) ( talk) 13:04, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi Tony. I wanted to start by saying that I agree with at least 95% of your title changes. I also appreciate that you've stopped changing the case in articles where you've requested a move until after the move is made. However, when you do change the case somewhere, your edit summary of "fixed dashes using a script" ( here, for example) can be a little misleading, considering that you aren't fixing dashes, but changing cases. Just makes it harder for editors to keep track of what's going on. If you wouldn't mind changing how you word the summary in the future, I'd appreciate it. Thanks. Dohn joe ( talk) 21:47, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Are you any good with templates and whatnot? I'm trying to find a decent way of doing prominent pull-quotes at the sides of Signpost stories to draw reader attention but WP doesn't seem to have anything appropriate (because magazine-style pullquoting doesn't belong in an encyclopaedia). See last week's ITN for the current hackaround. Skomorokh 13:26, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Any thoughts on the format of the Discussion report? The combination of third- and fourth-level headers are really not working for me; too little visual distinction between them, too much visual clutter overall. A change in font, linking, moving level-four headings to bolded bullets? Skomorokh 13:54, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi Tony - it's been to long. I wonder if you might give me your opinion. We've got an article called November Group (German) which all of my english texts refer to in the german as 'Novembergruppe'. MOS seems to suggest the article is correctly named in that it has anglicised the German. But I'm minded that the similar and related articles Bauhaus, Arbeitsrat für Kunst, Deutscher Werkbund all retain their original names (not least because Bauhaus is actually quite nuanced and difficult to translate I believe.) Any thoughts? -- Joopercoopers ( talk) 21:19, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi Tony - I'll respond to your new question on my candidate question page later this evening; you're raising an important point and I want to ensure that I answer thoroughly. I will probably be longwinded for this one, so apologies in advance. Risker ( talk) 18:27, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Why were all articles about the Vietnamese dynasties being renamed with the de-capitalization of the word "dynasty"? Moreover, if we did that, then we HAVE TO APPLY it with every other similar articles as well. We should also rename all such articles about the Burmese and Chinese dynasties. That would be fair, I guess. Waorca ( talk) 21:53, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
No idea what you mean, didn't create the article about 2030. The population growth article, yes.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:41, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
( talk page stalker) Per WP:UNLINKDATES:
Dates should not be linked purely for the purpose of autoformatting (even though linking was previously recommended). Dates should only be linked when they are germane and topical to the subject, as disussed at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking#Chronological items.
2030 is not germane to population growth and when editing it is common practice to set aside one's predispositions, Wikipedia is built on consensus, if you disagree with a policy or guideline suggest a revision on the relevant village pump or talk page, don't take it up with the user who was merely following standard practice. — James ( Talk • Contribs) • 8:44pm • 10:44, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
I found a link to this page at Wikipedia talk:Vital articles. I am aware that your available time is restricted, but you might wish to bookmark it for future consideration when you can spend more time in reading it.
— Wavelength ( talk) 21:51, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Tony. Are you still active? If yes, and if you're interested, could you take a look at Luís Alves de Lima e Silva, Duke of Caxias and help me out with any spelling or grammar errors and if necessary, improve its prose? The article is now a FAC and I want to be sure that it looks good. Kind regards, -- Lecen ( talk) 14:47, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed that you commented at the Signature image processing article talk page within the last few months. About a week ago I indicated that I plan/propose to roll this article into a broader article on weld monitoring, testing and analysis, roughly per the outline in my August post. In case haven't been watching the article but would like to give input on this I thought I'd drop you this note. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 12:43, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Regarding WP:MOSPOST, you are our style guru so I am happy to defer to whatever you think best, but a means of distinguishing direct quotation from paraphrase is needed, and that's one in use in newspapers. No strong feelings on the issue, so by all means be bold. Skomorokh 10:13, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Hello
I have a proposition: its possible to put on sites like Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-11-28/Featured content list (only list) of Good articles? They are also goodl articles, so is also quite nice info. I understand that full description will take too much time - but list of GA from last week shouldn`t be hard to take. PMG ( talk) 07:58, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Hey, all! A quick update on how version 5 of the Article Feedback Tool is developing. I'm sending this to both newsletter recipients and regular participants, because I appreciate we've been a bit quiet :).
So, we're just wrapping up the first round of user contributions. A big thank you to everyone who has contributed ideas (a full list of which can be found at the top of the page); thanks almost entirely to contributions by editors, the tool looks totally different to how it did two months ago when we were starting out. Big ideas that have made it in include a comment voting system, courtesy of User:Bensin, an idea for a more available way of deploying the feedback box, suggested by User:Utar, and the eventual integration of both oversight and the existing spam filtering tools into the new version, courtesy of..well, everyone, really :).
For now, the devs are building the first prototypes, and all the features specifications have been finalised. That doesn't mean you can't help out, however; we'll have a big pile of shiny prototypes to play around with quite soon. If you're interested in testing those, we'll be unveiling it all at this week's office hours session, which will be held on Friday 2 December at 19:00 UTC. If you can't make it, just sign up here. After that, we have a glorious round of testing to undertake; we'll be finding out what form works the best, what wording works the best, and pretty much everything else under the sun. As part of that, we need editors - people who know just what to look for - to review some sample reader comments, and make calls on which ones are useful, which ones are spam, so on and so forth. If that's something you'd be interested in doing, drop an email to okeyes@wikimedia.org.
Thanks to everyone for their contributions so far. We're making good headway, and moving forward pretty quickly :). Okeyes (WMF) ( talk) 16:40, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Tony, I finally bothered to read your user page after you'd recently posted on my talk and I find it absolutely hilarious. The first six items in the list of things your dog hates are things I agree with, but they're written in such a hilarious fashion I found myself sitting here at work just laughing nearly to the point of tears. You may not have intended such things to be humorous, because they are serious issues, but I tend to see humor in the most unsuspecting places. What really sent my laughter over the edge though, was the perfect way you've expressed the overlinking problem. I don't think I could have said it better. Always nice to come across another grant writer; I think I'll be taking a look at some of your writing guides. John Shandy` • talk 18:20, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Hey Mr Styletip Person, how badly do you think this recent edit has debased that article's meaning, readability, etc? -- Hoary ( talk) 01:47, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
|
A heads up as you had participated in the discussions on this. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Weld monitoring, testing and analysis Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 11:31, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
As an election coordinator I should probably shut up. But one editor whose judgment I trust has made the point that my role is rather functional this year. In any case my time-budget for WP is regrettably small at the moment, so I'm not heavily involved. I'm voting "oppose" for most of the candidates not mentioned here, but I don't want to focus on this.
Here are the editors I believe we're lucky to have as candidates, and I strongly recommend that voters support them:
AGK
This guy is on the mark. I don't mind a technocrat on board. :-)
Courcelles
Ideal new blood on the committee.
Hersfold
I will vote Support for him, giving him the benefit of the doubt.
Kirill Lokshin
Solid arb, still fresh: a big tick.
Roger Davies
A stand-out for his professionalism, pragmatism, and intelligence.
Tony (talk) 13:10, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Tony1 you made an edit consisting of two postings to ANI with the comments "My block of admin PBS - review please: Good block. Voluntary recall is very appropriate in this case". Yet you wrote "The WP:INVOLVED policy is quite clear: admins should avoid even the appearance of conflict of interest. It is easy enough to seek an uninvolved admin's opinion. ..." I was not the involved admin. I took an administrative position over a talk page and issue that I have not been involved for 5+ years. The people involved in the current dispute who have complained about what I did are those advocating the same outcome for the recent move I advocated 5+ yeas ago. My premature closing would have left the page at the name I argued against 5+ years ago, so it can not be said that there was any apparent conflict of intrest.
The administrator who put a block on my account first expressed an opinion in the current survey in favour of moving the page. So which of the two administrators were WP:INVOLVED and which administrator showed a conflict of interest through that involvement?
You can criticise me on two issues. The first is the initial premature closing of the debate. The second is placing a 3 hour block on the talk page. As both are matters of opinion and judgement. But to accuse me of involvement when the policy says "One important caveat ..." seems to me to be unreasonable. I would like you to ponder and then consider if you still think what you posted was a fair and accurate summary. -- PBS ( talk) 12:03, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
I notice your recent edits have been moving overcapitalised article titles. Good for you! I am now using AWB to go through these moves and adding the R from other capitalisation template Lmatt ( talk) 15:10, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Hey Tony1/Archive 12; another Article Feedback Tool office hours session! This is going to be immediately after we start trialing the software publicly, so it's a pretty important one. If any of you want to attend, it will be held in #wikimedia-office on Friday 16th December at 19:00 UTC. As always, if you can't attend, drop me a line and I'm happy to link you to the logs when we're done. Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) ( talk) 22:31, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your writing tutorials! Braincricket ( talk) 05:52, 15 December 2011 (UTC) |
Please stop. Your renaming of numerous technical analysis articles to lowercase disagrees with reliable sources (including the inventors) usage of these names as proper nouns. ~ Amatulić ( talk) 02:00, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Ok, sounds good, thanks for the update! Bbmaniac ( talk) 05:22, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Sorry about this, I'm not really sure what happened. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:59, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
YouTube is packed with excerpts from his debates, addresses, and Q&As. The address and Q&A he presented in the authors@google series at their headquarters is Hitchens at his best, and well worth committing the hour (high-res vid) if you want a brilliant lesson in rhetoric and plain-speaking, piercing logic. And it's entertaining. I also recommend it to anyone who still hasn't quite broken loose from the grip of religion. It's listed at the top of a google search for <hitchens authors at google>.
YouTube contains many excerpts from his early appearances on American TV, too—back to the 80s, I think—answering viewers' questions live. There, he's strikingly handsome (despite the nicotine bags under his eyes, if that's possible) and just as lucid as he was to the end.
In my view, his genius on the stage is not matched by his writing, which is far too discursive for my taste. But that's probably a personal choice.
Tony (talk) 13:28, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
This is a reminder that even just potentially contentious title moves should go through the formal WP:RM process, and that changing a title merely to make it more descriptive when it is already at a title with which there is no conflict in Wikipedia (a.k.a. "predisambiguation") as you did recently when you moved Life Safety Code to Life safety code (US fire protection), is inherently contentious. Next time, please go through WP:RM instead of unilaterally moving an article like this again. Thank you. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 07:26, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
As to raising this issue at WT:Article titles... it's been done a number of time, and each time goes down in flames for good reason: it's unclear what exactly you're suggesting we do instead of adhering to the practice of making titles precise, but only as precise as necessary to disambiguate from other uses in Wikipedia. You seem to want to disambiguate from other uses Tony might imagine, or something equally ephemeral. In other words, you're not even proposing an alternative. To appreciate the problem, see if you could even come up with some specific wording changes to WP:Article titles that you think would at least address this issue to your satisfaction, much less to that of the community. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 18:52, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Tony, I understand your concern. However RM is not a contest, nor is it a binding process. Any RM discussion can be immediately restarted (especially no consensus ones) (several examples of that underway now) by any editor, and as you know, unless someone move protects the article, the title change can be made unilaterally anyway. Since RM closes can happen at anytime after 7 days, when an editor asks me to reopen the discussion in a no consensus debate, I generally do. Further civil discussion to reach consensus is always better than festing contentiousness over a title. As for the potential of WP:CANVASS issues, that's something you'll have to deal with outside of RM. FYI, when I revert my closes, I generally don't do the subsequent close to preclude involvement concerns.-- Mike Cline ( talk) 14:53, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:59, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at WP:AN regarding repeatedly reverting without substantive objection. The thread is " Uninvolved admin - please take a look".The discussion is about the topic Wikipedia:Article titles. Thank you. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 09:26, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost Barnstar | ||
So we have this barnstar laying around, gathering dust; and I feel as though none of the editors that put pen to paper every week to produce the much-demanded Signpost has been properly compensated for their efforts. You deserve this :) Res Mar 05:28, 22 December 2011 (UTC) |
Let's look at what happened. Yesterday, I boldly edited WP:Article titles and explained the edit on the talk page. You reverted this. Okay, that's 2 out of 3 on the WP:BRD scale. But where is the D? You did not discuss. You even admitted not even thinking about the change or reading the explanation, and refused to do so. Instead you ranted on and on about me and my behavior. I'm really trying to AGF here, but I'm having trouble seeing it. Can you help me see it?
Also, what about AGF regarding my initial edit? Why not take a look at it? Why not read my explanation? Why not comment on that? Why assume the worse and revert without giving it any consideration whatsoever? What about recognizing that I'm merely restoring the longstanding wording and meaning that was there just a few months ago? You obviously had enough time and energy to comment about me and my behavior... how is that productive? Where is the AGF? How is all this not disruptive? If you can help me see that too, that also will be appreciated. Thanks. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 06:14, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Here's something I would like from you... an acknowledgement that your revert yesterday was contrary to AGF (not because you reverted, but because you reverted without evaluating the change; without good reason; without Discussing the change substantively after the revert), and a promise that you will assume good faith regarding me and my actions in the future. Can you do that?
Is there anything that you need or would like from me? -- Born2cycle ( talk) 08:10, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
So your position is that "not discussed" is a perfectly fine and reasonable reason to revert? What's the point of WP:BOLD, then? Yes, I know significant change to policy is an exception, but this was a restoration of longstanding wording and meaning. I explained all that fully in my talk page comment, how I researched it, how I discovered the implication of the change clearly was not discussed nor intended. Why is that not good enough? Why does it also have to be "discussed"? I mean, if you had something specific to discuss, sure. But you didn't.
This goes far beyond this particular instance, but how in general we treat each other, and changes to policy. Again, undiscussed changes happen all the time. Reverts are fine - but they should not be based entirely on "not discussed". You really should have a substantive objection to a change to revert a change, and be prepared to discuss it.
People reverting solely because a change was "not discussed" is simply disruptive. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 08:50, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Okay, here's a good starting point. Have you seen WP:REVEXP? Do you agree or disagree with what it says? Thanks. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 09:31, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Every schoolgirl in the world should see this engaging and touching exposé of a woman's pathway to a leading position in her mathematical field.
But apart from this, the vid shows how the Foundation might approach the production of a series of YouTube-style vids exploring the individual experiences of women (and men) in their own lives and field of interest, and how they came to be active members of the WP community. There has to be something special about such vids to get high hit-rates and wide impact. It might be hard to get the depth ... but it's worth thinking about. Tony (talk) 08:47, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi Tony--
I have just accidentally stumbled upon this Wikipedia talk:Article titles page.
First let me introduce myself: User:Milkunderwood, if you would care to glance at my userpage. I have made a few WP edits here and there, but mostly have asked a lot of questions, and definitely consider myself to be a user in the sense of "reader" rather than an "editor". If you look down at the bottom of my page you'll find my WP "motto" - or rather anti-motto: Remember, the reader is the enemy.
I've only very lightly skimmed and skipped through all of the discussion at Article titles, and certainly haven't looked at any of the esoteric examples thrown out by everyone. That whole discussion reminds me of the cliche of medieval clerics arguing about the number of angels dancing on the head of a pin.
As a user, I will say that never once have I ever looked at a "Categories" section of any page.
And as a user, I have to say that in the arguments on article titles that I have looked at, you are right and the editors who keep quoting rules and policies and guidelines are wrong.
I'm just posting this to you here, because I have no intention of getting involved at that discussion. But perhaps my reaction may help. Milkunderwood ( talk) 23:53, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Back on May 8 2011, using the reasonably common search term Mozart violin sonatas, this article concerning a single CD of four miscellaneous sonatas performed by Hilary Hahn was the first Search suggestion that popped up, rather than the listing I had expected to find. At that time it was then named simply Mozart: Violin Sonatas. To try to avoid this problem I "moved" the page to a new name, adding the specific K. numbers included on the disc. I also left a message on the article's talk page, which has never been responded to. However, even now, as soon as I type in the Search box no more than "Mozart v" this same suggestion continues to pop up as first choice.
(disregard as irrelevant):
You may be interested in this external article.
— Wavelength ( talk) 18:23, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Season's greetings! | |
I hope the holiday season is relaxing and fulfilling, and that 2012 will be fruitful for you. -- John ( talk) 00:40, 25 December 2011 (UTC) |
FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 13:02, 25 December 2011 (UTC).
Hey, Tony; I've reverted your move here because "Prerogative", with the capital letter, is the correct and formal title. If other articles say different, other articles say wrong - although I note that, actually, the other articles do capitalise it in a Commonwealth context. Ironholds ( talk) 13:05, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Seasons Greetings | |
Apologies, slight technical problem in the Christmas Cheer Distribution Network Automated Felicitations System (no electricity) meant a small delay in getting my greetings out this year ... Chaosdruid ( talk) 17:03, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Please don't lowercase the name of specific entities with proper names, even if they appear to be generic names. For example Integrated Electronic Litigation System. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 15:24, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
If you guys are going to be moving things around, it would be decent to at least make sure there's at least one referenced source that supports your point of view. Enric, you've moved several articles that have no refs at all. Tony, I've seen you do that, too. In the case of the "iELS", the sources seem pretty clear to me: of the few sources that we have, few or none support the idea that it's a proper name. Even the official roadmap doc doesn't support that interpretation. Dicklyon ( talk) 18:00, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
See Talk:Cognitive_process_profile. This is a specific computer program sold by a specific company, and it's capitalized in the few sources that it has in google books. The article was created with this capitalization. Make a RM if you wish, but please don't make moves that go against all available sources. P.D.: I think that you didn't realize that you had already moved that article. P.D.D.: just to clarify that I agree with many moves that you make, we are arguing only about a subset of them. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 15:14, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi Tony, I wonder why you made this page rename when the Irish government sources, other than the one initial sentence of this page, use the capitalised name for the tax, as it also does for the abbreviation. Seems like WP:COMMONNAME applies. ww2censor ( talk) 17:02, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Tony:
You recently edited the subject article by changing "Flue gas" to "Flue-gas" and "fossil fuel" to "fossil-fuel" in the article's title and first sentence. I do not find those changes particularly objectionable but I do wish to know why you felt the hyphenation was needed.
I am a retired engineer and had a 60 year working career that involved designing and operating industrial combustion furnaces in power plants, refineries, petrochemical plants and other similar industrial facilities. During those 60 years, I rarely (if ever) encountered the hyphenation of either "flue gas" or "fossil fuel"
I assume that you are aware that the rest of the text in the subject article has many more occurrences of "flue gas" and "fossil fuel" which you did not revise. I am at a loss to understand why you felt that the article's title and the first sentence needed the hyphenation but not the other occurrences of those same un-hyphenated words in the same article.
I also assume the you are aware that the words "fossil fuel" and "flue gas" (without hyphenation) occur perhaps hundreds of times in many other Wikipedia articles. Is it your intention to also hyphenate all of those occurrences as well?
Tony, I would appreciate knowing why you felt those changes to the subject article were needed. mbeychok ( talk) 17:57, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Hey guys! Another month, another newsletter.
First off - the first bits of AFT5 are now deployed. As of early last week, the various different designs are deployed on 0.1 percent of articles, for a certain "bucket" of randomly-assigned readers. With the data flooding in from these, we were able to generate a big pool of comments for editors to categorise as "useful" or "not useful". This information will be used to work out which form is the "best" form, producing the most useful feedback and the least junk. Hopefully we'll have the data for you by the end of the week; I can't thank the editors who volunteered to hand-code enough; we wouldn't be where we are now without you.
All this useful information means we can move on to finalising the tool, and so we're holding an extra-important office hours session on Friday, 6th January at 19:00 UTC in #wikimedia-office. If you can't make it, drop me a note and I'll be happy to provide logs so you can see what went on - if you can make it, but will turn up late, bear in mind that I'll be hanging around until 23:00 UTC to deal with latecomers :).
Things we'll be discussing include:
If you can't make it to the session, all this stuff will be displayed on the talkpage soon after, so no worries ;). Hope to see you all there! Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) ( talk) 04:49, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Are these two better for thumb view? Crisco 1492 ( talk) 08:06, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Tony, I'll work with Noetica if he decides to pursue this. -- Mike Cline ( talk) 14:40, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
|
Could you have another look at the title of this article? — Ruud 20:28, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
They are among the most misused aspects of English. Their use can make reading easier, especially for non-experts. I'd say downcasing would make text an easier read for experts in some cases, too. When you say "not certain", that is a fair comment, but I generally am certain. It's just that I make the occasional mistake. In some fields, it's as though newbies/anons come along (at our encouragement, regrettably) and make a one-line stub article on anything they remember from their undergraduate course; but they're not aware of WP's rules on the casing of titles. This leads to massive upcasing in article titles where the creators would be fine about downcasing if the matter were pointed out. The damage this does to the language is in encouraging the indiscriminate upcasing of everything in sight. We don't need to encourage this. Tony (talk) 04:09, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
I noticfe that you have proposed a rename for this category to "Advanced technology attachment". First, this is incorrect as the subject here is a proper name for an interface standard, not a generic term. Second, you did not actually start a discussion at the CfD archive page. Third, the actual name of the standard (as described on the Parallel ATA page) is "AT Attachment." Per the standards committee that created it and the standards they published (all linked in that article) it is not and has never been called "Advanced Technology Attachment" (regardless of case), except by people who know not whereof they speak. If this is properly opened up for a rename discussion then I and others who are familiar with the subject will argue strongly for "AT Attachment". WP should follow authoritative sources. Jeh ( talk) 00:35, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi Tony, happy new year to you. Would you be kind enough to do me a massive favour? The blurb on the 9 January 2012 WP:TFL reads pretty poorly to me, I was hoping you'd be able to copyedit it before next Monday? Any help is very much appreciated. All the best, The Rambling Man ( talk) 14:45, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Note the use of "the Procedural Reasoning System" versus "a procedural reasoning system". — Ruud 19:14, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi mate, you recall when we last talked about awards and decorations and their ribbons in articles? Well we've had no further discussion in MilHist but, in case you haven't seen, there is this at the Australian Wikipedians' notice board... Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 13:30, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
FYI. [5] SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 04:53, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Hey guys! A couple of highly important things to do over the next few weeks:
Regards, Okeyes (WMF) ( talk) 18:53, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I noticed the RFC at WT:DYK. I'll look into it; I haven't done an interview for this week, so I could do a writeup on this instead. Regarding an interview, she and I have never had positive communication and I don't know if she is the kind to hold grudges, so it may be better for you to do it. Crisco 1492 ( talk) 06:36, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
It's not at all difficult, Tony1-- look at this edit summary, and then consider how that felt from my chair, after I resigned so I could resume editing as an unpaid volunteer. You put the sun down on me (that's unintended bias whether one sees it or not, and I don't assume it was intentional) and your edit summary indicates you thought that was peachy. Insensitive. Now, I may not expect Crisco to have seen that, but I did expect you to think of that, hence what offended me is your edit summary and lack of sensitivity in considering how it felt for me to have The Signpost putting me out to pasture. The hallmark of our friendship, Tony, was that I always thought of you and your feelings, while you in return frequently reamed me out over any minor disagreement. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:00, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
You looked at Confrontation analysis article the other day and added a copyedit box to it. I am concerned as I am the main author of this article, and hoped that the things I write were not so bad I needed such a label.
I would really appreciate it if you could glance at the article again and let me know:
1) What do you think is the single most important thing I could do to improve my writing style?
2) What would I have to do to get the copyedit box removed?
Thank you very much indeed. Mike Young ( talk) 22:53, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Good point, I'll do that from now on. It's annoying nagging people about how broken RfA is, anyway. Res Mar 03:02, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Because of your previous input on various iterations of the debate about the lower-casing vs. capitalization of the common names of animals (domestic cat, blue whale vs. Domestic Cat, Blue Whale), you may be interested in this thread proposing key points that should be addressed by the guidelines: WT:Manual of Style#Species capitalization points. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 05:49, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi. When you recently edited List of Britain and Ireland's Next Top Model contestants, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Reading ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:56, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi Tony. Your name was been mentioned here in connection with the Requested move at Moonlight Sonata to Piano Sonata No. 14 (Beethoven). This discussion was closed yesterday [6]. This was then reverted early this morning [7].
I wonder whether you might consider re-closing it? I realise this is a onerous chore, but we don't have any other 'candidate' for this at the moment. Getting us out of this situation would really be much appreciated. Best regards. -- Klein zach 00:15, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
More thoughts. During the debate above, various people cited WP:COMMONNAME. My own view is that this policy is not clear enough — for example there is actually no definition for 'common name'. If you agree that the policy section could be improved — would you (and maybe Noetica) be willing to work with me on it? Best. -- Klein zach 05:29, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Tony, look at this RM from a capitalization perspective [8]. Shouldn't anti-Partisan offensive really be anti-partisan offensive. Thanks - Mike Cline ( talk) 20:45, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi, since your name's down on this project, I'm just writing to let you know that there's a discussion going on at the moment on how to format events – and in particular, events that go on for multiple days – on year pages. Your input would be appreciated. — Smjg ( talk) 18:24, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
i think you accidentally voted twice in the same section of Wikipedia:SOPA_initiative/Action. i put a brief comment there. Boud ( talk) 14:52, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Nominations for the " Military Historian of the Year" for 2011 are now open. If you would like to nominate an editor for this award, please do so here. Voting will open on 22 January and run for seven days. Thanks! On behalf of the coordinators, Nick-D ( talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:42, 16 January 2012 (UTC) You were sent this message because you are a listed as a member of the Military history WikiProject.
[9] What is your justification for this edit, Tony? Gimmetoo ( talk) 13:00, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
It's fine. Thank you very much. -- Lecen ( talk) 13:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
You commented at the Newsroom on my opinion piece:
"Looks way too long, and has a rambling feel to it. Tony (talk) 07:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)"
The piece is 173 words shorter than the previous opinion piece and 814 words shorter than the one before that. Please cite just one example of a paragraph that you think is "rambling". Carmen Yarrusso ( talk) 14:18, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Carmen Yarrusso ( talk) 18:11, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi Tony, I just co-nominated an article at FAC for the first time and was wondering if you'd be interested in reviewing it. I saw your comments on your userpage about "the supernatural industry", and I think the subject of my article, Prosperity theology, is an interesting fusion of commercialism and supernaturalism. Also, thanks for coming up with all those writing exercises, I think they have really helped my prose. Regards, Mark Arsten ( talk) 17:01, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello. You have a new message at SMasters's talk page.
I still get confused: is Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Franco-Mongol alliance/archive2 correct? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:15, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Tony thanks for you help at IMOS and MOSLinking. The reason I brought it up in the first place is the removal of overlinks runs against IRE-IRL. As I have discuused with other editors guidelines can conflict, these need to be cleared up (not just IMOS). And also yes WIKI is slow , logs me out and is a pain since the day before the blackout, I dont know why. Again thanks for you response on the issue. Murry1975 ( talk) 15:12, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Tony- I responded to you comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Maniac Mansion/archive1. I also had a follow up question that I'd appreciate your input on. Thanks. ( Guyinblack25 talk 15:51, 19 January 2012 (UTC))
Hey guys; apologies for the belated nature of this notification; as you can probably imagine, the whole blackout thing kinda messed with our timetables :P. Just a quick reminder that we've got an office hours session tomorrow at 19:00 in #wikimedia-office, where we'll be discussing the results of the hand-coding and previewing some new changes. Hope to see you there :). Okeyes (WMF) ( talk) 21:45, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
diff. I've been struggling for the right words as I did not want to inflame the situation. He seems to respect you, so hopefully that will calm the storm. — Ched : ? 10:38, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
My laptop died at RCC, so I'm more likely than not going to be unable to work on the Signpost until it gets fixed. Crisco 1492 ( talk) 11:13, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Can you continue the suggestions you started on the Jaws FAC? The previous ones covered only the first parts, but were much helpful! Thanks. igordebraga ≠ 21:34, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Hey Tony. I was just glancing through the RM backlog and there's a question for you on one of your noms, see Talk:Systemic linguistics. Best, Jenks24 ( talk) 09:33, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
I'd be grateful if you could have a look at: Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles#Common_names. Thanks. -- Klein zach 01:33, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
You might be amused or gratified to see my reply to an accusation of carelessness that popped up on my talk page today. If not, sorry to interrupt you. Cheers! Chris the speller yack 15:57, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi,
I answered on my talk page. Aside from my hesitations voiced there, I'd need to know where Crisco gets the FC stats from. MathewTownsend ( talk) 17:15, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
My statement to Elen of the Roads ( talk · contribs) about our dispute regarding WT:AT recognizability was so long I put it in a separate file, User:Born2cycle/DearElen. If you have a chance to look it over, and let me know if you find any inaccuracies or other problems with it, I would appreciate it. If you don't mind, please leave comments about it at User talk:Born2cycle/DearElen. Thanks! -- Born2cycle ( talk) 18:57, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
I have filed a request for the Arbitration Committee to look at long-term issues with editing in the Article Titles and MOS areas at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Article titles/MOS. Your input would be welcome. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:51, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
A request for comments has been opened on administrator User:Fæ. You are being notified due to your prior participation in ANI, RfA, or RfC discussions regarding this user. Thank you, MadmanBot ( talk) 20:05, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
An arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation/Evidence. Please add your evidence by February 12, 2012, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri ( talk) 15:04, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello Tony1,
thank you for your contribution to the discussion about a requested move of Freedom and Justice Party/ Freedom and Justice Party (Egypt). I have replied to you arguments and concerns. If you want, you can check again if I was able to convince you and dispel your concerns. Kind regards -- RJFF ( talk) 16:23, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi Tony. Can you please help let me know the relevant policy related to the issue discussed on User_talk:SandyGeorgia#Wikipedia:Peer_review.2FAhalya.2Farchive2. Thanks. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 17:49, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
|
I think most of us participating in the WP:AIRPORTS discussion about linking are fully aware of WP:NOTVOTE---the problem was caused by a certain user who, in the space of a couple of hours, went off on a rampage of disruptive editing because (s)he was offended by something trivial. That said, now that they've gone away, a sensible discussion of the issue at hand (whether destination airports should be wikilinked in the lists of "Airlines and destinations" on airport articles) seems to be going on. The page history should tell you the story, if you're really interested! Thanks, -- RFBailey ( talk) 07:06, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi Tony - I've finally replied to your comment on the FAC here. Sorry for the delay. No need for you to do anything if it isn't convenient. Grandiose ( me, talk, contribs) 23:27, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
It seems difficult to get closure on this question. Since you contributed to the discussion on the first move proposal, perhaps you have thoughts on the second proposal. Thanks, Aymatth2 ( talk) 04:25, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Why did you move it to Guidance, navigation and control (engineering) when the (engineering) part wasn't needed? Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 20:43, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Hey there, I responded to your comments on this fac, would be glad to address any remaining issues Shann º n 03:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi Tony. There's a technical request at RM at the moment which proposes moving "Post-9/11" to "Post–9/11". Not sure about it myself; seems a bit like overkill really—why would anyone think the "post" applies only to the 9? Anyway, MOS:ENDASH wasn't much help so I'm wondering what you or your talk page watchers think about it. Cheers, Jenks24 ( talk) 11:30, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
— David Levy 18:13, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Tony On what do you base your statement that "chronological articles do not include 'year in x' articles"? Deb ( talk) 08:22, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Sorry that you feel that way. I know that you regard the 2009 decision as something of a personal victory, but the fact remains that Year in Topic articles are chronological articles and therefore exempted. If you want to fiddle around with dots and dashes to get your edit count up, feel free, but don't remove useful links. I don't have to justify myself to you, as I am conforming with the community decision. I have never been blocked for failing to do so. Deb ( talk) 15:45, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
I looked at the page and got the same error! Mysterious; very mysterious. I'm stumped, this certainly isn't supposed to happen. Res Mar 21:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
I know you were part of a page that collected examples of horrible overlinking, so I figure I'd share this with you. Cheers, Sven Manguard Wha? 01:54, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
You popped up on my watchlist having run a script to fix emdashes to endashes. As someone who has no idea how this is done, I wonder if I could ask a favour: could you run the script on Category:Electoral districts of New South Wales and Category:Former electoral districts of New South Wales? Both have a lot of emdashes that should be endashes. There's absolutely no rush. Frickeg ( talk) 00:00, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Tony, are you aware of this discussion? Your name is being bandied about:
Milkunderwood ( talk) 05:28, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Dear Tony1, thank you for stopping by the Teahouse. Wikipedia is a community of people working together to make knowledge free. You are an important part of that effort! Sarah ( talk) 16:06, 7 March 2012 (UTC) |
Hi! Welcome to the first edition of The Tea Leaf, the official newsletter of the Teahouse!
You are receiving The Tea Leaf after expressing interest or participating in the Teahouse! To remove yourself from receiving future newsletters, please remove your username here. Sarah ( talk) 16:09, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
No my understanding is Ndash should be used in the scores as it is in the majority of football season articles. Also used in page titles and when representing scores in player articles. I may be wrong but thats what the others use so i use it. Which is what N dash should be used for football scores my edit summary says Edinburgh Wanderer 14:35, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Here are three photos of me I found on the Commons; one of them would probably suffice. Rob SchnautZ (WMF) ( talk • contribs) 19:13, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
The answer I'm afraid when it comes to this perticlular user is no. I have no intention of having further conversation with him. I've dealt with Jenks and thumperwad to find out the correct info. I'm happy to speak to yourself but not him. What I have established is that the HTML code can be used per the top line of mos for dash. It's preference and if someone wishes to use that there isnt really a pressing reason why it needs to be changed. I appreciate we all have our areas but the minute he started having a go at me about grammar and making childish remarks like it takes me for ever to parse with you. Or haha or just been cheeky towards me I see no reason to work with him. He isn't interested unless it's his way and the minute I realised that there was no policy against not using it he started it. The truth is I won't take that from anyone. It's uncivil and to be honest I see it as lies. I will work with you or Jenks if need be. I would also like to say in regards to the initial edit summary it wasn't contradictory in my eyes. To me it read like you should use the code rather than a keystroke. It appears you didnt see it as that but that's how I look at it. As I say I won't be communicating with him do you don't have to worry about that. But really it's sorted I'm speaking to Jenks about running the script on the season articles to take it off his list. Edinburgh Wanderer 14:06, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm running out the door, but will be taking a run at compiling the Schnautz interview later. I've been up to my neck in the education business and am pondering how much of it would be of interest to the general reader, what stands out, what needs context and so on.
I'd initially planned the real-time interview to see for myself the difference between that model and the prepared questions-delayed response model I used when conducting the Gardner interview, before wading into the debate between HaeB and yourself, but time is pressing today so if you have any insights or thoughts on what's noteworthy in the transcript, they would be very much appreciated. Skomorokh 15:59, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Tony - I replied to your posting at the Arbcom talkpage. I tried to make it clear that I'm not trying to accuse anyone of bad faith, or rightness or wrongness. There's simply something about this particular combination of editors that leads to problems. With PMA/JCS gone for a while, that should help. And because of that, I might be sticking my foot in my mouth for no great advantage to the discourse. I just wanted to lay out my observations. Again - I think you're a good editor. I've told you that before on your talkpage, and I said it at the Arbcom page. And I apologize if my tone seemed accusatory. I think that's a byproduct of the Arbcom setting. I know from your page that you've been under real-world stress lately. It was not my intention to add to that in any way, and I also apologize for that. As I said at Arbcom, I just want good editors to work together productively on this great project. Dohn joe ( talk) 19:04, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Just in case your question is still open: [13] ... Tomeasy T C 08:26, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
interest in knowledge being interesting | |
Thank you for raising the level of quality at DYK last summer, – admitting that what you asked at first seemed an extra load and complication, but thinking now that you achieved a lot in terms of more interesting, more concise information. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 09:41, 20 March 2012 (UTC) |
Shot you a belated reply; out for the day now but will look in tonight UTC. Best, Skomorokh 11:01, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi Tony! Thank you for signing up to be a future host at the Teahouse. Well, great news - the future is here, we'd love you to be a Teahouse host! During this pilot time, Teahouse hosts do more than just ask questions - they invite new users to the Teahouse and track those invitations, they also provide input and insight into the development of the Teahouse. A few things I'd love to see you do as a Teahouse host:
I'm so happy that you volunteered to lend a hand at the Teahouse. I look forward to following your contributions and invitations, and your assistance in making the Teahouse a great and warm place for new Wikipedians. See you there :) Sarah ( talk) 21:54, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Dear Tony1, I just asked a question at the Teahouse that you might have interest in! I hope you'll stop by and participate! Sarah ( talk) 01:33, 21 March 2012 (UTC) |
In
your recent edit, you added an explicit "A$" in the cost=
field of the infobox. However, the value is used as {{
AUD}}, a template that automatically inserts that dollar-symbol (and even links it to an article about this type of currency). Could you remove the now-doubled symbol you inserted?
DMacks (
talk)
11:33, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Could you weigh in here, as a former writer of the featured content section? Mathew and I are having a disagreement over what should be included in the Featured Picture blurbs, and he has said something about agreeing with you. Crisco 1492 ( talk) 03:57, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
...for your helpful tweaks to the Teahouse db report page. - J-Mo Talk to Me Email Me 06:16, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi Tony! I saw you were inviting folks to the Teahouse! That's awesome, as that is the #1 area that we need help with during this pilot period. However, we do need your help in a more specific aspect - tracking your invitations. During this pilot, we need to track all of our invitations, as this tracking will help us gauge the success (or failure) or the project in various areas. You can do this by using the templates we have created here and by tracking them, as mentioned here. I noticed that you also aren't using the template, while that is okay, and I appreciate your own personal spin on the template, if you aren't using the template, it's really really really (REALLY!) important to track your invites in the tracking document mentioned in the "Track who was invited" section I link above. Thanks Tony for helping during this pilot program (And hopefully beyond!). Sarah ( talk) 14:15, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi,
You incorrectly stated that I requested that you comment on Skomorokh's page. [14] I didn't. And I don't know where my request there on his page has gone. I had wanted to have a discussion with Skomorokh but my comment has been removed. In any case, being the new person, I'm beginning to feel very uncomfortable with what's going on, so I think I'll just bow out for now and let you all handle it. Perhaps you'll discuss my concerns somewhere. You, of course, are free to add back the "Lesbian kisses." Best wishes, MathewTownsend ( talk) 14:06, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
(ec) I don't know the rules, I guess, so I'll bow out and Crisco will do the Featured content section. Of course you can weigh in on my request to Skomorokh, whether or not I requested you to. Unfortunately, he removed my comment. Perhaps he wouldn't have removed it if you had not entered, and I could have continued the conversation just with him and come to a satisfactory conclusion. Now my comment is gone with no feedback. In any case, I don't support material that is not sourced being included in FP, especially since the other Featured content items are bound by it. Crisco is apt to include promotional material to hype his images from various articles not mentioned on the promotion page, material that is not sourced. MathewTownsend ( talk) 15:15, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
What was the answer to my question? Crisco says above that it was answered. What was the answer? Should I do as suggested above and reinsert my question on Skomorokh's page? MathewTownsend ( talk) 22:04, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
An arbitration case regarding article titles and capitalisation has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri ( talk) 22:57, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Best wishes for a speedy recovery. ``` Buster Seven Talk 13:05, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
China and Japan do not use dmy formatting for dates, so I do not think it is proper for you to add {{ use dmy dates}} onto articles with East Asian subjects.— Ryulong ( 竜龙) 16:50, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Oh? Could you point out where? I don't remember doing this. Cheers. Omg † osh 17:02, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
The interview appears workable. Probably on the Sunday depending on what the people are doing then. Monday won't work because my flight leaves at 10 am. Eclecticology ( talk) 02:56, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Hola, I've left note in the newsroom to help coordinate the activities of the interested reporters re: the Berlin conference – obviously we don't want to document planning best done in private, but status updates on availability and areas of focus should be helpful. Contactable only on-wiki for the next five hours or so; otherwise will aim to catch up on email tonight (within 12 hours). Cheers, Skomorokh 10:40, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi,
I've roamed around your "self-help writing tutorials" and value your insights. Do you mention "that" anywhere? Sometimes "that" is useful/necessary in a sentence, but occasionally I see "that"s put in when none are needed. What is your view on the use of "that"? (Also, I prefer "that" over "which" most of the time when one or the other is needed. What do you think?) Regards, MathewTownsend ( talk) 14:50, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi Tony -
I came across one of your edits calling for metric conversions at Martese. I then noticed that you made a similar plea at Mountain weasel. I went ahead and made the conversions, but was wondering if you knew about Template:Convert? It's an easy way to get conversions into text, and is one of my favorite wikignoming activities. I usually use the default units, and add "abbr=on" to put unit abbreviations in the text and keep things shorter. It doesn't take long to learn (although I do have to go back to the template page now and again for some of the odder units). If you want to start using it, that'd be awesome; if not, feel free to ping me with pages that need conversions. Thanks! Dohn joe ( talk) 17:32, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi,
This week I've stripped the blurb size down just a bit on the notion that the blurb should give a general idea of the article and not be replete with facts (and especially) figures. If you get a chance, let me know what you think. (I expect some flak.) MathewTownsend ( talk) 22:49, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
You did read my talk page. My other account is User:Waorca. It's legit if I don't use both accounts to support each other or voting support/oppose. Check both edit histories of the 2 users, I've never done anything like that. I use both users like a separated person. Also, I change the titles due to WP:RETAIN. Like I'd said last time: if you renamed some articles by un-capitalizing the word "dynasty", well then every other articles of the similar subjects should be renamed too. Why did you only rename some articles while not all of them? Last time, someone else already explained to you when I ask you should also rename the Burmese/Chinese dynasty articles, but you ignored that. Why is that? ༆ ( talk) 01:01, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
I've missed an important point: WP:RETAIN on no account functions between articles—only within each individual article. Please do not use this misinterpreted principle. Tony (talk) 02:24, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Would appreciate any comments you would have on the discussion here. Thanks. GoneIn60 ( talk) 03:48, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
This article discusses Web searches and imminent changes. There is an embedded YouTube video with a duration of 12:47.
— Wavelength ( talk) 02:12, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Editors can use this link to find online resources about writing and speaking.
— Wavelength ( talk) 18:56, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Tony1. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click
HERE to participate. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 12:00, 5 April 2012 (UTC) |
Hi! Welcome to the second edition of The Tea Leaf, the official newsletter of the Teahouse!
You are receiving The Tea Leaf after expressing interest or participating in the Teahouse! To remove yourself from receiving future newsletters, please remove your username here. -- Sarah ( talk) 21:48, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
you said to ask you about editing but thats not what im having trouble with...the problem is editors keep deleting my contributions any help? especially on the "al ahbash" article...the article is not even close to NPOV and its a stub. Baboon43 ( talk) 01:29, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi Tony1, your note leaves me worried. Get well soon, but take all the rest needed! Looking forward to reading your piece in the next issue. Regards, HaeB ( talk) 21:02, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
I heard one of our Signpost editors is laid up...hope it's nothing tragic! Get well soon! Rob SchnautZ (WMF) ( talk • contribs) 18:38, 3 April 2012 (UTC) |
Rob, it's very kind of you to leave this message. Thank you! Tony (talk) 12:13, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
I am in communication with Tony, and will pass on to him the expressions of concern above. He has undergone surgery a second time, and is in good care. Of course he is without internet access, and anxious to get back to Wikipedia. It seems he will be out of action till Friday at least, and probably till the weekend. If this changes I will post a follow-up note.
Hi. When you recently edited Elisha Lawrence (loyalist), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cardigan ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 15:22, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
My heart-felt thanks to well-wishers, whose messages I heard about via a text-message from Noetica. My laptop wouldn't talk to the network device someone brought in for me, but in any case I wasn't well enough to do anything useful on WP.
I was discharged about 10 hours ago. So there goes a week of my life I'll never get back; and the expenditure of a ton of taxpayers' money—all unnecessary, since my emergency admission and operation last Monday could have been avoided had I been given proper instructions about warning signs after the first operation three weeks ago (which was straightforward and planned). You soon learn that the admixture of 19th- and 21st-century communications and record-keeping systems come at considerable systemic cost to both patients and staff.
This time, an extended stay in hospital allowed me not only to gaze at a million-dollar view from my bed, but afforded time to observe the worst and the best of what goes on in modern healthcare. There was the night nurse who took out her dislike of a patient who didn't want to be treated as stupid, stabbing a cannula into the back of my left hand with such apparently wilful sloppiness that the infusion machines played up when connected to it (the area is still swollen and painful). But some of her colleagues—perhaps a quarter—rose above the utterly humdrum low-grade duties of nursing to show that skilful engagements with patients, and medical knowledge and curiosity, can really make a difference. BTW, there was a gender skew among nurses that still approximates WP's 87–13% ratio, both of which I find strange and undesirable.
Unseen doctors and patients behind curtains conducted conversations that fascinated; lying in a half-awake state with all the time in the world, I got much out of listening to the interpersonal grammar of their dialogues, particularly as played out in their intonation patterns—only a language-nerd would do that! One doctor talked of "an exciting urine test", leading the bemused patient to ask who would be excited and about what. A man whose broken leg was chronically unhealed was told he risked losing the whole limb without an operation. I later hobbled over and encouraged him to take the advice of his doctors, having heard the tension in their voices. He was bed-wheeled back from the five-hour op involving multiple skin grafts. The orthopaedic surgeons sent up the junior anaesthetist, of all people, to explain the complex details of care to a nurse; but the ensuing doctor–nurse interaction of the highest imaginable professional standard on both sides showed that their delegation spoke to the junior's brilliance, not to their wish to get away early.
Now, just eight hours "out", real-life is losing its sense of bewildering novelty; but several phone conversations have already exposed the temporary damage to my working memory and lexical access wreaked by the general anaesthetic; I believe the effects last from two to four weeks. (Fortunately, the previous op involved only a spinal block after I'd huffed and puffed for that alternative.) Tony (talk) 12:13, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Interested in your opinion. Judicatus ( talk) 08:24, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Just a note that replacing a hyphen with an en dash in negative coordinates, as you did here, makes the coordinates unparsable by GeoHack, which therefore displays the wrong location when the coordinates in the article are clicked on. It's not a good idea to do this. Deor ( talk) 13:40, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, you're right. Replied on Deor's page. Tony (talk) 01:07, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi Tony1, I was quite surprised to see this edit despite Date and time notation in Republic of Ireland. WP:MOSNUM doesn't advocate MDY over DMY and the version used in the relevant country/ies is DMY, so is there any chance you can run your script to revert to DMY, unless there's a reason I've missed? Thank you, Cloudz 679 16:19, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
He was despised - wishing you good recovery and spirits, -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 23:05, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Tony, I am new to Wiki editing. I have just completed "Subra Suresh" entry, having completely revised and adding a photo/portrait. However, the Question Book text at the top of the entry has not changed since my edits were accepted last week. Who edits this box and when? It is out of date with its reference to a lack of primary sources, etc. Thanks, in advance, for your help. -- LeeHerring ( talk) 20:13, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Just a comment: you may wish to see this. Sorry for the confusion! :) Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation ( talk) 22:04, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi. When you recently edited Sparkling wine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page La Rioja ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 10:56, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Hey Tony. Looks like we're really going to need you on this one—in short, I'm going to be handling E-in-C duties this week, but I'm not going to have the time to provide the "the buck stops with me" approach to N&N that most E-in-Cs do. In other words, any help appreciated, particularly this week. Thanks! - Jarry1250 Deliberation needed 19:25, 15 April 2012 (UTC)