Jump to content

User talk:Tony1/Archive 13

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15→Archive 17

Thanks for this edit. Amongst the improvements you made however, you replaced "Opinion G 3/08 of May 12, 2010, Reasons 10.6." with "Opinion G May 3/08 12, 2010, Reasons 10.6.". I have corrected this. Just so that you know... --Edcolins (talk) 07:38, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I'll follow this up. Thanks for picking up the error and fixing it, Ed. Tony (talk) 08:23, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
You're welcome! --Edcolins (talk) 08:27, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, get some sleep

I'm fine with everything. All the best. Smallbones (talk) 16:24, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Tony1. You have new messages at WT:POST.
Message added 03:45, 24 April 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:45, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 April 2012

Olive branch

Tony, I'm sorry for my role in escalating the situation we ran into last night. If I take on a similar role next week, you better believe that I will go through everything earlier and not make substantial changes without consulting the author first. :-) Can we move past this to productively work together in the future? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 12:36, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, of course, Ed. Things look different after a few hours' absence from the maelstrom. So let's pass this one and look forward to good things for the SP. Tony (talk) 12:38, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Don't they? A few hours of sleep can change everything. Thanks for understanding, and thanks to you (and Smallbones!) for writing that piece. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 12:44, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Aymar Joseph de Roquefeuil et du Bousquet, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brest (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) 11:00, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Dates, months etc

I didn't know that. Thanks for the info!--NNeilAlieNN Talk to me 11:37, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Errors found in Wikipedia entries!

Re the newswise report whose title "Survey Finds Most Wikipedia Entries Contain Factual Errors" was criticized as misleading: it may be interesting to note in the upcoming Signpost that the site has now adjusted the title of the article to "Survey Finds Errors in Wikipedia Articles" – hardly a shocking revelation. The url of the web page is unchanged, having articles-survey-finds-most-wikipedia-entries-contain-factual-errors as path.  --Lambiam 10:05, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that! The new title is closer to a safe claim. I believe the Public Relations Society of America changed its over-the-top claim a few days ago. Both of these are wise moves. Tony (talk) 11:32, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I like

your clever question on the paid editing debate. I think this is much ado about very little. A rational, reasonable admin or editor can see when a page really crosses that line, I think some people just get too overzealous at times. -- Avanu (talk) 16:36, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Another award

The Barnstar of Diligence
Thanks for your many tireless edits, especially on unneeded date links. Hmains (talk) 17:12, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Tony1. Please check your email; you've got mail! The subject is Wikipedia e-mail.
Message added 19:41, 28 April 2012 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Whenaxis talk (contribs) DR goes to Wikimania! 19:41, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

redirecting issue

this Harari People seems to redirect to regional instead of "Harari people" how to fix this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baboon43 (talk • contribs) 15:22, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, this means there's no article on the "Harari people" as such, only on their region. (Please note the lower-case p.) Would you like to create such an article? It would of course be linked from Harari Region (should be "r"), and from Regions of Ethiopia, and would deal with the history, culture, and language of the people, I guess. Let me know if you're creating such an article and I'll keep an eye on how it develops. Thx. In the meantime, the redirect could be targeted at Harar#People, which is more specific, but pretty slender. Tony (talk) 15:29, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

ok i see why it was redirecting to regional..its because as you mentioned the lower case p in people article exists but when its uppercase it redirects to region. Harari People and Harari people Baboon43 (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

So you gonna write an offspring article on the people? I'm assuming you have sources and knowledge for this, but I may be wrong! Tony (talk) 08:41, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

yea im going to hopefully develop the Harari people by adding history, culture, etc sections on it. Baboon43 (talk) 09:34, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Signpost (30 April)

Hi,

I copy edited Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-04-30/WikiProject report, hopefully didn't mess it up. It was a combination of Brit/Amer spelling, so I went with one of them. Also, some problems with – versus - . They look the same on my computer. Appreciate any feedback regarding my mistakes! Best, MathewTownsend (talk) 16:51, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I've been through it, tweaking the interview in ways that they couldn't possibly object to. It's a good one, nice and interesting. Any chance another map could be included and blown up bigger, at top or bottom? Good stuff. Tony (talk) 17:10, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Do you want me to find another map? (I'm willing but I'm not a WikiProject Map person) I'll look. Also, about site vs. side. I didn't change what was there. I think "sites" fits ok but I don't know exactly what is meant. Very interesting article though – one of the best project articles I've read. MathewTownsend (talk) 17:18, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
I added an image at the end of Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-04-30/WikiProject report per your request. (I thought it looked pretty good.) However, it's been reverted by Mabeenot on the basis of policy. I reverted back, as I think it looks great. (But I'm an image person.) Please discuss with Mabeenot whether it is appropriate or not. Thanks! MathewTownsend (talk) 03:17, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
I appreciate help with copyediting and selecting images. As I conducted the interview and wrote the piece, please include me in discussions about making major last-minute changes rather than deciding to add things behind my back. I find this big image rather unnecessary and out of place in comparison to our previous articles. It separates the teaser from the end of the article and seems like an odd choice since the photograph is not even under the project's scope. Please discuss these things with the writer before unilaterally deciding something should be added. -Mabeenot (talk) 15:32, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
I entirely understand and agree. We should all have easy access to each other, whether via skype chate or IRC emaiml or another means. While most WPian work is done almost all on-wiki, The Signpost is a hard gig with a deadline met professionally by volunteers. I think private communications are an important part of the last-minute teamwork that goes into this endeavour. Tony (talk) 15:55, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Sorry that all this happened. I can still substitute the image EdwardLane suggested. As far as the teaser, I don't know the rules about where it should go, so I tried it both ways. I felt under the pressure of the publishing deadline and events in my own life and didn't know what I was doing was wrong. I did contact EdwardLane and Yug. I guess I assumed Mabeenot was watching over the article on publication day. I apologize to him for not following procedures. MathewTownsend (talk) 16:08, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for understanding. If we're going to keep the big image at the end, it probably would be best to go with EdwardLane's recommended image. It might be time for refresh the Report's layout anyway, so we should probably start up a discussion at the WikiProject desk about how to incorporate a nice image at the top of each article without it interfering with the news sidebar. -Mabeenot (talk) 16:36, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
I switched to EdwardLane's recommended image. Not sure about the size - left it at 500px - please adjust as needed. MathewTownsend (talk) 17:27, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 April 2012

Wikipedia's brave new world

This discussion needs wide input from the community. If you think paid editing is poison, or you think it's acceptable, I'm sure your opinion will be welcomed. Tony (talk) 04:06, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded reaches goal

Hello Tony,

Would it be possible for you to include a blurb in the next Signpost regarding the expanded list of Wikipedia:Vital articles? After more than five years of work, the project has finally reached its goal of listing 10,000 vital articles. The content includes many articles rated as top or high importance by the various active WikiProjects. The next step will be to fine tune the list content. The full list can be viewed at Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded, although it is slow to load because of the article length. Thank you! Regards, RJH (talk) 20:28, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Reading this topic here on Tony's talk page, I had a look over at Vital articles, probably only the second time since I'm on Wikipedia. While I admire what is obviously a fine selection of crucial articles, I still must say that it is somewhat biased. In fact, I somewhat got the impression that the more advocates there are for a field the more articles it will receive. I am certainly no expert on everything, and no one is, for sure, but I have commented giving one example of what is absolutely missing in the current lists. Hopefully, advertising these lists in the Signpost helps increase awareness and results in more balanced outcome. Nageh (talk) 22:09, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Well, I wasn't trying to start up a discussion here on Tony's talk page, but I will say that I definitely agree with you and I have labored over the past few months to try and balance out the subject matter. (See this message for example.) That why I've suggested the next steps should be to refine the list, add high priority missing articles, and trim back some of the more bloated topics. Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 23:16, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Images in Signpost

Hi,

I added images to this issue's Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-05-07/WikiProject report, hopefully with Mabeenot's ok. (I asked him first.) But I'd appreciate any feedback from you about the appropriateness of my additions. (For me, reading an article is heavy going without images, so I like to put them in these Signpost reports when they seem needed.} I'm not sure of the rules of the road on this, so I'd appreciate your opinion. Thanks, MathewTownsend (talk) 01:46, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 May 2012

Cracker Barrel FAC

I know you've been busy lately with a number of discussions (god knows i've been as well), but I was wondering if you have any followup comments at the Cracker Barrel FAC? I've implemented and responded to all of your suggestions. SilverserenC 17:13, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Tony? SilverserenC 20:22, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


Germans

Hi. I found an error in the article (see photo). Copernicus was not a German, he was from Poland. --Top811 my talk —Preceding undated comment added 16:10, 12 May 2012 (UTC).

Teahouse

Hi Tony! I hope you are doing well! I really appreciate your contributions at the Teahouse. However, it appears you haven't been able to be that active at the Teahouse lately! I understand that we all get busy with real life and wiki-life. :) I hope you don't mind, but, for now I am going to remove you from the your hosts page and move you to our past hosts page which will be linked from the hosts page. You are of course encouraged to move yourself back to the active host page anytime, especially if I am wrong and you do expect to be more active at the Teahouse! You are always welcome to just drop by to lend a hand at your convenience. I'm really glad you were able to participate in the pilot! Enjoy the spring and see you for a cup of tea soon! Sarah (talk) 17:38, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 May 2012

Nomination of Fanny Imlay for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Fanny Imlay is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fanny Imlay until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 14:48, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Chevrolet TrailBlazer edit

When correcting for style issues, please take care for things that affect page layout. Changing the date style on an image filename, like you did at Chevrolet TrailBlazer, removes the photo from the article. The preview function is your friend! IFCAR (talk) 00:21, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Right, thanks for spotting this. New changes to the script last night, and of course I mainly examine the diff, not the preview. It's not meant to do that, so changes are in order. I'll check that its been fixed. Tony (talk) 01:18, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Fixed. Something silly on my part. Tony (talk) 02:45, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

chess notation

Tony, there are hundreds if not thousands of chess articles, have never seen "×" (vs x) or "0—0—0" (vs 0-0-0) in any. Are you sure you want to introduce inconsistency in *one* of them (Morphy vs the Duke)? No offense, thx for consider. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 21:55, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Tony, I think I miscommunicated. I think you are replicating on WP notation conventions you find in published sources related to specific articles? But I doubt ProjChess is interested in that; they don't have a hardline convention standard, but I believe they would not be in favor of introducing variations on "x" and "0-0-0" (dashes) in articles. And I'm confused how that is important at all. (E.g., sources that use P-K4 descriptive notation are always translated to e4 algebraic when quoting sources. Etc.) And I disagree the difference is subtle, IMO "×" makes notation hard to read, and "0—0—0" is just weird-looking. (It's just MO.) Cheers, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:20, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

No doubt "0—0—0" is appallingly hard to read. They're em dashes, used by only one source, a weird decision IMO. What almost every major source uses is "0–0–0", i.e. en dashes, which is what WP widely uses in such contexts. Just one, a minor one, is in musical expressions such as "C–E–G", rather than the crowded and harder-to-read "C-E-G". All I'm doing is pointing out (on your talk page) what the major sources use. Personally, there seem to be very good reasons for their decisions. I've never read much chess notation, but the character ex flummoxes my eyes, since it's of entirely different function to the adjacent letters, which symbolise Things rather than Actions/Events. The sources seem to have acknowledged this.

I'd be inclined to raise the issue of your own familiarity with the ex and the hyphen in this context (a common psychological phenomenon I see in myself, sometimes); but this would only have arisen if your exposure had been entirely or almost entirely to WP rather than to the sources on which it's meant to be based. Tony (talk) 04:45, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Tony, I'm not totally understanding you, but a few things: 1) I screwed up using the emdash example, when you only used the endash ("0–0–0"). But even endash, looks weird IMO, and isn't used much at all in WP chess articles. 2) "x" isn't confusing at all for chess players, because "x" represents no piece, so there's no ambiguity ever. "×" might be found in some books you're looking at, but (and I think ProjChess would agree, but they are slow to form many conventions) it isn't used in 99.99 percent WP chess articles, and wouldn't want to be. (The thing is, uniformity across WP chess articles, though we don't have that now for sure, is the direction. I don't think anyone cares what style of notation symbol is used in a reliable sources, the moves are what counts, and uniformity, and "x" and "0-0-0" are what are used in nearly all articles. [Sometimes "O-O-O", but that's another story!]) 3) There are many notation conventions used, for e.g. German (":" for captures), abbreviated algebraic ("de" for "dxe5"), Yugoslav publications (which drop "+" for check and "x" for capture, e.g., "Ne5" for "Nxe5"). The style I've noticed followed in nearly all WP articles is almost identical to that used in "US Chess Life" mag, with "x" for captures, "+" for checks, "0-0-0" for castles. (The only diffs between "Chess Life" & WP is that "Chess Life" uses space after the dot: "1. e4", whereas in general on WP, unbolded and many times bolded notation goes without the space: "1.e4". And "Chess Life" uses "2. ... Nc6" when representing a straggler Black move, whereas most usually WP uses "2...Nc6" [or sometimes 2... Nc6].)
So, those are all the subtleties. ("×" and "0–0–0" variations haven't been incorporated. Again it doesn't matter what's in RS - just the moves. [And if two or more books had different symbol stylings for the same published game ... well!]) Again there aren't strong conventions agreed at ProjChess, but I can assure that "×" and "0–0–0" are not intentionally used. (One thing I paused on was "1. P-K4" vs "1. P–K4", I thought for sure the endash was right since "to" was conveyed. But later I reversed the conclusion: "1. P-K4" seems more normal when descriptive is used ... is more compact for printing/reading, though again, I'm sure there are published RSs that use "1. P–K4". But descriptive is also nearly never used on WP, so, this isn't any issue either really.)
I'm not gonna step on what you're doing, because ProjChess is lagging on forming conventions and does not have strong conventions. (But, "×" and "0–0–0" are not good for chessplayers IMO, and not in WP articles, regardless if some published books or whatever chose those stylings. That's not important I'm sure.) Cheers! Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:56, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
The question is, then, whether en.WP has been based solely on one source, US Chess Life, against all of the other authorities I listed on your talk page. Tony (talk) 09:12, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
No, you're misinterpreting me. I never said the notation convention here is based on US Chess Life. I just happened to noticed it is mostly the same as what is used in that rag, except for space after the dot ("1. e4" vs "1.e4") and punctuation for straggler Black moves ("2. ... Nc6" vs "2...Nc6"). I don't know that WP notation norms are based on anything. And there isn't a strong convention here either, with some differences. But one thing is certain, that notation style does not try to mimick, for a particular content, the styling used in the corresponding RS. (The moves are the thing, not a publisher's styling preference. I've never seen anyone care about that. Uniformity across articles is a good thing, but again, ProjChess conventions are not strong to make a uniformity. But that's what's valued, not what a publisher happened to print. For example, RSs might use different forms of algebraic, like what I listed, or even descriptive notation. But if the content ends up in a WP chess artcile, it's transcribed to one of the convention norms used here. But there is no consensus on total uniformity regarding that, so there are some differences out there. But those differences are diffs between editors' preferences, not what's in RSs.) Ok, take care. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 16:26, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Tony1, If you take a close look at MOS:HYPHEN, MOS:DASH, MOS:EMDASH, and MOS:ENDASH, I think you will agree that the correct character to use here is the hyphen. Hyphens indicate conjunction, whereas dashes mark divisions within a sentence. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:39, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
No, we aren't talking English prose. MoS guidelines are inapplicable re chess notation. If they were, then e.g. a space would follow the dot, but it doesn't: "1.e4". Notation is a thing unto itself. WP policy on punct is irrelevant. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 19:21, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Neither MoS nor prose: it's the sources, guys. Tony (talk) 00:32, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Let me understand you ... Do you mean, if you find a published source, and it has game XYZ, and a WP article quotes game XYZ, and the source you have for the game uses "×" instead of the WP normal "x" (or "0–0–0" instead of the WP normal "0-0-0"), that you want to, or think it only correct, to replicate what the source uses ("×"), instead of the WP normal "x", in the WP article which quotes the game? (Is that what you're saying? Because if so, that makes no sense to me whatever. WP wants uniformity for "captures" in articles. What if another source quotes game XYZ and they use ":", or no symbol at all? And another editor reverts your "×" in favor of the symbol found in the second source? And a third? And so on? Or what if game XYZ was found in an older source that was not reprinted in algebraic, and uses descriptive notation? Do you intend, because of your source, to add or change the XYZ game in the WP article to descriptive?! When descriptive is not used for presenting chess moves in any WP article?! Uniformity is the thing, and right now "x" is the norm 99.99% in WP chess articles.) I must be missing something!? Let me know what. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:08, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Please fill out our brief Teahouse survey

Teahouse logo
Teahouse logo

Hello fellow Wikipedian, the hardworking hosts and staff at WP:Teahouse would like your feedback!

We have created a brief survey intended to help us understand the experiences and impressions of veteran editors who have participated on the Teahouse. You are being selected to participate in our survey because you edited the Teahouse Questions or Guests pages some time during the last few months.

Click here to be taken to the survey site.

The survey should take less than 15 minutes to complete. We really appreciate your feedback, and we look forward to your next vist to the Teahouse!

Happy editing,

J-Mo, Teahouse host

This message was sent via Global message delivery on 01:19, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 May 2012

No offence...

...but your daughter looks a little woof. Egg Centric 15:41, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

It was a shock to both parents. Tony (talk) 07:32, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

bug

I am assuming this bug is fixed? I repaired the damage to the infobox here. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 23:05, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Hmm, gratuitous insertion of an in-script function name. Can't understand how it could have happened. I've run my script on the original version but could not replicate the error – it works normally now. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 03:29, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Cooling the edit war

Thanks for your plea to cool things down. Unfortunately, from past experience you can read about here, this is likely to be the start of a long trip downhill. Falun Gong editors typically have this world view that if you are not 100% pro-Falun Gong, you are against them. Their proselytism, advocacy, and sensitivity to criticism are legend. I'll just get back to gnoming. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 12:44, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, withdrawing is a good option: that editor will probably get into trouble there or elsewhere, sooner or later. Tony (talk) 12:53, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Very sorry to intrude. Ohconfucius, I really don't think that comments of this nature are helpful in cooling things down. This is not about proselytism, advocacy, or sensitivity to criticism. You edit warred to delete information about how a Chinese provincial official was indicted for genocide. You did this on a page where I am a primary contributor, and where I've worked hard to reach GA status. I do not know and do not care about your past on this topic, but I would appreciate if you stopped projecting your feelings about Falun Gong onto me.Homunculus (duihua) 13:12, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

hello again

i started work on the Harari people page and a user came along and reverted my input claiming no citations even though its cited but i believe the info may be all over the place so i might need to learn how to cite better. can you show me how to cite it properly?Baboon43 (talk) 00:27, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Declined speedy deletion

Hi. I've declined your speedy deletion request at Vow, because the reasons you gave did not fit any of the speedy deletion criteria - speedy deletion is only for a very strict set of conditions, as described at WP:CSD. If you believe this article should be deleted, WP:AfD would be the appropriate venue. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:51, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Hey...

You're a prose expert - I've run into a slight difficulty at Talk:New York State Route 227/GA1 - where I pointed out that using "c." in running prose was bad writing, but I've got someone claiming that using the Template:circa template is required whenever you would use "around" or "approximately" ... near as I know, you never use something like that just bare in prose, and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Abbreviations seems to support my point, but I'm getting a bit of flack. Am I totally in the wrong? It goes against everything I was ever taught in high school and college about writing ... nor do you ever see it in academic writing except in tables or similar spots where space is at a premium. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:23, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Signature syntax

Σ, thank you thank you! Sorry, I had to remove your examples here because they massively increased the screen width; without them, it's responsive again to the window width I happen to choose at any particular time. It's in the edit-history of course. Cheers. Tony (talk) 07:49, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 May 2012

We've talked about this before: on radio pages we keep the links to years in radio that stations started and/or ended. I relinked WFOY to 1937 in radio for that very reason.Stereorock (talk) 11:48, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I seem to remember you as a jealous owner of that set of articles, who uses them as a power base. Tony (talk) 11:54, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

You're the only signpost editor I know so...

Just thought I'd point this Wikipedia:The Core Contest/Winners out to you... Ealdgyth - Talk 12:35, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Copyeditor's Barnstar
That's a great tutorial you made on copyediting for GOCE. Pine✉ 09:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for !voting

at my successful RFA
Thank you, Tony1, for !voting at my successful RFA; I am humbled that you put your trust in me. I grant you this flower, which, if tended to properly, will grow to be the fruit of Wikipedia's labours. BTW, I'd appreciate feedback on the current special feature on WikiWomenCamp. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:33, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 June 2012

DNA nanotechnology back at FAC

I wanted to let you know that DNA nanotechnology is up for a second FAC. Your comments on the first FAC were very helpful, and I've made extensive upgrades to the article since then. I'm hoping that you'll revisit the article for this second FAC. Thanks! Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 21:03, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Tony1. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 00:56, 9 June 2012 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Sarah (talk) 00:56, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you!

Teahouse Barnstar
I, Sarah, hereby award you, Tony, the Teahouse Barnstar for your valued participation in the Teahouse pilot. Whether cleaning up documentation pages or providing valuable insight about the project..your work hasn't gone unnoticed! I look forward to your continued participation at the Teahouse and thanks for all you do to make Wikipedia the invaluable resource it is! Sarah (talk) 00:39, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Collaboration

Hi Tony1 I am collecting training materials from top wikipedia coaches. I'd like to inlude your prose writing and other materials as well. My plan is to make a automatic coaching tool so these materials could be used to train more people. Let me know if you would like to collaborate on this and if you can point me to other good resources developed on and for Wikipedia. Thanks OrenBochman (talk) 16:32, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Oren, it sounds interesting. Anything that makes our training better is worth exploring. Please let me know more. Tony (talk) 12:39, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 June 2012

The Tea Leaf - Issue Four

Hi! Welcome to the fourth issue of The Tea Leaf, the official newsletter for the Teahouse!

  • Teahouse pilot wraps up after 13 weeks After being piloted on English Wikipedia starting in February, the Teahouse wrapped up its pilot period on May 27, 2012. We expect this is just the beginning for the Teahouse and hope the project will continue to grow in the months to come!

Thank you and congratulations to all of the community members who participated - and continue to participate!

  • What you've all been waiting for: Teahouse Pilot Report is released! We look forward to your feedback on the methodology and outcomes of this pilot project.
  • ....and if a pilot report wasn't enough, the Teahouse Pilot Metrics Report is out too! Dive into the numbers and survey results to learn about the impact the Teahouse has made on English Wikipedia.
  • Teahouse shows positive impact on new editor retention and engagement
  • 409 new editors participated during the entire pilot period, with about 40 new editors participating in the Teahouse per week.
  • Two weeks after participating, 33% of Teahouse guests are still active on Wikipedia, as opposed to 11% of a similar control group.
  • New editors who participated in the Teahouse edit 10x the number of articles, make 7x more global edits, and 2x as much of their content survives on Wikipedia compared to the control group.
  • Women participate in the Teahouse 28% of Teahouse participants were women, up from 9% of editors on Wikipedia in general, good news for this project which aimed to have impact on the gender gap too - but still lots to be done here!
  • New opportunities await for the Teahouse in phase two as the Teahouse team and Wikipedia community examine ways to improve, scale, and sustain the project. Opportunities for future work include:
  • Automating or semi-automating systems such as invites, metrics and archiving
  • Experimenting with more ways for new editors to discover the Teahouse
  • Building out the social and peer-to-peer aspects further, including exploring ways to make answering questions easier, creating more ways for new editors to help each other and for all participants to acknowledge each other's efforts
  • Growing volunteer capacity, continuing to transfer Teahouse administration tasks to volunteers whenever possible, and looking for new ways to make maintenance and participation easier for everyone.
  • Want to know how you can lend a hand at the Teahouse? Become a host! Learn more about what makes the Teahouse different than other help spaces on Wikipedia and see how you can help new editors by visiting here.
  • Say hello to the new guests at the Teahouse. Take the time to welcome and get to know the latest guests at the Teahouse. Drop off some wikilove to these editors today, as being welcomed by experienced editors is really encouraging to new Wikipedians.

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) 17:08, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

RFAR Perth opened

An arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Perth. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Perth/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 30, 2012, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Perth/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Lord Roem (talk) 18:06, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Help Survey

Hi there, my name's Peter Coombe and I'm a Wikimedia Community Fellow working on a project to improve Wikipedia's help system. At the moment I'm trying to learn more about how people use and find the current help pages. If you could help by filling out this brief survey about your experiences, I'd be very grateful. It should take less than 10 minutes, and your responses will not be tied to your username in any way.

Thank you for your time,
the wub (talk) 18:20, 14 June 2012 (UTC) (Delivered using Global message delivery)

I see your RL workload is tolerable right now, nudge nudge

Hi, Tony. I know all about WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but surely it's unfortunate that the MOS contains a Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles page but no Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Christianity-related articles? Let me guess: people have tried to create such a page from time to time, but have been shocked by the bitter warfare and acrimony that immediately breaks out about every least detail? (I tried to NPOV Opus Dei once, so I've in a sense been there.) And then diminishing returns and attrition have set in, as each warrior or sect defends their own version to the death, and good editors have started leaving Wikipedia in droves, exhausted and embittered? Clearly, I wouldn't want to be the cause of such a scenario realising itself… but the present calm on this front seems positively unnatural. (Unless the battle is raging elsewhere on the MOS?) So I thought—it just came to me in a flash :-)—who better than Tony to initiate such a subject, perhaps based, some ways off, on the Islam-related MOS page? It might be valuable for the two to have parallel structures. Anyway. Just a, you know, thought. Bishonen | talk 00:10, 19 June 2012 (UTC).

Bish, nice to hear from you. I'm full up with Signpost stuff today, but will look into this tomorrow. Tony (talk) 02:08, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Read this properly now. Ahemmmmm. As a side-note, I'm resisting attempts to create a MoS subpage for religion-related articles. Tony (talk) 07:53, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
That's cool. So, who better than Tony to put Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles on WP:MfD? I don't feel I know enough about MOS to do it myself, or to have a perspective on any ramifications there might be. MOS is a bit of a dark labyrinth to me. (But just tell me you'd rather eat glass than get into a religion-related kerfuffle, and I'll stop the nudging.) Bishonen | talk 12:37, 20 June 2012 (UTC).
Bish, I'll raise this at the talk page of the WikiProject Religion so-called MoS draft; it would be better to integrate them all. Tony (talk) 13:11, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 June 2012

Thanks for C-E!

Thanks for the recent copy edit of my Discussion Report article a few weeks ago. I am currently going through your self-help writing tutorials. Thanks again for the recent copy edit, any you do in the future and the guides. --J36miles (talk) 23:01, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Tony1. You have new messages at Oddbodz's talk page.
Message added 18:14, 24 June 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Oddbodz (talk) 18:14, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

CE Adoption School

Hi Toni

I'm adapting some of the materials created by you on copy editing - for use in an extended training programs for new wikipedian. I hope I have your blessing in this work. If you have in mind specific pratical work to assign to students who have completed each units I'd be glad to use these in the corresponding tests. BO | Talk 15:20, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 June 2012

Edit summaries

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed your recent edit to Interval (music) does not have an edit summary. Please provide one before saving your changes to an article, as the summaries are quite helpful to people browsing an article's history. Thanks! Hyacinth (talk) 03:43, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Tony1. You have new messages at WP:CFD/S.
Message added 00:45, 3 July 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 00:45, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 July 2012

Apology

I would like to apologise for swearing at you the other day. There was no excuse for my behaviour, I will try and ensure it doesn't happen again. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:15, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, and it's no problem. But let's keep lines open about the issue; you're doing such valuable work in that topic. Tony (talk) 11:31, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Did you see this?

[1] The top of the page says "You must notify any user you report." I must have missed it. Neotarf (talk) 18:39, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, all too silly. Tony (talk) 01:45, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Net Promoter

Hi. Why was Net Promoter changed to Net promoter? It appears to be someone's brand name, just like any other proper noun in Wikipedia:Capitalization#Trademarks. I can't figure out what would make it a common noun. --Closeapple (talk) 16:37, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

"Net promoter concept", "net promoter approach". These don't look like branding to me. Is there a patent and is it marketed as a product by a single company? Yes, "Net Promoter Score", it says, is a registered trademark. Tony (talk) 01:45, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure what patents would have to do with it as patents are never registered under trade names. Rather they have wordy titles descriptive of the function of the invention. And a lot of things that have proper names don't get patented. But in any case, "Net Promoter", all by itself (i.e. the article title), is a registered trademark, and the holder is most certainly offering services under that name. btw It took ONE search at uspto.gov to find the record. It's almost as easy as Google. Jeh (talk) 02:34, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Maybe you're right. Tony (talk) 12:21, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
I did change most of the "derived" terms in the article body to get rid of the caps not part of the registered name, like "Net Promoter Concept", to e.g. "Net Promoter concept". The only one I left was "Net Promoter Score"; that is not registered per uspto.gov but it does seem to be a rating that the company offers, so it seems to me to be a proper name... in any case it's not the article title. Jeh (talk) 20:41, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 July 2012

Article

Hi, quick note saying I think Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2012-07-09/Special_report would be better off as the Education Report which we haven't had in a while; rather than a special report. Rcsprinter (natter) @ 19:06, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Too late now. Rcsprinter (rap) @ 16:35, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Credo Reference Update & Survey (your opinion requested)

Credo Reference, who generously donated 400 free Credo 250 research accounts to Wikipedia editors over the past two years, has offered to expand the program to include 100 additional reference resources. Credo wants Wikipedia editors to select which resources they want most. So, we put together a quick survey to do that:

It also asks some basic questions about what you like about the Credo program and what you might want to improve.

At this time only the initial 400 editors have accounts, but even if you do not have an account, you still might want to weigh in on which resources would be most valuable for the community (for example, through WikiProject Resource Exchange).

Also, if you have an account but no longer want to use it, please leave me a note so another editor can take your spot.

If you have any other questions or comments, drop by my talk page or email me at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com. Cheers! Ocaasi t | c 17:35, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Your automated edits

As you can see from my edit summaries and other editors on multiple articles, there are current issues with your changes. Please review and action, thankyou. Timeshift (talk) 23:33, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't see the problem ... and hardly anything was automated. You're not suggesting that [[New South Wales Legislative Assembly|Legislative Assembly]] to "the chamber" (to avoid repetition) was automated, are you? Tony (talk) 02:44, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
You're far off. I suggest looking harder amongst edit summaries from multiple reverters of your changes. Broken tables? Percent points? Inconsistencies? Timeshift (talk) 06:59, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
I will look: but broken tables after I checked carefully? PercentAGE points, it is, and they're necessary. Tony (talk) 07:43, 14 July 2012 (UTC) You're right, but only some broke. It seems to be the minus signs. So there's a table template out there needs fixing. Tony (talk) 08:05, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Keep looking. Timeshift (talk) 23:52, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Supercapitalism

Hi Tony - any reaction to User_talk:Dohn_joe#Can_you_advise? Dohn joe (talk) 21:06, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

prose irritations - do you agree?

Hi,

I have a few prose irritations that you haven't mentioned (that I can find). One is the use of "would" when "was" is meant. e.g. "In his later life, he would be a musician" instead of "In his later life, he was a musician", or "became a musician".

Another is "saw". e.g. "This century saw the invention of" etc. To me it seems like centuries (and other such entities) don't "see".

What do you think?

MathewTownsend (talk) 00:26, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 July 2012

Fae

Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2012-07-16/Special_report – Did you let Fæ know about this "Special report"? I notice that there aren't any notices regarding the "Special report" on Fæ's talk page. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:42, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Fae was emailed several days ago with an invitation to put his views on the matter to the Signpost. We know he received the email, since he replied; but he did not put any views. This point is made in the article. Thanks for your enquiry, Michael. Tony (talk) 13:53, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Alright, but did he know that the report would include information about the recent developments? There's still lots of confusion and contention:
Even I'm not completely sure about what happened and what's going on. Facts are still coming in. Perhaps reporting on these recent events was premature. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:07, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm extremely disappointed that you chose to conflate the WCA and Fæ as an individual in your report, since those are very much two separate issues. Please could you consider splitting the article into two, one covering the WCA, the other covering Fæ? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 14:12, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ/Proposed_decision#Statement. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 20:09, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Move request

See Talk:Women in development approach [placing my sig here to get the auto-archiving happening Tony (talk) 04:04, 25 July 2012 (UTC)]

Barnstar

The Original Barnstar
This barnstar is awarded to everyone who - whatever their opinion - contributed to the discussion about Wikipedia and SOPA. Thank you for being a part of the discussion. Presented by the Wikimedia Foundation.

[placing my sig here to get the auto-archiving happening Tony (talk) 04:04, 25 July 2012 (UTC)]

Nomination of Central Provident Fund (South Africa) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Central Provident Fund (South Africa) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Central Provident Fund (South Africa) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. [placing my sig here to get the auto-archiving happening Tony (talk) 04:04, 25 July 2012 (UTC)]

Proposed deletion of article to which you have contributed

A few days ago I was informed that the article Metrication of British transport was being considered for deletion. As you have made at least one contribution to this article or to its Talk page, you might like to contribute to the debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Metrication of British transport. I have sent this note to everybody whose name was thrown up by the "Contributions" facility of the article and of its Talk Page (apart from those who have already contributed). [placing my sig here to get the auto-archiving happening Tony (talk) 04:04, 25 July 2012 (UTC)]

The Signpost: 23 July 2012

Community de-adminship proof of concept

Hi Tony. I'm hoping to start on the long road towards community de-adminship, and I thought I might come to you to help out with User:Worm That Turned/Community De-adminship proof of concept. I'm hoping to get an RfC together to judge the community's view on "community de-adminship". I know this isn't going to be a short process, there's a reason it's perennial, but I thought it would be a good way to start. Would appreciate any thoughts. WormTT(talk) 13:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Worm, this sounds like an idea that's time has come (several times ... maybe this time it will succeed). I posted a related note here. Tony (talk) 04:01, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

RM at Bollinger Bands

Since you were involved before, you are invited to comment at the current RM. Dicklyon (talk) 04:10, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Tony1, you are invited!

Sig to get the archiver working. Tony (talk) 04:30, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Olympic dashes

This is mostly a long overdue thankyou and recognition of the legwork you do around here on copyediting articles, but this particular edit [2] drew my attention as cut and pasting dashes is exactly what I tend to do to be on the safe side, despite being (what I'd consider) an experienced editor. Having followed some links after that I read your guide on the subject which I'm sure would be of use to a lot of editors and I'd love to see it shared more prominently. Thanks - Basement12 (T.C) 03:40, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

You're very welcome! The dash script is easily installed into your vector.js page, BTW. Hardly ever gives false positives. Tony (talk) 04:28, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Metrication of British Transport (vote)

Hi. You have been involved in editing MoBT in the last few weeks. There is a vote going on about what to do with the ERTMS section. If you wish to cast an opinion, the vote runs until Monday. Steve Hosgood (talk) 16:09, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

The Tea Leaf - Issue Five

Stop by for a tasty glass of wiki-iced tea at the Teahouse, today!

Hi! Welcome to the fifth edition of The Tea Leaf, the official newsletter of the Teahouse!

  • Guest activity increased in July. Questions are up from an average of 36 per week in June to 43 per week in July, and guest profile creation has also increased. This is likely a result of the automatic invite experiments we started near the end of month, which seeks to lessen the burden on hosts and other volunteers who manually invite editors. During the last week of July, questions doubled in the Teahouse! (But don't let that deter you from inviting editors to the Teahouse, please, there are still lots of new editors who haven't found Teahouse yet.)
  • More Teahouse hosts than ever. We had 12 new hosts sign up to participate at the Teahouse! We now have 35 hosts volunteering at the Teahouse. Feel free to stop by and see them all here.
  • Phase two update: Host sprint. In August, the Teahouse team plans to improve the host experience by developing a simpler new-host creation process, a better way of surfacing active hosts, and a host lounge renovation. Take a look at the plan and weigh in here.
  • New Teahouse guest barnstar is awarded to first recipient: Charlie Inks. Using the Teahouse barnstar designed by Heatherawalls, hosts hajatvrc and Ryan Vesey created the new Teahouse Guest Barnstar. The first recipient is Charlie Inks, for her boldness in asking questions at the Teahouse. Check out the award in action here.
  • Teahouse was a hot topic at Wikimania! The Teahouse was a hot topic at Wikimania this past month, where editor retention and interface design was heavily discussed. Sarah and Jonathan presented the Teahouse during the Wikimedia Fellowships panel. Slides can be viewed here. A lunch was also held at Wikimania for Teahouse hosts.

As always, thanks for supporting the Teahouse project! Stop by and visit us today!

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) 08:39, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 August 2012

Your scripted date edits in April

I imagine this was just an oversight, or being in a rush, since you've been editing more and longer than I have. Nevertheless, you may want to look just a tad more closely at the edits generated WP:MOSNUMscript, since scripts are never as smart as good editors (and you certainly seem like a good editor). Specifically, your scripted 12 April 2012 edit to Viggo Mortensen (diff) changed the title 3 Fools 4 April to 3 Fools April 4, which I have fixed. While consistency in dates is generally good, breaking links is generally bad; and even the former can be overdone, as "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds..." (Ralph Waldo Emerson, Essays). It may be worth reviewing WP:DATERET in the context of your extensive accessdate edits in the references of that article as well. --KGF0 ( T | C ) 22:14, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting this. The script should not touch links. I'll look into why this happened. Tony (talk) 23:15, 10 August 2012 (UTC) PS I have advice that only four articles contain this string, and it was thought on balance better not to include. Please report possible bugs (more serious ones) to Wikipedia:Date formattings/script/MOSNUM dates/bugs; and thanks again for fixing. Tony (talk) 01:47, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Tom of Finland

I just thought I'd drop you a note to let you know that I agree with you about the picture at the Tom of Finland page. Someone reverted you, but I have restored your edit. You might want to watchlist the page. Hebradaeum (talk) 05:01, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Indeed I will watchlist it, and thank you very much for the alert. I looked through every other-language WP article of this name, and none used such an upfront shot. It's a matter of balance; there's got to be some kind of boundary between porn and non-porn (and the artistic argument is hardly valid here, I think). Tony (talk) 05:17, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Could use an outside iBall

You are invited to join the discussion at [[1]]. Thx. Dl2000 (talk) 04:26, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 August 2012

User:Giraffedata/comprised of

Because of my recent revisions to the article "Kerala", that article is now on my watchlist, and, because of this revision by User:Giraffedata, I found User:Giraffedata/comprised of, which may interest you and your page watchers. A record of that editor's contributions is at http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Special:Contributions/Giraffedata. The words "compose", "comprise", "consist", and "constitute" are discussed at compose / consist / comprise /constitute... - EnglishClub.
—Wavelength (talk) 14:58, 15 August 2012 (UTC) and 14:07, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Notice

I have used your name in a reply on MOSDATE. If you ever use my name in any discussion, I fully expect you will inform me. What has happened to you, Tony? You have changed dramatically from your early years here. Gimmetoo (talk) 06:02, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I have evolved, but in a socially responsible way, I hope. Tony (talk) 06:07, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
While I expect constant sniping and biting from long-term disruptive editors, I expected better from you. Is it no longer possible for you to have an opinion without denigrating anyone who doesn't share your opinion? Gimmetoo (talk) 06:13, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
<sigh> Please calm down and try to be more collegial. Tony (talk) 07:08, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Sigh? The RfCs on the issue have been had. The problem is that certain editors have gone on for years now in defiance of these RfCs. That you characterize a multiple RfC- and MOSNUM-authorized format as a "pet format" suggests, even now, your refusal to follow consensus. Yet apparently, you consider pointing this out "not collegial". Would you consider it honest and upright to mention editors by name disparagingly on various fora without even the decency to inform the named editors? Gimmetoo (talk) 07:23, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Gimme, I'm too old for this badgering. You watchlist WT:MOSNUM, right? Given your record of aggressively haranguing editors who in good faith are trying to fix up the mess of ref dates, I was disinclined to jump through hoops and notify you separately on your talk page. It was a thread you were already participating in. Give me a break. Tony (talk) 07:27, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
WTMOSNUM is not what I'm referring to, Tony. Perhaps you should not be encouraging editors to edit contrary to the RfCs and the guideline, and to ignore requests to comply with the guidelines. Why do we bother having RfCs and guidelines, if asking people who don't comply with them is characterized as "haranguing"? Gimmetoo (talk) 07:37, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Let's try to reach out to each other. This is just too negative. Tony (talk) 07:39, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
You've made some characterizations that most would normally interpret as negative. What do you have in mind to change that? Gimmetoo (talk) 07:46, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Not the response I was looking for. What I have in mind is to wait a while. I'm quite relaxed at the moment, and I don't like seeing you spin out like this. I'm sorry if I've been critical. Tony (talk) 08:15, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
When you are ready to engage in collegial action, let me know. Gimmetoo (talk) 22:16, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Certainly not while you're in that mood. Tony (talk) 00:33, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Hyphens!!!

As much as I admire your dedication to correct grammar on Wikipedia, I think your recent use of hyphens might just be a bit hasty. For example, I see you have moved the article "singular value decomposition" to "singular-value decomposition" twice recently. In all uses of the term I have seen (and I have seen a number of them recently because I have just learned and am using singular value decomposition), the hyphen is not present. Worse, you have moved the article "continuous knapsack problem" to "continuous-knapsack problem". I am also familiar with that, having presented it to my class last year. It is not the knapsack that is continuous, but the items going into the knapsack that are continuous (they can be broken into pieces in other words), so the hyphen is incorrect and confusing. Could you cool it with the hyphens for now? I see I have some things to fix now. Thanks. -- Schapel (talk) 14:35, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

So it's not a continuous problem, I presume. It's a problem of the continuous knapsack, rather tangentially expressed. I've not decided on this one, and nor have I done a search of sources. I will do this. Tony (talk) 14:49, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
I think the easiest, safest thing to do would be to use the term as it is most popularly used. It's okay if the grammar on Wikipedia is not exactly perfect. If you feel strongly enough about a hyphen that you're willing to move the page, please do the research or discuss it on the talk page first. You can't just quickly search-and-replace — you have to understand what the term actually means before you can decide whether a hyphen is appropriate. Thanks! -- Schapel (talk) 15:01, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Someone else has been so kind as to fix the two problems I mentioned. I had to go into one of those articles and remove the hyphens you added there, too. Could you be so kind as to review and undo the rest of your hyphen edits where you added a hyphen to a term that usually is not hyphenated? I and many others would greatly appreciate it! Thanks. -- Schapel (talk) 17:20, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
I would be that kind soul. I agree that Tony has gone a little hyphen-crazy lately, and have undone the SVD and knapsack moves, as most of them are completely unhyphenated in sources. The most-hyphenated one, "singular value decomposition", is done so less than 10% of the time. Tony - I've told you before that I think you do good work by and large. Schapel is right, though, that perhaps you should slow down and actually examine sources before plunging in with a move. On the other hand, if you get it right 85% of the time, it's still a net improvement to Wikipedia, and there'll be folks who can come by and clean up later. Hmm - interesting economics argument I hadn't considered earlier... Dohn joe (talk) 17:30, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 August 2012

United States Military Date Proposal

A discussion on the encyclopedic need for the use of military dates on United States military related articles is taking place at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Proposal to strike out the requirement that American military articles use military dates. Please join in.--JOJ Hutton 23:29, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Canadian Aviation Regulations

Just to let you know I moved this article back to "Canadian Aviation Regulations". The name is a proper noun as this ref shows and as per WP:TITLEFORMAT is always capitalized. - Ahunt (talk) 11:07, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

OK. It was marginal. Tony (talk) 14:15, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Grammar opinion

Hi Tony, I was wondering what your opinion was about this edit? Do you think it is an improvement or was the previous version better? Oddly enough, an edit war broke out today over that change. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:59, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm really glad Mark brought this to your attention. Based on what Mark and another editor said about you, you're apparently like the King of Grammar on Wikipedia. Haha. Here's the reasoning the user (108.36.80.228) gave for his edits to the user (Fat&Happy) who reverted it.[3]. --76.189.108.102 (talk) 20:49, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Grammar is an enduring interest for me (that is, functional grammar—the only game in town). But several en.WPians would count themselves as experts, and I don't doubt them. Both versions are grammatical taken out of context, but the original is much better given the context, IMO:
ORIGINAL: "He has served since 2005, having been nominated by President George W. Bush after the death of Chief Justice William Rehnquist." [better causal relationship, and the nominalisation at the end is reasonable in the context—more formal, more of a permanent Thing rather than a dynamic action]
EDIT: "He has served since 2005 and was nominated by President George W. Bush after Chief Justice William Rehnquist died." Tony (talk) 01:20, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Interesting, I hadn't thought about it that way. Thanks for commenting! Mark Arsten (talk) 01:30, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, Tony! That was a great lesson. How about the edit in the second paragraph?[4] Is the "admission" or "being admitted" version better? --76.189.108.102 (talk) 03:15, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
(not urgent)

Occasionally, I find a piped link where the title of the target page is spelled correctly, but where the displayed text is a misspelled version of the title of the target page. In my revision to "Norm Coleman" at 20:56, 21 August 2012, I changed "Artic National Wildlife Refuge" to "Arctic National Wildlife Refuge" by removing the displayed title and the pipe character, thereby causing the title of the target page to be displayed. Apparently, someone knew the correct spelling, but (for some reason) wanted to display the incorrect spelling.
—Wavelength (talk) 21:56, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

In my revision to "Jockstrap" at 23:30, 28 August 2012, I changed "erectile disfunction" to "erectile dysfunction" by removing the displayed title and the pipe character and by decapitalizing the word "erectile". Possibly, an automated process has been revising redirected links by introducing piped links, without understanding correct and incorrect spelling.
—Wavelength (talk) 23:41, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Catching up

Hi Tony. I just read the current Signpost and it was so nice to see your name attached to the byline of one of the articles again (Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-08-20/News and notes). I hardly ever see you editing the site any more, and I don't know if that's because I don't edit as much as I used to, I don't participate in the projects I used to at the same level as before, or for other reasons. But so many of the editors I became friendly with in the first two or three years of my joining have now left the project, and it's nice to know you are still here. Hope all is well with you, :) Matthewedwards (talk · contribs) 23:33, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 August 2012

ET phone us

Hi, I've left a query for you at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cultural impact of extraterrestrial contact/archive2. Cheers, hamiltonstone (talk) 00:11, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

WT:CAPS Foo Dynasty

Hi Tony1, I asked a question at WT:CAPS about Foo Dynasty. I was just looking at histories and see 19 November 2011 you moved Hồ Dynasty to Hồ dynasty, Mạc dynasty ‎to Mạc dynasty, Early Lê Dynasty ‎to Early Lê dynasty, Đinh Dynasty ‎to Đinh dynasty, Ngô Dynasty ‎to Ngô dynasty, Later Trần Dynasty to Later Trần dynasty. Is there a guideline somewhere that says VN dynasties should be different from Chinese? I don't have a view (yet), just looking for advice. So far no one responded. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:12, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Re: TR

Thank you Tony, your commendation is always appreciated. - Jarry1250 [Deliberation needed] 10:57, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 September 2012

List of Premiers of Queensland by time in office

Not sure why but the changes you have made seem to have affected the display of the table in this article? Is there any chance you can help fix? Slac speak up! 01:07, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Done. I don't know what happened there, but will follow this up. Thanks for spotting it. Tony (talk) 01:13, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
I think I've fixed the script glitch that caused the problem. According to my testing, it no longer messes up the table display any more.
OC, you're back??!!!! That's nice to know. Thanks for looking into this. Tony (talk) 03:09, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Just small amounts of maintenance, time-permitting... --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 04:42, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Great, thanks very much for your help! Slac speak up! 10:43, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Auriga

Hi Tony! Thanks so much for your prose review on Auriga (constellation). I just wanted to let you know that I've (finally) responded to your concerns. Sorry it took so long; I've been incredibly busy with school. Keilana|Parlez ici 03:13, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The Tea Leaf - Issue Six

Hi! Welcome to the sixth edition of The Tea Leaf, the official newsletter of the Teahouse!

  • Teahouse serves over 700 new editors in six months on Wikipedia! Since February 27, 741 new editors have participated at the Teahouse. The Q&A board and the guest intro pages are more active than ever.
A lovely little teahouse nestled in Germany from Wiki Loves Monuments
  • Automatic invites are doing the trick: 50% more new editors visiting each week. Ever since HostBot's automated invite trial phase began we've seen a boost in new editor participation. Automating a baseline set of invitations also allows Teahouse hosts to focus on serving hot cups of help to guests, instead of spending countless hours inviting.
  • Guests to the Teahouse continue to edit more & interact more with other community members than non-Teahouse guests according to six month metrics. Teahouse guests make more than twice the article edits and edit more talk pages than other new editors.
  • New host process implemented which encourages anyone to get started as a Teahouse host in a few easy steps. Stop by the hosts page and become a Teahouse host today!
  • Host lounge renovations nearing completion. Working closely with Teahouse hosts, we've made some major renovations to the Teahouse Host Lounge - the main hangout and resource space for hosts. Learn more about the improvements here.

As always, thanks for supporting the Teahouse project! Stop by and visit us today!

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. EdwardsBot (talk) 00:11, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Military history coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject has started its 2012 project coordinator election process, where we will select a team of coordinators to organize the project over the coming year. If you would like to be considered as a candidate, please submit your nomination by 14 September. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact one of the current coordinators on their talk page. This message was delivered here because you are a member of the Military history WikiProject. – Military history coordinators (about the project • what coordinators do) 10:02, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 September 2012

G'day, Tony!

What an elegant page you have here!

I wrote that advice to New Users some months ago in utter frustration at people continually shoving things into places where they didn't fit. It is amazing how people can turn a perfectly sound paragraph into total nonsense.

"The organ has 1500 pipes, three manuals and twenty-four stops. Although its action is mechanical, the air is provided by a fan powered by an electric motor. There is a lunchtime recital every Tuesday at 1.00 pm. located in a purpose-built shed beside the north transept." ......OK.....

I'm afraid that I blew my stack earlier today over a paragraph in a biography that connected a man who had complained that a writer had plagiarised someones work, with unrelated death threats and a murder.

I need to concentrate on architecture- it's rarely contentious, as I'm almost the only person who seriously writes about anything earlier than 1600. What are you writing about?

Any time you want to cut and paste my "advice to new users", you'll find it on my home page.

Amandajm (talk) 14:41, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I just found your advice on how to write good prose! So that's what you do. I'm suitably impressed! There is some solid advice there. Amandajm (talk) 15:00, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
In which case, I'd be pleased to know what you think generally about these work-in-progress exercises. Suggestions can be left at the talk page. Tony (talk) 15:37, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 September 2012

Pushing the "revert" button

[5] substantiation? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 10:23, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

The changes were incomprehensible; where is the talk-page discussion and consensus? Tony (talk) 10:28, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
"Incomprehensible" or you just do not agree with? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 10:36, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Incomprehensible. Tony (talk) 10:38, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, but Art LaPella (talk · contribs) was able to understand it. Try in the next round; BTW a discussion is now ongoing. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 10:44, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Reverting non-vandalism without an appropriate edit summary is an abuse of Twinkle, and I would ask to be take more care in future. Regarding the matter at hand, I have commented at the relevant talk page. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:39, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I've never used this Twinkle thing; nor do I "push a revert button", as the section title suggests. I don't often see the need to revert, especially on style-guide pages, where users should respect the need to discuss proposed changes to long-standing wording at the talk page, before leaping in and editing. Tony (talk) 12:46, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
The TW link at the end of your edit summary suggests that you are using Twinkle, even if you were not aware of it. All I am asking is that you give a proper edit summary when reverting others. It might be better to undo edits manually, rather than using automated tools. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:06, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
I went back to the appropriate version, clicked "edit", and saved. That's not automated. I provided at least one edit-summary. Tony (talk) 14:23, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Main page redesign

Hi Tony, I'm creating my design at Wikipedia:2012 main page redesign proposal/Dr. Blofeld. That's what I was sort of thinking with the FA to have a much larger picture and right aligned and useful information down the right for introducing wikipedia. Any suggestions on how to improve it further would be most welcome.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:07, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Amanda Carter

She spent her childhood living in Banyule. As a youngster, she played netball. She went to Olympic Village Primary School. She attended Latrobe High School from years 7 to 10 and Thornbury High School in years 11 and 12. She then attended LaTrobe University where she obtained a Bachelor of Applied Science and a Masters in occupational therapy. She works as an occupational therapist and has a son, Alex. As of 2012, she lives in the Melbourne suburb of Heidelberg West. Tony (talk) 10:01, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT. :) Glad to see you're assisting in improving this article Tony1. It isn't substandard for a Start class article. Rather, you just haven't improved it yet. :) Wikipedia is a collaborative effort where we work together to improve articles. The first step with improving this article was to find the sources of information, get the information into the article, and then improve the article with the goal of taking it to GA. :) I've been busy doing follow up to London Paralympic things, including a workshop and a conference, and working on an academic paper. I haven't had as much opportunity to work on the wheelchair basketball articles as I could. :D But I am absolutely ecstatic that you've taken an interest and will be editing to improve the article for a GA nomination. :D --LauraHale (talk) 10:10, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
This has been nominated to appear on the main page, has it? Tony (talk) 10:28, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Your free 1-year Questia online library account is approved ready

Good news! You are approved for access to 77,000 full-text books and 4 million journal, magazine, newspaper articles, and encyclopedia entries. Check your Wikipedia email!

  1. Go to https://www.questia.com/specialoffer
  2. Input your unique Offer ID and Promotional code. Click Continue. (Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive).
  3. Create your account by entering the requested information. (This is private and no one from Wikipedia will see it).
  4. You'll then see the welcome page with your Login ID. (The account is now active for 1 year).

If you need help, please first ask Ocaasi at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com and, second, email QuestiaHelp@cengage.com along with your Offer ID and Promotional Code (subject: Wikipedia).

  • A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a Questia article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free Questia pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:Questia/Citations.
  • Questia would love to hear feedback at WP:Questia/Experiences
  • Show off your Questia access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/Questia_userbox}} on your userpage
  • When the 1-year period is up, check the applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi EdwardsBot (talk) 05:15, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I've checked my WP email. Nothing there. Tony (talk) 08:12, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Resent

Hello, Tony1. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

I tried again. If that fails, email me at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com and I'll send the codes back in a reply. Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 06:18, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 September 2012

This was not one of your better pieces, Tony. You seem to be mixing factual reporting with your own personal views in ways that are, to say the least, not helpful. You also don't appear to have made much effort to find out what the other editors participating in Gibraltarpedia - that is to say, the collateral damage - think about this. Perhaps you could consider running a "Gibraltarpedia responds" kind of feature next week to cover this angle. Prioryman (talk) 19:56, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I spent an hour on the phone with Roger before publication, not to mention large amounts of time and effort emailing with other stakeholders and sources. I'm a strong supporter of the Wikipedia towns scheme, and I love the innovative thinking behind the whole thing. It seems to me to be likely to play an important role in the movement. Please provide feedback on the "News and notes" talk page. Tony (talk) 08:01, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Score

Tony, you were very verbal in this edit, and did not explain the next. Would you, please? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:25, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Linking

Hi! Thank you for the message, sorry but linking dates comes naturally to me 'cause on it.wiki we use to do that :D I'll be more careful now! Bye! --Murray.it (talk) 11:29, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Romeo Antonio

Galactic Superstar
Many thanks for the help earlier today. Did you know Romeo when he lived and performed in Australia, mid-90's. ExtraRed (talk) 14:13, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

TFA blurb

Hi Tony, I was wondering what you think about a sentence on an upcoming TFA blurb. Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 6, 2012 includes the following sentence: "The book was his first detailed demonstration of the power of natural selection, showing how the benefits of cross-fertilisation lead to complex ecological relationships and the coevolution of orchids and insects, with cumulative small variations resulting in beautiful and complex functional forms which natural theology had attributed to a grand designer." It seems a bit off to me, what changes would you make to that? I'm trying to start keeping an eye on the blurbs, someone pointed out to me that there have been a few issues with them recently (including one I wrote). Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 20:03, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look at those, much appreciated. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:56, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

More TFA blurbs

Hey Tony. I noticed that you have removed the wikilinks for today's blurb, as well as the next two. I think this was unintentional, but I wanted to make sure. If you meant to do that, please excuse my ignorance. --Bongwarrior (talk) 02:17, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Not at all unintentional. Now readers will be more likely to click to the actual FA the text is all about—which itself contains all of the links in larger and better context. I do believe that offering dozens of diversions before readers even arrive at the FA is self-defeating in the context of TFA. Tony (talk) 02:20, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Ah, sorry about that then. There's a thread about this at Talk:Main Page, which is how I came to be aware of it, and I have to admit I'm not a fan of the change either. Was this discussed anywhere? --Bongwarrior (talk) 02:33, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi

Hi Tony, Baqir here — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baqir125 (talk • contribs) 13:55, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

hi

hi tony is it signed Baqir125 (talk) 14:02, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 October 2012

Re: Damage

Please be more specific. Are you referring to the Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis article? — QuicksilverT @ 02:12, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

It looks like someone has beat me to it and has changed all the em dashes to spaced en dashes. Wrong punctuation, doesn't conform to the Wikipedia style guide, and it looks awful to boot. I didn't put the article into its current condition and I'm not going to touch it. You do whatever you want. — QuicksilverT @ 15:00, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Why is it wrong punctuation? Spaced en dashes are commonplace. And so are unspaced em dashes. For example, see the excellent Scientific American. And many US style guides. You must be very used to seeing the use of spaced en dashes in all varieties of English; are you sure you're not basing your view on a narrow but memory-rich experience of just one house style? Also, could you think about my point concerning narrow-column text that is wrapped against images, infoboxes, and tables? Interested in your view. Tony (talk) 15:11, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
An em dash has an entirely different function from an en dash, just as a question mark has a different function from a period in a sentence. An em dash represents an interruption in train of thought or long pause; when used in pairs, it is sometimes interchangeable with a phrase enclosed in parentheses. An en dash represents a separator between words or is used in forming a compound phrase. It's possible that some typesetters substitute an en dash where an em dash should have been because they're setting up narrow columns for print publication and an em dash would look disproportionately wide. However, in hypertext displayed in a variable-width window on a computer, there's no reason to do that. We can find many pathological examples of bad punctuation in print and on the Web, supposedly put there by professional writers and editors, but it still doesn't make it right. If you can't see the difference on your computer, it could be due to the particular browser, operating system and installed font set combination you're using. On the computers I use, the hyphen, en dash and em dash look distinctly different, so much so that to see one used where another should have been quickly becomes annoying, just as if the writer had randomly used periods, commas and semicolons in inappropriate places.

My view isn't based on any narrow house style: My background is as an engineer who has worked many years in industry for various employers, dealing with standards and specifications documents, where a single incorrect character can result in a stopped contract, a failed product or a lawsuit. Some people may view what I do as pedantic, and I understand that.

I'm not sure what you mean by narrow-column text wrapped against images, etc.  I've occasionally seen problems with text overlapping images, infoboxes and tables, but with no em dashes or en dashes anywhere in the vicinity, and I've attributed it to quirks in the Wiki software. Moreover, the overlap in those cases often comes and goes, depending on the browser window width, which may be less than the screen maximum. I don't always run my browser maximized and assume others may view Web content with anything ranging from sub-VGA to XVGA display equipment. Perhaps you could provide a Wikipedia example for examination. — QuicksilverT @ 16:35, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 October 2012

Hi Tony, sorry for the delay in replying! Yes, those details are fine to put up there - though I notice they are a little bit out of date - I will fix these up soon! -- Chuq (talk) 23:29, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Government Hooker

This article is once again a featured article candidate, and I am hoping third time's the charm. Can I request you to provide a review of Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Government Hooker/archive3? Would be very appreciated! —DAP388 (talk) 12:09, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Bernard Williams (athlete)

Tony, I have just reverted most of your recent changes to the Bernard Williams (athlete) article. In particular, these reverted changes included:

1. delinking of any wiki link that appeared in both the infobox and the main body text; and

2. insertion of non-breaking hard space coding (i.e. " ") in the name of templates.

First, it is perfectly acceptable to have a wiki link in the article infobox, and then link to the same article in the main body text. Linking once in the infobox and once in the main body text does not violate WP:OVERLINK, as interpreted by GA and FA review. Although I cannot find any specific authority for it, many editors argue that linking in the lead and linking to the same term again in the main body text of very long articles is also perfectly acceptable. This is also the standard practice of WP:NFL, one which I have seen you use in CFB/NFL player articles.

Second, the insertion of hard spaces into navbox and other template names simply delinks the template and leaves a red link where the navbox or other template was. Moreover, in my experience, the insertion of hard spaces around "m" for meters and the like in infoboxes, etc., serves no useful purpose other than to clutter the coding of the article. Most infobox medal tables are already carefully calibrated/edited to avoid a two-line break in the presentation of a medal description; the hard space serves no purpose.

Thanks.

Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:57, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I unlinked only terms that shouldn't be linked at all in the context; but "track and field", sure, that's reasonable to link—it's not an issue of both-infobox-and-lead, but both or neither. US shouldn't be linked, per MOSLINK. I have a problem about our treatment of 4x100, etc, in sports—you'll see that the article name uses the multiplication sign and spaces, mandated by the ISO, but the piping doesn't. I can't work out which one it should be, but I do see that WP is very inconsistent in its usage; that much was obvious in the recent olympics articles. And I see a hyphenated 4x100-meters relay team, which I think is doubtful. What does 1-2-3 mean? I've reworded as a hunch. Could you justify the inclusion of the flag (in several places) as anything more than decorative? Tony (talk) 13:12, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Tony, template names are template names; you cannot insert new and different coding in the template names. These aren't article names; they are direct links to a transcluded navbox template. When you inserted the non-breaking spaces into the template name, it simply delinked the navbox and left a red link. Can you not see this when you proofread your edit? You are replacing a navbox with a red link. Please note that template names do not necessarily correspond to Wikipedia naming practices for mainspace articles.
Yes, I realised that after your post; didn't I fix it? Thanks for pointing out. Tony (talk) 14:36, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
As for the hyphenation of 4x100-meters relay, that requires some understanding of the hyphenation of adjectival phrases in American English (and in most other varieties, too). First, the spelling "metres" is Commonwealth English; the American English spelling is "meters." These are American athletes, not Brits, not Australians. We don't use Commonwealth spelling in biographies about Americans. Second, a footrace may be described as the "400 meters" without hyphenation; when an event is described as the "4x100-meters relay" or the "400-meter backstroke," the distances become adjectival phrases modifying the nouns "relay" and "backstroke." Adjectival phrases are usually and properly hyphenated in most varieties of English, including our own American English.
Who is using non-US spelling? I didn't? Nor did I insert the hyphen: I pointed it out to you, querying why it was there. I do have expertise in these matters, for all varieties. I note also that meter and m are used inconsistently. Tony (talk) 14:36, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
The actual WP article titles for these races (e.g., "4 x100 metres freestyle relay") use the Commonwealth spelling of "metres"; if you want to link to one of these articles and use standard American English in an article about an American athlete, you have to use a pipe link. Per your comment about inconsistent usage, I found the one remaining use of "m" in the main body text and replaced it. The use of the "m" abbreviation for meters is acceptable in space-limited infoboxes, but not in main body text. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:55, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Agree, but it's more the spacing and multi-sign dissonance that bothers me. Tony (talk) 05:10, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Personally, I think the use of the multiplication symbol in the article titles of relay races (e.g., "4 × 100 metres relay") is an amazing waste of time and effort. Any time a special ASCII character is substituted for a standard keyboard character it makes it more difficult for anyone to edit, but that's the way all of the swimming and track relay race articles are uniformly titled at present, and I have no desire to open that argument with the proponents of the multiplication sign. As far as I'm concerned, it is what it is.
It's a pity about the keyboard, yes, but can't be helped. The multiplication sign is readily available just below the edit-box (well, when the WMF fixes it—apparently they're fiddling at the moment). Tony (talk) 14:36, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Flag icons are uniformly used in the infobox medals tables of international athletes. The use of the flag icon in the main body of the athlete infobox (as opposed to the medals table) is disputed under MOSLINK since changes were made to MOSLINK by a local consensus at that talk page a year or so ago, without any widespread consultation with the Olympics, athletics, swimming, tennis, golf, gymnastics, and other international sports wikiprojects. The international sports wikiprojects continue to uniformly use the flag icons. There is a pending RfC on point. This a completely separate issue from delinking "United States" per WP:OVERLINK. We don't use flag icons in the infoboxes for MLB, NBA and NFL athletes because they are not international competitors, competing for their national teams. Note, however, for the handful of baseball and basketball players who have won Olympic or other international medals, that those infoboxes are structured so that a medals table may be added.
The use of flag icons has been the subject of a lot of tensions, and many/most editors don't like them. There are frequent complaints that they're decorations, adding no useful information. In some cases, they're confusing (some flags are extraordinarily misleading without the use of a magnifying glass). Tony (talk) 14:36, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Yup, hotly disputed by some, but still uniformly used in the medal tables of international athletes. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:55, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm not defending the "1-2-3" phrasing; it's stylistically poor and ambiguous in meaning. Better to describe such situations as "an American sweep of all three medals in the event," or something similar. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:27, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
"Sweep" would be a bit puffy. How do you like my plain rewording? Tony (talk) 14:36, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Your plain rewording is certainly an improvement. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:55, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at RobertG's talk page. Hope you don't count this as templating a regular! RobertG ♬ talk 19:11, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Linking

Cool, thanks for that, will make sure to avoid it in future. Lexstraviex talk 13:11, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

C'mon on back to the Teahouse!

It's easier than ever to be a Host at the Teahouse
Hi Tony1! The Teahouse has recently went through some design changes in order to improve it's usability for new editors and for our Hosts. As a former Host, we'd love to see you back. A few changes have taken place about hosting:
  • A new and improved Host Lounge which features calls to action and resources.
  • A simplified Host sign up process. It just takes a few simple steps to add your new profile to our new Host profile page.
  • Concerned about how much time you have to contribute? Don't be. With our new automated Host check in system Hosts can feel less pressure to participate outside of their volunteer capacity - only participate when you want.
  • Teahouse invitations are currently automated! We encourage you to keep inviting, but, there is no pressure or quotas as HostBot does the task for the you.

I hope you'll come back and join us, your skills at making new editors feel welcome and appreciated are invaluable to the Teahouse, and the Wikipedia community. See you there! EdwardsBot (talk) 17:32, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

"has recently went"? "it's" as a possessive? "as a former host, we'd"? Tony, mischief is afoot-- knowing your penchant for good English, they may be trying to entice you back to copyedit, in the hopes you will stick around! Don't take the bait! Kablammo (talk) 12:47, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Oops, yah, I hadn't noticed that clanger. I've made a few myself recently. Tony (talk) 12:52, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

This Month in Education: October 2012



Headlines

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

If this message is not on your home wiki's talk page, update your subscription · Distributed via Global message delivery, 23:11, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 October 2012

Ahem

Tony, have you seen this discussion: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking#What generally should not be linked -- can we bring this to closure? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:18, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Tony1. You have new messages at Guerillero's talk page.
Message added 15:38, 17 October 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Guerillero | My Talk 15:38, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

COI?

Tony, what makes you think I have a COI with regard to Gibraltar? Prioryman (talk) 19:05, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Bill Nye linking

Just curious, what makes "science educator" or "mechanical engineer" more linkworthy than "scientist" or "actor"? And why is "Seattle" alright, while the more topically relevant "Los Angeles" or "Washington" are not? InedibleHulk (talk) 22:04, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I replied to your reply on my talk page, if you were expecting it here. I prefer to keep discussions in one place. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:38, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 October 2012

Gibraltar DYKs

Jimbo has finally commented, recommending a 5-year moratorium on Gibraltar DYKs: [6] AndreasKolbe JN466 23:09, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Gibraltar, again --AndreasKolbe JN466 15:28, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK

I've picked up on some of the angst around DYK, and thought I'd shortcut some serious TLDR issues by coming to you with my question. I can see an RfC about Gibraltar stuff on DYK, I can see discussion about the misleading nature of "Did you know", I can see discussion about prioritising GAs in DYK, but... has anyone seriously proposed dropping DYK altogether from Main Page, recently? --Dweller (talk) 13:08, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes; please see Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Time_to_close_it_down.3F. Some people, including me, are very frustrated at the dogged resistance to reforming a very unsatisfactory forum that is no longer appropriate in a professionalised project. Plain bad PR on the main page, in my view. But we need a proper RfC that will allow the community to express clear preferences rather than scattergun suggestions, as has been happening. Tony (talk) 13:14, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Ah, OK. If a proper RfC starts, please do drop me a line. --Dweller (talk) 13:20, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Question

You said the following on the MF talk page:

Second, I quaver at the reaction of many female editors, who are on the whole more likely to take private offence and as we already know favour more strongly than males a harmonious environment; we face a desperate problem in the 90–10 gender split.

Could you please direct me to the source of this information? Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 19:38, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

It was my presumption, on the basis of experience of life. Tony (talk) 01:24, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
I wish you wouldn't do that. In my experience women are no more (or less) likely to be offended by the occasional swear word than are men. It would be better if you would only speak for yourself when you don't have sound sources that agree with your statements. I generally don't "out" myself as a woman because of people like you, and I am not speaking of men only, either. Best, Gandy Gandydancer (talk) 21:57, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
I don't understand the problem. It's clear that women are more turned off the aggressive WP editorial culture than men—it's in the survey data. And how else do you explain the 90–10 disparity? Tony (talk) 06:01, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps women may be more turned off by aggressive behavior than men, however if I remember correctly, the survey did not suggest that women found an occasional swear word to be aggressive. I have forgotten exactly what MF said, but it did not seem to me to be aggression on the part of MF. However, I wouldn't put too much trust in one survey of women that (if I remember correctly) mostly had dropped away from WP after editing for a spell--it is just much too easy to get a survey/poll to say anything you want it to say. I would agree with one thing that came out--women are more often than men the one to back down first, not that I've found that true in my dealings with women here... And, I don't remember if it's in the survey, but it's a known fact that when men assert themselves they are seen as assertive while when women do the same thing they are seen as bitches. They also are not generally seen to have the same degree of expertise as men. Those are the two main reasons that I usually keep my gender to myself. Interestingly, I was "outed" the other day by one of the arbs when we were having a disagreement. There was no reason for it when out of the blue she sarcastically called me "Ma'am". BTW, I have found that women are just as difficult as men, though I don't meet very many because my editing preference is mostly science related, and that is the last choice of most women here, or so the survey said.
It is my best guess that women are much less likely to edit here because they'd rather be part of a friendly group of people that like to "chat", or in other words a group of women. I also believe that women have much less spare time both at work and at home. If I wasn't retired and enjoy my "work" here as a good form of mental stimulation I'd never put up with all the bullshit that editing involves. I get along fairly well with most people here, but for the most part, these are not the funnist friends that I can imagine. I think that this place is overflowing with a lot of men who are much more comfortable here than in communication with flesh and blood people. Pesky says she guesses that there are a lot of "aspies" here, and I think she's right. Supposedly there is a 3 to 1 male aspie ratio. Gandydancer (talk) 23:43, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm very unconvinced by that supposed 90–10 disparity for several reasons, not least of which is that in my own editing I'd say the ratio has been more like 60–40 among the editors who've self-identified their gender, so it may even be more than that. I'd say as well that with very, very few exceptions I've never had any problems in dealing with female editors, nor they with me I think. The problematic editors for both males and females are not those who use an occasional naughty word or speak plainly. The real aggressive behaviour on Wikipedia is systemic, and symptomatic of a deeper malaise that eventually discourages everyone except the most committed cult leaders from contributing. That was demonstrated most convincingly by Jclemen's recent pronouncement that to be a Wikipedian you had to agree with and abide by the five pillars. Anyone who expresses dissent with that position must be shunned. Malleus Fatuorum 00:05, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
And I see another example of this endemic aggression in The Signpost's content page right below this: "Malleus Fatuorum accused of circumventing topic ban". I was accused of no such thing, there was simply a request for clarification about moving any thread I'd posted on to a talk page I was forbidden to edit. That that simple request so quickly deteriorated into the shitstorm it did tells its own story. Malleus Fatuorum 00:15, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
  • "it's a known fact that when men assert themselves they are seen as assertive while when women do the same thing they are seen as bitches"—yes, a well known tool in male power play.
  • "They also are not generally seen to have the same degree of expertise as men."—not sure that that's a general perception; women and men certainly do tend to have different skill profiles and interests. Don't they say that men are better at chess, reverse parking, and upper-body sports, and that women are better at everything else? :-)
  • "I was "outed" the other day by one of the arbs when we were having a disagreement."—I'm sorry to hear that; it might have been inadvertent. Actually, I think more women should declare themselves: it would be good for gender relations in the community.
  • "It is my best guess that women are much less likely to edit here because they'd rather be part of a friendly group of people that like to "chat", or in other words a group of women."—Reasonable assumption. Women tend to conduct friendships face to face, men side by side anchored in a ritualised activity. Maleness—and male power over women—is partly constructed around keeping male–male friendship within relatively narrow confines; this is why legal, social, and religious proscriptions on male homosexuality have been and still are usually much harsher than those on female homosexuality. We see exceptions to this in literature and the other arts, often arising from the need of artists to tell men to break out of the destructive male mould. It's just as well that WP communities interact in two online modes: on-wiki and off-wiki; all editors of both genders probably benefit from a bit of emailing and skyping with each other, to relate on a more personal (female?) level.
  • "I also believe that women have much less spare time both at work and at home."—Not an assumption I'd make.
  • "there are a lot of "aspies" here,"—yup ... and remember there are gradations of aspieness. "Supposedly there is a 3 to 1 male[–female] aspie ratio"—or more.
  • "I think that this place is overflowing with a lot of men who are much more comfortable here than in communication with flesh and blood people."—Not sure about "a lot of", but certainly some males withdraw to html interactions because they don't succeed face to face. You didn't mention that the chapters (and the WCA) are overwhelmingly populated by men, another gender challenge for the WM movement.
  • Malleus: "an occasional naughty word or speak plainly"—but would you use aggressive obscenities in a TV interview, or at a prize-giving ceremony, or in countless other social situations? I think you're being inflexible. I do agree that agression comes in many forms on WP, some of them used cynically within the envelope of "allowable" behaviour. Tony (talk) 02:29, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
    I would, if I considered it to be appropriate. I can well imagine asking Jeremy Paxman, for instance, just who the the fuck he thinks he is. And in fact I think one of his interviewees, who was arguing that depriving prisoners of the vote was a breach of their human rights, did something very much like that during a BBC interview with him. I don't know what broadcast TV is like in Australia, but here's an example from a nationally broadcast quiz show here in the UK.[7] You might also find this interesting if you haven't already seen it. Malleus Fatuorum 02:49, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
I do not find swearing to be aggressive in the least. Actually I rather like it when used correctly. It seems so "OK, you go to the principle's office this instant" for WP to get their undies in such a bundle when a Wikipedia editor swears. Most of the real aggression here is done with a smirk. Gandydancer (talk) 01:19, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Tony1, are you saying that some female editors aren't grossly offensive sometimes? They may be differently offensive than men, but no less severely and no less frequently. Just look at how a female editor completely ignores policy-based arguments presented to them. Maybe many female editors wouldn't consider that editor's behavior offensive. I do. Oh, and she just so happens to be the one who started the arbitration request against Malleus. Coincidence? I don't know... --213.168.117.135 (talk) 13:35, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Everyone can be offensive or agreeable—child or adult, female or male. There are Gaussian curves and outliers for everything. I'm uncomfortable that you've used my talk page to cast aspersions on someone. I don't know the editor or the situation, and I don't much care. Tony (talk) 14:10, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
you've used my talk page to cast aspersions on someone -- Nope. I just matter-of-factly stated that this particular editor is ignoring policy-based arguments. That's not "casting aspersions". Also, it's not just any "someone". It's a female editor, and she happens to be the same person who started the latest Malleus witch hunt. All highly relevant to the topic at hand, and that's the case completely regardless of whether or not you care, or conventiently opt not to. --87.78.23.196 (talk) 14:16, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Tony, You said, "You didn't mention that the chapters (and the WCA) are overwhelmingly populated by men, another gender challenge for the WM movement." I don't know what those initials stand for. You also said, "I think more women should declare themselves: it would be good for gender relations in the community." That's easy for you to say. Editing science articles is hard enough already and you think I should make it even more time consuming and exasperating. Right now I'm trying to get even just one sentence into the meningitis article so that people can find the new fungal meningitis outbreak article that I've been working on, but without any luck so far. It's hard enough as it is what with the biologists wanting you off all "their" articles, same for the chemists, same for the physicians, etc. In my experience a lot of my co-editors on some of these articles are control freaks who fear that all of science will be ruined if their narrow viewpoint of what our science articles should look like is not followed. It is well-known that some white males are hell bent in their quest to control Mother Nature and that they get edgy if they think they may lose control. Now, that said, on the other hand for the most part WP rocks and I am constantly amazed at what a good job editors do here--I am not really an old sour puss the way it might begin to sound when I am complaining.

And finally, re this exchange: "I was "outed" the other day by one of the arbs when we were having a disagreement."—I'm sorry to hear that; it might have been inadvertent. " No, it was not inadvertent unless it is possible that in three or four sentences, one of them speaking of the fact that I was not the queen of England, a person that I've never had an exchange with till that time could even figure out that I was a woman and call me Ma'am three times. Enough said about that--I didn't come here to complain about that incident. Gandydancer (talk) 03:08, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Tony1. You have new messages at Jethro B's talk page.
Message added 23:35, 27 October 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Jethro B 23:35, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Requested moves

Hi. This is to let you know that I have proposed multiple page moves at Talk:Disability judo classification#Requested move 3 and have also proposed a move at Talk:Disability racquetball classification#Requested move 3. I am sending the same message to everyone who commented on the previous round of move requests for these articles. Regards, --Stfg (talk) 12:36, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Sydney edit-a-thon invitation

Hi there! You are cordially invited to a disability edit-a-thon Saturday week (10 November) in Sydney. If you are unable to attend in person, we will also be collaborating online before, during and after the meetup. Details an attendee list are at Wikipedia:Meetup/Sydney/November 2012. Hope you can make it! John Vandenberg 15:30, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

(this automated message was delivered using replace.py to all users in Sydney)

MOS

As you know I am staying away from the MOS for a month, but could you or someone make an obvious edit - in the section Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section#Format of the first sentence the example is given of trying to make the title bold "The Beatles in the United States" in the lead sentence "The Beatles' rise to prominence in the United States on February 7, 1964 was a significant development in the history of the band's commercial success." The part that should be bold is all of the parts of the title that appear:

"The Beatles' rise to prominence in the United States on February 7, 1964 was a significant development in the history of the band's commercial success." - adding "in the" to the part that is bolded. Apteva (talk) 18:44, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Bill Nye

I see that you have tried to clean up some of the overlinking at this article. I too have removed some low-value links; I'm getting some resistance from a user who inexplicably wants things like "Washington D.C." and "World War II" to be linked. If you have the chance to check on it from time to time, the extra pair of eyes would be appreciated. If you're too busy or too frustrated to deal with it, I certainly understand. Joefromrandb (talk) 01:43, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

The user started one of the threads above on this talk page. Yes, of course it's a weakening of the linking system to provide link-signals to readers for Washington DC and WW2 in an article on that subject. The only people who'd click (very very rare indeed, I'd say) are those who want to randomly browse, and a six-year-old child who's never heard of either. WP caters for English-speakers with a reasonable knowledge of the world around them, who want specific information from an article they've arrived at. Random-browse behaviour just needs a small amount of typing into the search box. I'm very busy in RL, but have been watchlisting this article. I removed a generalised link to "United States" at the top, which has thankfully remained unlinked after great resistance from that editor. I didn't want to engage in an edit-war over the other items you mentioned. Tony (talk) 02:32, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 October 2012

fine work!

The Signpost Barnstar
For excellent work on "News and notes" each week, among other contributions, I award Tony1 The Signpost Barnstar.--ragesoss (talk) 14:10, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm a bit concerned about this comment you made: [8] Such serious accusations need to be backed up before you make them, as they have the effect of poisoning the well (i.e. "Have you stopped beating your wife?") --Rschen7754 09:50, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

ANI discussion

In case you don't know, you have been mentioned in a discussion at ANI here.Nigel Ish (talk) 11:05, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 November 2012

CfD nomination of Category:Second language acquisition

I have proposed that Category:Second language acquisition be renamed to Category:Second-language acquisition, and I am notifying you because you either participated in discussions about the hyphenation of "second(-)language acquisition" on the article's talk page, or because you participated in the previous CfD discussion. I would be grateful if you could give your opinion on the latest discussion, which you can find at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 November 10#Category:Second language acquisition. Thank you for your time. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 03:12, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

General Schedule

You may be interested in Talk:General Schedule (US civil service pay scale)#Requested move as you moved the article from "General Schedule" in 2011. DrKiernan (talk) 18:01, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 November 2012

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Mexican-American War". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 22 November 2012.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 02:41, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Not this yawn again ... I don't know where it is. I have almost no time at the moment. I'll try to look some time. Tony (talk) 02:46, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

This Month in Education: November 2012



Headlines

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

If this message is not on your home wiki's talk page, update your subscription · Distributed via Global message delivery, 02:25, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

pics

hi Tony1, thanks for asking and for the coverage, and of course I like the pic :) Pundit|utter 09:58, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Per the name, I am serving in the FDC under my full name, as I think it is important for transparency and accountability purposes, so using it is absolutely fine, but thanks for asking! Pundit|utter 10:05, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Are nominations for the 2012 Most Poorly Wikilinked Article Awards closed?

Hello Tony1,

Sorry for this rather random and silly question but, after coming across this gem ([9]), couldn't resist the temptation to nominate this yet another gem: Gimmick. So insightful are some of the links there that I felt as if the Holy Spirit had enlightened me. I'd really like to share my blissitude – yup, new religious experiences, new words – with the community.

Best,

Cocolacoste (talk) 04:50, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

PS, Joking aside, useful though they are sometimes, those blue thingies really hack me off. I mean, what's the use of handing everything on a plate to the reader? A murderous attempt on curiosity, to say the least.

Tee hee! Toothbrush, child, consumers ... it's weird and you are perfectly on track for the sane-linker of the year award. Wikilinking requires skill, like prose ... that's what I think, anyway. Tony (talk) 06:50, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
"Plastic", sire, you are forgetting "plastic". And "consumers" ... hmmmm ... dunno what to make of it.
Absolutely agree, wikilinking does require skills and – more importantly p'haps – intuition. Must confess, though, that clicking on them is one of my guilty (morbid?) pleasures: they sometimes take you to weirdly unexpected lands.
Nominations reopened, then? Cocolacoste (talk) 07:39, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
And we do have that very intelligent first pillar of the project: WP is not a dictionary. :-) Tony (talk) 08:20, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Mexican-American War, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 00:29, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

JSTOR

Hi there. You're one of the first 100 people to sign up for a free JSTOR account via the requests page. We're ready to start handing out accounts, if you'd still like one.

JSTOR will provide you access via an email invitation, so to get your account, please email me (swalling@wikimedia.org) with...

  • the subject line "JSTOR"
  • your English Wikipedia username
  • your preferred email address for a JSTOR account

The above information will be given to JSTOR to provide you with your account, but will otherwise remain private. Please do so by November 30th or drop me a message to say you don't want/need an account any longer. If you don't meet that deadline, we will assume you have lost interest, and will provide an account to the next person in the rather long waitlist.

Thank you! Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 21:37, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 November 2012

Election coordination

Tony1,

If you have the time, I'd love it if you helped out coordinating the election again this year.--Tznkai (talk) 06:38, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Requested move of Transport in the Palestinian territories

You may want to participate in Talk:Transport in the Palestinian territories#Requested move because you participated in Talk:Economy of the Palestinian territories#Economy of the Palestinian Territories. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 02:46, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 November 2012

The Signpost: 03 December 2012

Re: 'Um ... why the revert?'

Sir,

Thank you for taking the time to copy-edit the page Introduction to the Summit. I also appreciate you taking the time to message me about the revert. I assure you that your time was certainly not wasted here. The idea behind the revert was to incorporate a majority of the changes you've made, into the article, while undoing a few others which I felt didn't need a change:

  • The 'shall-will' edits.
  • 'Apperceived-Perceived' edit - Here, in the sentence - "Being the free and open knowledge-base that Wikipedia is, there is ample opportunity and methods of its usage for each and every individual to immensely benefit from. India, as a nation, can be apperceived by the global community and in return, our culture and lifestyle can be better appreciated and understood through this large and upheld platform." - 'apperceived' is meant in terms of 'mental perception ; esp: the process of understanding something perceived in terms of previous experience' (Merriam-Webster's Dictionary).
  • Some 'will-would' edits.

This is about the size of it, barring a few minor ones. Since I had planned to work on these edits later during the day, they hadn't been incorporated immediately. It makes more sense to undo the revert, keeping a majority of your changes intact and editing the few others mentioned above, instead. I will do exactly that.

No offense was intended by the revert. I'd be grateful to you for your expert inputs on our other pages as well, if and when time permits you. I'm aware that you don't usually copy-edit pages as such.

Best wishes,

Avani Pandya 17:37, 10 December 2012 (UTC) Avanipandya (talk)

No. Tony (talk) 00:08, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 December 2012

Ping

I never got back to you in August, but see here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:36, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

This Month in Education: December 2012



Headlines

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

If this message is not on your home wiki's talk page, update your subscription · Distributed via Global message delivery, 22:41, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Hi Tony1,

Happy holidays to you! I just wanted to stop by and thank you again for your wonderful tutorials. I see that you've added a page on ambiguity that is very helpful. I was wondering if you've had any progress with the usage of the deictics, "a" and "the." I had never really thought about how non-native English-speakers may have difficulties with articles but, after talking with you last year, I have really started to notice. On the news station, France24, for instance, although the narrators are fluent in English, they almost invariably use the word "hospital" without an article. (ie: The man was taken to hospital.") My Russian friend will often say things like, "I have problem. In weld-bay, crane is broken." I read Halliday's book and, you're right, he doesn't get into it in enough detail. I'd be interested to see your explanation, However, I understand that you may be busy and probably don't have the time.

One of my biggest interests is studying how non-humans (namely my dogs) react to language. They seem to understand deictics such as "I," "you," "here," or "there" in relation to my position, but there is no way to know if they understand from their own position. However, they definitely understand "left" and "right." They understand that "left side" refers to my left, but "turn left" refers to their own starting-position.

The coquetry I have to live with

Anyhow, I'm probably taking up too much of your time. Thanks again, and Merry Christmas! Zaereth (talk) 21:12, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Zaereth, thank you! "Hospital" is idiomatic without "the" in that case. And "take the kids to school", too. Still thinking about that. So complicated. Tutorial on "the/a" is not likely till next winter (i.e. southern winter), which is when I have the discretionary time.

Dogs are certainly very good at human language, depending on breed and individual. I suspect it's purely lexical, without any grammatical understanding, whereas some apes and bonobos have demonstrated a grasp of very rudimentary aspects of grammar. But it's still a foreign skill to them, rather like humans learning to spacewalk—we can do it, but it's just not normal. Party trick.

There's work on apes and language by William Greaves, a systemic functional linguist: Functional Dimensions of Ape–Human Discourse, on Amazon here, I see. Not sure what the book is like. Tony (talk) 01:25, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I understand about "hospital." It's sort of like "going into space" versus "going into the space," however, it sounds strange here in the US. Here, it is usually either "the hospital," meaning the nearest hospital, or "a hospital," meaning one of any number. Anyhow, I'd still be interested to see what you come up with; time permitting of course.
With dogs, I used to think it was purely lexical, but now I'm not so sure. My old bloodhound had a vocabulary of 26 words, and could only understand one at a time. My German Shepherds have a vocabulary of hundreds, and those are just the ones I'm positive they understand. (Dogs are masters at "playing dumb.") They can also seem to make out full sentences, and seem to, at least in part, follow the grammatical functions as well. For instance, when they want something, I always ask them what it is, and they will bark when say the correct thing. I will ask questions like, "Do you want to go potty?" or, "Are you hungry?" However, if I do not ask in the form of a question, they will not respond. I have to say "Are you hungry?" rather than just "You hungry?" or "Do you want some food?" rather that simply saying food. No matter how hungry they are, they will not answer unless I phrase the sentence correctly. It's fascinating, trying to figure out what's going on in there.
Anyhow, thanks again. No worries, no hurries. Zaereth (talk) 09:55, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
I think that in all varieties of English, including AmEng, going to the hospital means to a specific one that the reader knows from the surrounding text or from common knowledge, including some kind of default the nearest/local hospital; going to hospital means going to any hospital generally—as it were, hospitalised. She went to the hospital for weekly infusions, but get meningitis and you'll end up in hospital. Space (meaning outer space, not the space between the Earth and the Moon that Apollo 14 had to traverse) seems to be one of the special cases that non-native speakers have to memorise (how tedious to have to do this)—the equator, but Europe; Lake Superior, but the Pacific Ocean and the Thames. It's so subtle and complex that I find it very hard to reverse-engineer; but that's what has to be done to provide second-language learners with a good resource. Yikes.

On the grammar of questions picked up by dogs: not entirely coincidentally, the same William Greaves (and Halliday) published a book Tone in English Grammar in 2008, complete with a DVD of audio examples; I don't find the book very satisfactory for a number of reasons, but it does bring out the richness of tone in the language, as a device for grammatical choice. I've long suspected that dogs pick up the melody of one's utterances more than the actual lexical articulations; so I wonder to what extent your dogs are responding the upward tone (Tone 2, rising) at the end of your tone group, which signals "polarity uncertain" (i.e. I don't know whether the answer is yes or no, but it's one of the two). Note that for a content question, you'll use Tone 1 (falling): "where do you want to go potty?", since the answer can't be a polar yes or no. The examples of questions you put to your canine friends are all polar. The alternative that might play into this is that the dogs pick up the clause-initial "Do" and "Are". It's possible that dogs are much more sensitive to the opening of an utterance that to the rest of it, don't you think? Tony (talk) 12:11, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I think possibly the latter. Dogs seem to respond more to pitch than tone (I've tried), wherein a high pitch is happy and a low pitch is angry. With their little peanut-sized brains and, especially, short puppyhood, I don't dare think they have nearly the cognitive abilities that humans have. In some abilities, such as in the geometry of pursuit, they seem to excel. However, they definitely don't process information quite the way we do. The only possible verbal answer they can give me is either a bark for "yes," or silence for "no," so its really hard to tell. My general assumption is that they develop a cognitive understanding similar to that of a one or two year-old child, but never any more. Who knows? But it's fun to guess. :-) Zaereth (talk) 13:11, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

The upswing of 2011

Hi Tony1, your caption and the article talk of an upswing in voters and candidates in 2012. But according to this snazzy graph of yours the upturn really came in 2011. ϢereSpielChequers 00:16, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Well spotted, WSC, and thank you. Fixed now. Gee it's a hassle making the text on Excel graphs big enough for thumbnail display here. I've bolded, boosted to 16 pt—still only just legible on my screen. Tony (talk) 01:10, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 December 2012

Merry Christmas

Smallbones(smalltalk) 01:11, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Season's tidings!

To you and yours, Have a Merry ______ (fill in the blank) and Happy New Year! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 04:11, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

RFC/U for Apteva: move to close

I am notifying all participants in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Apteva that Dicklyon has moved to close the RFC/U, with a summary on the talkpage. Editors may now support or oppose the motion, or add comments:

Please consider adding your signature, so that the matter can be resolved.

Best wishes,

NoeticaTea? 04:19, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

'Tis that season again...

Happy Holidays!
Hope you and your family are enjoying the holiday season, Tony! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:13, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Signpost barnstar

The Signpost Barnstar
To each of the generous contributors at the Signpost who wrote articles during what is a busy holiday time in much of the English-speaking world, thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia and happy holidays. Pine✉ 06:13, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 December 2012

Happy Boxing Day! - I thought this person had gone ...

... and what a bloody cheek; I just happened to notice this
Cheers! –
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard| 10:09, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Sydney meetup invitation: January 2013

Hi there! You are cordially invited to attend a meetup being held on Thursday 10 January 2013. Details an attendee list are at Wikipedia:Meetup/Sydney/January 2013. Hope you can make it! John Vandenberg 10:09, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

(this automated message was delivered using replace.py to all users in Sydney)

Sydney fireworks

Happy new year, Tony! Our news programmes always show the Sydney fireworks on New Year's Eve—Sydney being the big place that begins the new year the first, I think—and they were really something extra this year. Hope you're doing well, all good wishes for 2013! (Which will start in five minutes where I am.) Bishonen | talk 22:55, 31 December 2012 (UTC).

Thanks for your kind thoughts, Bishonen. :-) Tony (talk) 01:00, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 December 2012

Happy New Year!

Best wishes for the New Year!
Wishing you and yours a joyous, healthful, and productive 2013!

Please accept a belated thank you for the well wishes upon my retirement as FAC delegate, and apologies for the false alarm of my first—and hopefully last—retirement; the well wishes extended me were most kind, but I decided to return, re-committed, when another blocked sock was revealed as one of the factors aggravating the FA pages this year.

Maintaining standards in featured content requires vigilance, dedication and knowledge of people like you, who are needed; reviews are always welcome at FAC, FAR and TFA requests. Somehow, somehow we never ever seem to do nothin' completely nice and easy, but here's hoping that 2013 will see a peaceful road ahead and a return to the quality and comaraderie that defines the FA process, with the help of many dedicated Wikipedians!

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

beppe costa

thank you for your help. Happy new year--37.117.194.63 (talk) 10:38, 5 January 2013 (UTC) I'm sorry, I'm me!--Beppecosta (talk) 10:39, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 January 2013

Prose review?

As the resident prose guru, could you cast your eye over two articles that I've imported (cc-by-sa) from the Dictionary of Sydney and brought up to Good Article? They are Norman Selfe and Florence Violet McKenzie - fascinating characters both of them! I'd like to know, having never done it before, whether either of these is near to being able to pass as FA candidates. Sincerely, Wittylama 01:46, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Grammar assistance – Aan de Poel

Hi Tony I greatly admire your tutorials. I'd like your assistance, in the article on Aan de Poel there is a a dispute regarding a point of grammar. I'd be ingratiated if you provide us with your educated opinion.

p.s. I am bringing this matter up since the same issue has surfaced in over half dozen other restaurant stubs and your opinion my restore some WP:Civility into this situation BO | Talk 15:15, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Is and has been are both problems in terms of WP's guidelines on the current; they'd need to be changed after 2013. Was seems to get around these, since the award has already been made. Tony (talk) 12:18, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
First, I don't like the pushing and following around that mr. Bochman is doing. Secondly, after the announcement of the stars for 2014 the sentence will change anyway. The possibilities are "It is awarded two Michelin stars for the period 2013-present" (when they retain the second star) or "(...)that was awarded one Michelin star for the period 2009–2012 and for 2014. In 2013, it carried two Michelin stars." (when it looses a star).
Quite disappointing is that he is now hammering me on the phrase "up scale" . Mr. Bochman fails to recognise the British English I use and pushes his American English. Okay, English is my second language bur mr. Bochman should be able to know that English has more tastes on offer then American English. He is also hammering me on the "quality restaurant" as being POV. I guess he does not know that Michelin starred restaurants are judged on the quality of their food. But no bother, too many people don't know that, so I have filed a request at WP:Bot request to change it to "fine dining restaurant". The Banner talk 15:23, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Upscale is normally one word (as a verb). Is is ungrammatical. There are a number of errors in the examples you provide above. Tony (talk) 23:28, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Protection

Hi, Tony. I note your workload is on turbo. :-( I hope you're doing well in yourself, at least! About your question here, it seems to be a… habit with the user. I suppose we may see Ruslik0, who unprotected, taken to RFAR over it, per this. Bishonen | talk 11:47, 13 January 2013 (UTC).

This Month in Education: January 2013



Headlines

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

If this message is not on your home wiki's talk page, update your subscription · Distributed via Global message delivery, 21:16, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 January 2013

The Signpost: 21 January 2013

E-mail

Already asked Asaf long ago to change my adress, but he always forget. Béria Lima msg 01:40, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Reichstag (building) RM

You previously participated in a RM discussion regarding the Reichstag (building) article. I have proposed another move of the article at Talk:Reichstag (building) if you care to participate in the new discussion. —  AjaxSmack  19:41, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

The King and I is at FAC

Hi, Tony. The King and I has been nominated for FAC. I see that you have reviewed FACs in this area before. It would be great if you could take a look at the article and give comments at the FAC. Thanks for any time you could spare! -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:28, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 January 2013

150-year-old vehicles

"The men were driving a Victorian registered white rental van displaying the business name, Vipertec Pressure Cleaning."

Damn! You sure know how to look after a vehicle in Australia! :-P Matthewedwards (talk · contribs) 07:38, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

February 2013

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on here. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:58, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Lolwut? This is nowhere near a personal attack... and I'm going to assume you know about WP:DTTR, so what's your purpose here? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 14:04, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Ed, you're smart enough to know WP:TTR too :-) If you cannot see the personal attack - and the inappropriateness of the WP:BATTLE mentality shown there, then I'll start to wonder about you. That was nothing but a post made in anger - and the wise wikipedian signs out and goes for a tea before ever doing that (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:28, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
True. :-) I just am never in favor of templating regulars, as opposed to leaving a real message. I also don't like warning people when they are clearly frustrated. A gentle note, saying "calm down, talk a short walk, and don't let this go farther" would have been much more effective. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 14:46, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Ed, for the same reason you say above, sometimes it's safer to use a template. Calling any editor "destructive" is a violation of WP:NPA. You'll notice the hilarity - Tony actually messaged me, suggesting that I could actually be blocked for gently reminding someone via a standard template. Blocked for that? Really? Time for someone to click the X in the top right corner for a few hours (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:25, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

(e.c.) Bwilkins, the actions of Sandstein were among the most ill-considered and counterproductive I've ever seen on en.WP. You'd think Sandstein was quite unaware of the editor retention crisis. By rude constrast, it's extraordinary that many admins are allowed to get off scot-free when they flagrantly ignore the WP:UNINVOLVED policy. Does Sandstein issue them his "warnings", which involve the exposure of an editor to discretionary sanctions? ... I don't think so. It's double-standards on full display. No wonder adminship is a badge a lot of people wouldn't care to wear, myself included. Why tarnish oneself?

I'll repeat my comments here, where a lot of people will see them, rather than be censored by the likes of you, BWilkins:


Tony (talk)


No, BWilkins, time for you to back off, rather than show what a bad admin you are. Can you please concentrate on providing examples to other admins of good practice, rather than trying to inflame situations, and further damage the social milieu. I believe you agreed to the policy that requires the opposite, when you went for your RFA. Tony (talk) 03:04, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
BWilkins, if you cannot distinguish between "personal attacks" and legitimate disgust at grossly unskillful and destructive admin actions then it is time for you to hang up your bit. --Epipelagic (talk) 09:20, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

You were mentioned . . .

. . . here. Best regards, Kablammo (talk) 20:03, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 February 2013

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dirtlawyer1

Hello, Tony1. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dirtlawyer1.
Message added -- Trevj (talk) 15:01, 8 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Tea Leaf - Issue Seven

Check out the Teahouse Genie Badge, awarded for solving issues on the Teahouse Wishlist.

Hello again! We have some neat updates about the Teahouse:

  • And...for all of your great work and all of the progress that you've helped the Teahouse make, we hereby award you the Host Badge:


Teahouse Host Badge Teahouse Host Badge
Awarded to hosts at the Wikipedia Teahouse.

Experienced editors with this badge have committed to welcoming guests, helping new editors, and upholding the standards of the Teahouse by giving friendly and patient guidance—at least for a time.

Hosts illuminate the path for new Wikipedians, like Tōrō in a Teahouse garden.

Earn more badges at: Teahouse Badges
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

Thanks again! Ocaasi 02:01, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

RfA questions

Tony, it's 3:00 a.m. here. I just got up to get a drink of water, checked the computer, and found your latest statements and questions.

I will gladly answer your "supplemental" questions in the RfA Q&A section, but before I do so, I respectfully request that you do the following:

1. Organize and format your questions consistently with that of the standard organization and formatting of the RfA Q&A section so that we honor the standard format and procedures, and so that others more easily follow and understand the thread. This includes numbering your questions, and ordering them following those of Neotarf.

2. Your questions tend to include long lead-ins with statements of background, assumptions, interpretations and facts you consider pertinent, but also include elements that require further discussion and explanation by anyone who attempts to answer the actual questions at the end of those paragraphs. Can you please rephrase and restructure so that your questions are single-sentence affairs that lend themselves to being answered in two or three sentences, rather than in essays measured in pages? When we create text walls, we are obscuring the issues at hand, and losing our audience.

3. Please re-read my previous answers to Questions 6 and 11. Several of the answers that you seem to be seeking in your latest round of questions have already been answered, including my statement that I will not take an any action as an administrator in MOS matters because I believe it lends itself to the appearance of a conflict of interest or prior involvement.

I am assuming you are asking these questions in good faith, and not in some attempt to hijack the RfA, play the gotcha game, or provide more material for McCandlish's hyperbolic text walls. I request that you respect the RfA process, and permit me to answer this next round of questions and then move on. In fairness to me as the candidate, I think asking a total of four or five questions, with straightforward and honest answers by the candidate, should be sufficient for any single interrogator, don't you?

I will do my best to answer your questions when I get up in four hours. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 08:22, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Sorry, I'm not good at indents (squinting to see the number of colons, etc). I'll try to fix in a few hours when I'm free. Tony (talk) 09:02, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Courtesy notification

You were mentioned in this ANI discussion, now closed. —Neotarf (talk) 01:12, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Talk about a dramafest, that RFA. Tony (talk) 02:40, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Tony, I've got a policy question in one of your favorite areas. Can you address the questions/issues/policies raised by RyanVesey at the bottom of the section entitled "Suggested reading" at my user talk page. I'm going to butt out of this debate. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:31, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 February 2013

Notification of discussion

A few months ago, you participated in a discussion on Wikipedia talk:Did you know about Gibraltar-related DYKs on the Main Page. I am proposing that the temporary restrictions on such DYKs, which were imposed in September 2012, should be lifted and have set out a case for doing so at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Gibraltar-related DYKs. If you have a view on this, please comment at that page. Prioryman (talk) 21:49, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Notice of discussiont to revamp WP:FS

As a formerly active discussant at WT:FSC, I would like to call your attention to Wikipedia talk:Featured sound candidates#Proposal to revamp FS.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:09, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

This Month in Education: February 2013



Headlines

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

If this message is not on your home wiki's talk page, update your subscription · Distributed via Global message delivery, 19:41, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

WT:FSC proposal

I am kind of thinking that you did not understand my proposal. I left you a note that I thought it gives you a chance to do exactly what you want to do with FSC, yet you opposed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:05, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Tony, long-time no-type. It's not really what I want, but what the community decides, of course. I can only raise what I see as significant conceptual and structural problems with FSC as it used to be, and make suggestions (although I don't have the answers ... waiting for others to come up with them). I'm wary of bloated text in criteria, and it seems difficult to legislate for "quality". Music files are so multifaceted and complicated to assess ... in fact, you see this complexity in the operation of copyright law, where it's possible to have composer/composer's estate, performer(s), the publishers of the music score, the audio-engineer(s), and the recording company all exercising claims to ownership. What a tangled web. Tony (talk) 11:55, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
My intention was to make it easier for people who want to legislate for quality. I envisioned that the people who wanted higher quality would give the people who wanted to stay with the old criteria good sound recognition in exchange for being left alone to decide a new higher FS criteria. That would have gotten all the people who want recognition for finding more "basic" works like pedestrian national anthems out of the hair of people who wanted to write a more stringent set of criteria. I think it is going to be very difficult to raise the standards without a splitlevel set of criteria. However, I am glad to see that most discussion seems to be level-headed. Maybe we can work it out as a single FS. Time will tell.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:35, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 February 2013

The Tea Leaf - Issue Seven (special Birthday recap)

A celebratory cupcake from the Teahouse Birthday Badge

It's been a full year since the Teahouse opened, and as we're reflecting on what's been accomplished, we wanted to celebrate with you.

Teahouse guests and hosts are sharing their stories in a new blog post about the project.

1 year statistics for Teahouse visitors compared to invited non-visitors from the pilot:

Metric Control group Teahouse group Contrast
Average retention (weeks with at least 1 edit) 5.02 weeks 8.57 weeks 1.7x retention
Average number of articles edited 58.7 articles 116.9 edits 2.0x articles edited
Average talk page edits 36.5 edits 85.6 edits 2.4x talk page edits
Average article space edits 129.6 edits 360.4 edits 2.8x article edits
Average total edits (all namespaces) 182.1 edits 532.4 edits 2.9x total edits

Over the past year almost 2000 questions have been asked and answered, 669 editors have introduced themselves, 1670 guests have been served, 867 experienced Wikipedians have participated in the project, and 137 have served as hosts. Read more project analysis in our CSCW 2013 paper

Last month January was our most active month so far! 78 profiles were created, 46 active hosts answered 263 questions, and 11 new hosts joined the project.

Come by the Teahouse to share a cup of tea and enjoy a Birthday Cupcake! Happy Birthday to the Teahouse and thank you for a year's worth of interest and support :-)

-- Ocaasi and the rest of the Teahouse Team 20:50, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
You are receiving The Tea Leaf after expressing interest or participating in the Teahouse! To add or remove yourself for receiving future newsletters, please update the list here

The Teahouse Turns One!

It's been an exciting year for the Teahouse and you were a part of it. Thanks so much for visiting, asking questions, sharing answers, being friendly and helpful, and just keeping Teahouse an awesome place. You can read more about the impact we're having and the reflections of other guests and hosts like you. Please come by the Teahouse to celebrate with us, and enjoy this sparkly cupcake badge as our way of saying thank you. And, Happy Birthday!


Teahouse First Birthday Badge Teahouse First Birthday Badge
Awarded to everyone who participated in the Wikipedia Teahouse during its first year!

To celebrate the many hosts and guests we've met and the nearly 2000 questions asked and answered during this excellent first year, we're giving out this tasty cupcake badge.

Earn more badges at: Teahouse Badges
--Ocaasi and the rest of the Teahouse Team 22:39, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 February 2013

WikiCup 2013 February newsletter

Round 1 is now over. The top 64 scorers have progressed to round 2, where they have been randomly split into eight pools of eight. At the end of April, the top two from each pool, as well as the 16 highest scorers from those remaining, will progress to round 3. Commiserations to those eliminated; if you're interested in still being involved in the WikiCup, able and willing reviewers will always be needed, and if you're interested in getting involved with other collaborative projects, take a look at the WikiWomen's Month discussed below.

Round 1 saw 21 competitors with over 100 points, which is fantastic; that suggests that this year's competition is going to be highly competative. Our lower scores indicate this, too: A score of 19 was required to reach round 2, which was significantly higher than the 11 points required in 2012 and 8 points required in 2011. The score needed to reach round 3 will be higher, and may depend on pool groupings. In 2011, 41 points secured a round 3 place, while in 2012, 65 was needed. Our top three scorers in round 1 were:

  1. Colorado Sturmvogel_66 (submissions), primarily for an array of warship GAs.
  2. London Miyagawa (submissions), primarily for an array of did you knows and good articles, some of which were awarded bonus points.
  3. New South Wales Casliber (submissions), due in no small part to Canis Minor, a featured article awarded a total of 340 points. A joint submission with Alaska Keilana (submissions), this is the highest scoring single article yet submitted in this year's competition.

Other contributors of note include:

Featured topics have still played no part in this year's competition, but once again, a curious contribution has been offered by British Empire The C of E (submissions): did you know that there is a Shit Brook in Shropshire? With April Fools' Day during the next round, there will probably be a good chance of more unusual articles...

March sees the WikiWomen's History Month, a series of collaborative efforts to aid the women's history WikiProject to coincide with Women's History Month and International Women's Day. A number of WikiCup participants have already started to take part. The project has a to-do list of articles needing work on the topic of women's history. Those interested in helping out with the project can find articles in need of attention there, or, alternatively, add articles to the list. Those interested in collaborating on articles on women's history are also welcome to use the WikiCup talk page to find others willing to lend a helping hand. Another collaboration currently running is an an effort from WikiCup participants to coordinate a number of Easter-themed did you know articles. Contributions are welcome!

A few final administrative issues. From now on, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) J Milburn (talk) 01:20, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Tony1. You have new messages at MrX's talk page.
Message added 19:57, 6 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Signpost: 04 March 2013

Talk:Inter Milan#Requested move 3

Join the discussion!--Dipralb (talk) 12:28, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Template:George Frideric Handel

You are one of a handful of editors who has made at least 25 edits to George Frideric Handel. I am not a musical scholar or student and was hoping you might be able to help me organize {{George Frideric Handel}}.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:43, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

TTT, I wonder whether you've contacted User:GFHandel: he's an expert, unsurprisingly with a username like that! Tony (talk) 12:03, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 March 2013

This Month in Education: March 2013



Headlines

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

If this message is not on your home wiki's talk page, update your subscription · Distributed via Global message delivery, 21:32, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Precious again

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

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

A year ago, you were the 67th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, repeated in br'erly style, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:30, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 March 2013

You've got mail!

Hello, Tony1. Please check your email; you've got mail! The subject is GA.
Message added 23:05, 24 March 2013 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 23:05, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Midnight horror

I see you have joined in - when I see 7 australian articles per minute being zapped with British English in the middle of the night, I try to ask why. You are welcome to have your ideas about the issue, I think otherwise. Have a good Monday. sats 01:18, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Again, I don't see the problem, and I care nothing for the nation state. If you live in a country that has the union jack as the structural centrepiece of its flag, and the queen as your head of state, it's almost secondary that AusEng and BrEnd differ only in the spelling of program/me, and not at all given the acceptability of the now-old-fashioned programme in AusEng.

English is, stepping back from minor details, binary in several senses: rhotic vs non-rhotic, and US vs UK, with the UK's ex-empire in the UK camp. Canada remains uncomfortably in the middle. Let's be practical in our spelling directives? Tony (talk) 01:28, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

You make every opportunity to trumpet your opinions which are not asked for. It is totally irrelevent - there are 17,000 + articles with the tag for australian english and some bright spark starts to add british - it is a simply wikipedia procedural thing with nothing to do with your ideas. sats 01:37, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
OK I have taken it to: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Australian_Wikipedians%27_notice_board - cheers sats 01:53, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
But you're not trumpeting, right? Tony (talk) 02:51, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
There was nothing anywhere in the Australian project to say that we are no longer Australian english users but British english users - or why. Simply shows up on watchlists - I think that is something that needed to be aired - and if we get a clear and reasonable explanation - its a better place for us all... If that is trumpeting, maybe you'd like fellow editors to be in mushroom land ? sats 03:05, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
You still haven't outlined how the two varieties are different—at least in written mode. Tony (talk) 03:12, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Re: Linking

Re linking dates, I would argue that what is the "usual" practice is (fittingly) very time-dependent. It used to be the norm to link dates. Frankly these things change way too often as competing format ideologues battle for the top of the mountain that is the MOS, and I've little interest in keeping up with the results of their niggling. (And to think they used to say that Members' Advocates caused too much arguments. Feh.) So I will WP:IAR when necessary and everyone else may {{sofixit}}, as far as I am concerned. Who knows, in 18 months time it could be "usual" to link dates again -- just as it used to be. - Keith D. Tyler 17:38, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I doubt it. Malleus Fatuorum 17:41, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 March 2013

Month year

If your talking about the Dunfermline season article, it was a copy from the main Dunfermline page that I expanded and made better. I however did not change the date links. If your talking about the main Dunfermline page then its the same I just didn't remove the dates. Check the history to verify. . Blethering Scot 10:39, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Scot, thanks for your reply. Tony (talk) 10:40, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 April 2013

Lifting the Gibraltar DYK restrictions

A couple of months ago, you opposed a proposal to lift the restrictions on Gibraltar-related DYKs, which were imposed in September 2012. Could you possibly clarify (1) under what conditions you would support a lifting of the restrictions, and (2) when you think it would be appropriate to lift the restrictions? Prioryman (talk) 20:12, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

What do you think about naked ladies?

Hi! User:EEng suggested I ask you to take a look at the Template:Did you know nominations/The Idea (book), The Idea (1932 film) DYK nom; we'd like you're opinion on my obnoxious insistence on using the term "naked lady". Please be sure to agree with me, or I'll send the naked lady to disrupt your social order. Curly Turkey (gobble) 04:30, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 April 2013

Just dashing

Per your recent change, see mini-discussion (me alone) at Talk:Have_Gun_–_Will_Travel#Dashes. Dicklyon (talk) 03:47, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Tony1. You have new messages at LittleWink's talk page.
Message added 13:48, 14 April 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

LittleWink (talk) 13:48, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
LittleWink (talk) 16:00, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

thank you

Thank you, I didn't know that :) --Truceklanclick (talk) 17:46, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Your script is a little bonkers re office titles

Hi Tony1. Take a look at some of the changes your script made in this edit. I think the changes from ISO dates to regular U.S.-formatted dates are fine, and the delinkings are okay if somewhat arguable, but regarding these changes it's way off:

  • Vice President George H. W. Bush → vice-president George H. W. Bush (both the lower casing and the hyphenation are wrong)
    Agreed, where it precedes a specific incumbent's name. Ohconfucius may be able to help on this.
  • title=Italian-Americans Coming Into Their Own → title=Italian-Americans Coming into Their Own (I prefer to keep the source's capitalization style of its news articles intact, unless all caps are used)
    I don't like the single lower-case "into" without "their". I don't agree about retaining the case of a news headline ... it's standard practice to regularise case (but not spelling, of course).
  • Watson, Anticipating Madam President, pp. 157–160. → Watson, Anticipating Madam president, pp. 157–160. (completely wrong, you can't change a book title like this)
    You can change the case of a book title, but not like that—agreed.
  • Falk, Women for President, p. 86. → Falk, Women for president, p. 86. (ditto)
    Not sure.
  • President Clinton appointed Ferraro as a ... → president Clinton appointed Ferraro as a member of ... (beginning of a sentence!)
    This needs fixing urgently, yes.
  • honorary degrees → honorary degrees (I get it, you don't like links, but some cultures may not have honorary degrees and thus some readers may have no idea what they are)
    I do like links, but they need to be used carefully. Does "honorary degree" not speak for itself?

I agree, there needs to be some tweaking of the script; I'm going back to that article to correct some of these issues. Thanks for spotting them. Tony (talk) 16:24, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Wasted Time R (talk) 16:16, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I've tweaked the script so now you ought to have fewer false positives like the ones commented on. -- Ohconfucius ping / poke 03:08, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Dan Savage

I was puzzled that your edit to Dan Savage, described at "Script-assisted style fixes: mainly date formats", included the removal of Savage's spouse and child from his infobox. I have reverted that part of your edit. Could you please explain why that was included as a "script-assisted style fix"? Thanks. Theoldsparkle (talk) 13:55, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

During my scrutinising of the diff, I manually removed these, because neither Terry Miller, the spouse, nor DJ, the son, is notable. It is not the normal practice to insert family members (or friends) into infoboxes unless they are notable. In the case of spouses and children, the information is usually unstable over time, too. Are you claiming that every footballer who has a WP article should have his wife (it is usually a wife) or his girlfriend emblazoned in the infobox? Why? Please consider removing them. Tony (talk) 14:01, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying. I wasn't "claiming" anything, except my confusion on why you saw this information's inclusion as a style error. I took a look at Template:Infobox person and didn't see where it indicated that spouses, etc. should only be included if they are notable. I can see the argument, and don't have a strong opinion either way; if you choose to take the content out of the infobox again, with an edit summary that clearly indicates what you are doing and why (e.g., "Removing spouse and child from infobox, due to lack of notability"), I won't object, although I don't know if others might. Theoldsparkle (talk) 14:12, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm trying to determine whether the gay marriage and gay adoption are non-notable trivia or of significance to the notability of the subject himself. I think the former, and if I were writing the article I'd have left them out of the infobox but treated them in the main text. It's no big deal, but I just don't want to encourage the formulaic insertion of family members into infoboxes. Tony (talk) 14:16, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Highly suspicious deletion on Commons

This is the image of the military radio station that we're all allowed to see, still emblazoned at the top of the article on that installation on both En and Fr WPs. The French spy agency threatened one of our fellow volunteers with jail and a huge fine if he didn't delete the article. But the spooks' headquarters in Paris have suddenly been deemed by users Russavia and Mattbuck to be a building so "creative" that the two pics of it at Commons have been deleted.
File:Direction Centrale du Renseignement Intérieur (DCRI) - affaire Pierre-sur-Haute.jpg
Headquarters of the DCRI in Paris [now censored]
File:DCRI HQ.jpg
Headquarters of the DCRI in Paris [now censored]

I love a good conspiracy theory, so just curious, what makes you think a removal of a photo is due to a "highly suspicious deletion on Commons"? :) Russavia (talk) 14:01, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

It was explained nowhere. The subject is hugely controversial at the moment, and involves attempts to censor WP. Needs link in edit-summary at the very least, pointing to the consensus to delete. Tony (talk) 02:04, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Direction Centrale du Renseignement Intérieur (DCRI) - affaire Pierre-sur-Haute.jpg and Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:DCRI HQ.jpg are pretty much self-explanatory I would have thought? Russavia (talk) 02:22, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
So "Recent building, probably original enough to pass the threshold of originality." is enough, in your opinion, is it? Tony (talk) 06:46, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
As a Commons admin and bureaucrat, I am expected to be well versed in such things, and FOP is one area that I do know quite well. I am saying that yes, it is enough in my opinion. If you disagree, Commons:COM:UD is where you can request undeletion. Russavia (talk) 06:52, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
The use of the word "probably" most certainly undermines the case. Who is arbitrarily drawing these boundaries? Sounds like personal opinion. Tony (talk) 06:53, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
The boundaries are drawn by Commons:COM:PRP -- our core Commons policy. Russavia (talk) 06:55, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
So, they're "probable" boundaries. I see. Tony (talk) 06:56, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
No, in terms of those files, there is no "probable". The buildings are modern structures with obvious creativity, and there being no freedom of panorama in France, we can't host them until 70pma. That is set in stone; no exceptions made. Russavia (talk) 06:59, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
  • First, if it was a "definite" decision, please avoid "probable" in the deletion text. Second, please link editors to the appropriate deletion page, where the supposed consensus was gained (but I see no "consensus"), in an edit that removes an image from a WP page. Tony (talk) 07:01, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
    • I made the decision to delete the images before the usual 7 day DR period specifically because they were being used on English Wikipedia in a somewhat high-profile section of the site (that being the Signpost). The last thing we as a project need is for complaints to be made about us hosting those problematic files whilst we are basically bagging the French security services. There's no need for consensus, because if I (or anyone else) closed it after 7 days the result would be the same; that being delete. Except by deleting on sight as has been done, was done in order to save The Signpost the embarrassment of not being holier than thou, which it needs to be in such instances. :) Russavia (talk) 07:12, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
      • I'm still not convinced, even as an amateur at copyright rules, of this decision. And it would be nice to explain this when doing it rather than have us catch it on our watchlists and follow a long track, which still hasn't ended. Tony (talk) 07:17, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
        This is how Commons works. There are many many files uploaded, and yes, some are copyvios which are tricky to spot because they could well be legal in other countries. When they get noticed, they get deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:09, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
  • This has all the appearance of a new regime of self-censorship on WMF sites. The flavour of the month to fear is the French intelligence network. Next month will we be forced to remove all photographs of the Russian home affairs ministry building?
    I wouldn't be at all surprised. Commons, with its policy that an image has to be copyright free or in every way inoffensive in every country of the world, is a hopeless project really. Malleus Fatuorum 13:20, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
    Maybe that's why the Germans are kicking up such a fuss about it. I love the excuse given by the deletion squad: "obvious [architectural] creativity". <giggle> I thought they might have meant in a weird 1984ish kind of way. But no, two seconds later, I decided that this building embodies everything that is unoriginal about late 20th-century architecture. Who allowed these self-appointed people to decide that spooks' buildings are "creative", and therefore are to be deleted. But wait ... isn't the Pierre-sure-Haute military radio station a "creative" building? Why hasn't that pic been deleted from Commons? Tony (talk) 13:34, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
    Wow, you two really are conspiracy nuts. But, to answer your question, I would suggest that a radar station would have its design dictated by utility not aesthetics. However, I'm no expert on FoP, so would suggest you send it to DR. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:37, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
    Hey, but you guys have made the call on the "creativity" of the spooks' headquarters in Paris. The ball's in your court to justify that, not mine. Tony (talk) 13:40, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
    And I do get the impression that the they are being excessively cautious. FYI, one of my images, that I took, was recently deleted from there, allegedly because the subject was considered "identifiable" though it was of a naked torso with face averted and eyes closed. The image has been there for months and had become the leading image on several sister language projects for 'orgasm'. I really don't see that as being in any way identifiable, but four or five people there did so argue. This lead me to believe there may be an anti-pornography gang lined up to delete it wanted just to rid the site of all nudity. I think I may stop hosting any more images there from now on, even if it doesn't show any breasts. -- Ohconfucius ping / poke 14:37, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Why can't the photos just be uploaded to en.wp and avoid whatever silliness might happen on Commons? EdChem (talk) 13:42, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
    I think that's what many people are beginning to do, as it's far less hassle than trying to deal with Commons. Malleus Fatuorum 13:51, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

The reason the radio installation is able to be hosted on Commons is because it is de minimis to the overall composition of the actual photograph. A photo with the installation in close view would likely also be deleted due to the freedom of panorama issues as with the other buildings. Commons:Category:French FOP cases is full of such cases relating to French application of freedom of panorama. It's not copyright paranoia, or anything of the like, it is simply the application of French law as it pertains to our Commons mission. Russavia (talk) 03:48, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

That is now not the point. Tony (talk) 04:04, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Then, please, tell us what is the point. And please explain it without telling me to "Go fuck yourself". (I think an apology from yourself is due on that). Russavia (talk) 04:10, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
With a high-profile page such as that, in which censorship of WP information is the story, don't just march in and change what pleases you—ask at the SP's discussion page, or email the editor in chief first. You have a nerve. And DO NOT call me "silly", twice. And your friend above should desist from calling me a "nut". So there's no way I'm apologising. Tony (talk) 04:13, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
I... wow. So, you are not at all concerned with copyright. Well, that's too bad because on Commons, a free licence is a necessity, and anything which is not free will be summarily deleted. Call it conspiracy, we call it doing our job. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:08, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
You're an idiot, and you're damaging the project. It's not about copyright, or understanding it.

What I'll do is to keep swearing at you, and I'll be uploading tons of files onto en.WP, not Commons. That will just disadvantage other users, and will cause Commons admins more work eventually in having to go through the process of transferring them to Commons. I will refuse to categorise. And I will encourage all other editors to do the same. Continue your personal vendetta against me—fine. Again, you and your thug friends on Commons are idiots and deserve no respect. Tony (talk) 15:15, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Tony, you seriously need to chill out. No-one has any type of vendetta against you; all that I have done is explain to you why files were deleted from Commons because you were obviously in need of an explanation in order to stop you from thinking that some conspiracy was underway. All this has gotten from you is abuse. I certainly do not appreciate receiving unwarranted emails from you (sent thru the Commons email system nonetheless) telling me that "quite simply" I am "a gross cunt". Your block (and extensions) on Commons are of your own doing; no-one elses. In fact, if you did what you did on and via Commons here on this project I would expect that exactly the same would have occurred. Unless of course it is acceptable behaviour here to tell multiple editors to go fuck themselves, and to abuse the email system to send abusive emails calling people "gross cunts". Your behaviour is absolutely disgraceful. Russavia (talk) 16:47, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Additionally, I'll make it be known, that you also sent another admin an abusive email via Commons email system simply because he posted this. That got the visible response of "I repeat: Go fuck yourself." to him; the contents of the abusive email you sent to him are up to him to disclose. This is being made known so as to demonstrate that there is no vendetta, but that your unwarranted abusive behaviour towards others is the problem, and it isn't limited to only myself. Russavia (talk) 17:01, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Did I really call you a gross cunt? Ooh, it seems like strong language, and I'm usually mild-mannered in my choice of words, since generally I enjoy contact and collaboration with editors—and I'm a supporter of moderate demeanour to promote social and professional harmony. But wait ... now I've rethought it, it's a perfectly accurate description of you. Your thugs-in-arms who've decided they can get their serotonin rush by cascade blocking me from Commons—first for one week, then for two weeks, then for a month, all in the space of a few hours—are indeed carrying out a vendetta against me. Their job is to make the project run well, to protect it; not to issue vindictive blocks-as-punishment in a spiral of insults from all parties. You, Russavia, started it with your rude put-downs, your complacent assumptions, and your failure to explain up-front when you were marching into a high-profile page and removing syntax. Then I was called a "nut" by your accomplice here. Always a good way to get editors onside. And you demanded an apology, if you please.

So I'm amused to know how you're not damaging Commons by your block-fest. You rely on editors to upload and categorise files to Commons, so why is it a good idea to pursue your vendetta by stopping an editor doing that—by forcing him to upload files to en.WP instead? Then it will cause more work much later by involving the cumbersome process of transferring files to Commons ... not my worry, though; I couldn't care less; but it's your extra burdern.

Ironically, there are good reasons for editors to disregard Commons when they upload, and I believe they should take heed of my specific discouragement in red at the top.

And trouble is also that you might be creating very bad blood (you know, you shaft me, then you can definitely count on being shafted by me whenever I get the opportunity, for the rest of my life). So, I'm wondering why this nasty game is happening in the first place.

Just one more thing: aren't you committing a serious breach of the Foundation's Terms of Use by publishing on-wiki the contents of a private email? I'd say that's enough reason for you to be blocked (again). You've been let out of jail early this time, Russavia, against many people's better judgement; perhaps you need to think more carefully about how you behave during your parole period. Tony (talk) 17:21, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

It does seem like they are being needlessly unpleasant. —Neotarf (talk) 08:56, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Well, we won't see him on this page again; he's just been blocked from en.WP for a month. And his two henchmen at Commons have been admonished for COI. Tony (talk) 07:38, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

comment — Hi Tony, I can answer you as French sysops on Wikimedia Commons Jastrow (nominator) or I are quite well versed into FOP problems, especially in France: we try to maintain commons:Category:French FOP cases. This file was an obvious delete, the jurisprudence in France is clear about that. I'm not commenting the drama around the case, I'm not interested in that. --PierreSelim (talk) 11:31, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Pierre. I do understand the FOP and jurisdictional issues. That has not been in question for some days; rather, it's the arrogance and abuse of Commons admins. Tony (talk) 11:39, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tony1/Archive_13&oldid=1257850853"