Contents 1 Persistent Vandalism 2 Operation Teardrop 3 FAC issues tackled 4 Please use the preview button 5 Bollocks 6 WP:ANI for Rjanag 7 TFA/R 8 AdminReview 9 Talkback 10 Inner German border crash diet 11 Rjanag Arbitration 12 Senedd 13 Courtesy notification 14 FA review, thanks 15 Amador Valley High School 16 Invitation 17 Attachment theory 18 Missed messages 19 FYI 20 Dispatch for 2 November edition of The Signpost 21 ArbCom Election RFC courtesy notice 22 PerfectIt (computer program for easier copyediting) 23 Questions at ArbCom elections 24 Gulfton FAC comments 25 Arthur Rubin Dispute 26 TFA blurb proposal for Inner German border 27 220 rollout 28 hyphen question 29 Re:Arbcom questions 30 Thanks for birddogging 220px 31 1997 Qayen earthquake 32 Test your World War I knowledge with the Henry Allingham International Contest! 33 The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIV (October 2009) 34 James Joyce 35 Linking 36 Arbcom Questions redux 37 The Wikipedia Signpost: 9 November 2009 38 Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Author's Farce/archive1 39 Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop 40 <Bleepin'> MOS again 41 FAR 42 Hoaxes 43 pared down principles 44 An old invitation, and more recent comments 44.1 Question: Roman Polanski article quality 45 Arbcom question 2 46 Question 47 The Wikipedia Signpost: 16 November 2009 48 Criteria for judging ArbCom candidates 49 Seattle Sounders FC FA review 50 Candidate Statement 51 GovCom 52 My candidate statement 53 Just a note 54 MOSNUM edit doesn't change the meaning 55 Hawaii hotspot 56 FAC backlog 57 Link audit 58 From WikiProject Military history 59 RFC 60 The Wikipedia Signpost: 23 November 2009 61 FAC backlog 62 So... 63 Query 64 Cato June FAC 65 Urn lead 66 Peer review vs. FAC Signpost Dispatch needed 67 ACE: copyedit/review needed 68 Links 69 Signpost election report 70 The Wikipedia Signpost: 30 November 2009 71 Archive search box 72 Stuart & Sons 73 Chain linking? 74 more information 75 Hello

[edit] Persistent Vandalism

Tony, you will be pleased to know that I am back. I was just wondering if you could please give your comments on persistent vandalism in wikipedia. How much time do you think it wastes of the editors? Thanks. Persistent-V (talk) 10:05, 01 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spankertomline (talk • contribs)

[edit] Operation Teardrop

Hi Tony, thanks a lot for your great comments in the ACR for Operation Teardrop - I really appreciate them. Nick-D (talk) 10:05, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] FAC issues tackled

I've addressed all of the issues that you raised on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Inner German border/archive1 - please leave some feedback when you've got a moment! -- ChrisO (talk) 22:45, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Please use the preview button

When editing articles, please use the preview button and/or check the article visually before "leaving" to ensure that your edits have not introduced obvious errors. The "minor corrections" in this single edit to Melbourne introduced no less than 13 obvious errors that I have corrected for you.[1] Could you please review your edit to ensure there are no more errors? Thankyou. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for repairing the file names; I don't expect to find wrongly used hyphens in such names, and I usually do check after a global change. However, in your "correction", you have now introduced six errors in the list of temperatures that are minus. Tony (talk) 08:14, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Bollocks

First you come to my talk-page with a badly veiled yet evidence-free suggestion of sock-puppeting, and then a mysterious user--long absent and without the slightest connexion to me nor even recent history of editing at all--suddenly appears with random, direct and equally unfounded accusations of exactly the same thing?

Yes, I'd suggest there's strong indications of rather crude sock-puppeting--but not in a way that would benefit you at all.

I will speak plainly myself: stop playing silly buggers and go do something productive. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 11:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

There was no attempt to "veil" anything. There is nothing mysterious about HWV258, if that is whom you're referring to. Are you counter-accusing us of being socks? (I'm unsure of your meaning.) We both attended the July Wikimania dinner in Sydney, so there are plenty of witnesses to the fact that we are not operated by the same user. I can assure you that we are very different individuals who have healthily different ideas about many aspects of WP; in some matters we have had to agree to differ.

There is compelling evidence that CalendarWatcher is someone's alt account; whether it is a sock puppet, of course, depends on the identity of the operater, since that is critical to the definition of sock puppetry. Many of CalendarWatcher's edits could well have breached tenets of WP:SOCKPUPPET, but may not have; we can't know until the operator identifies themselves—or if CalendarWatcher was started as part of the "clean start" provision in the policy, what the previous account was. Without this information, the suspicion is strengthened. Please note that it is considered the normal thing to link to the other account(s) operated by the same user.

If you'd like more evidence, it can be supplied. But first, will you kindly answer HWV258's query about the expertise and speed with which CalendarWatcher's life was launched into action, back on 22 September 2006.

I must say that it would be appreciated if you were less aggressive in your tone. I apologise if this is stressful, but it's best for everyone if the air is cleared; otherwise, the suspicion will be fostered. Can you provide the requested information, please? Tony (talk) 12:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

CW, I really must object to the tone you are using. You have made me want to look up what brought about this hostile exchange. And having done so, I'd say it's obvious you've been editing like a veteran from your first edits, and HVW is asking you a quite legitimate question. I cannot understand how painful it can be to fess up to an old account, unless you had something to hide – were a sock of other user, banned or otherwise... You've been asked a polite question and have so far not given a straight answer, I wonder who is actually playing silly buggers... I'd suggest you simply fess up and be done with it. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 14:16, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Tony, Ohconfucius, this line of conversation is moving in the wrong direction. If you have serious concerns about an editor, or (more importantly) if you have actual proof of a problem, you should present it through formal channels. Otherwise, you have asked, CW has said no, and you should leave it at that. The current method you're employing - continually pressuring an editor who has been active for over three years to supposedly "come clean" - is not the appropriate way to go about it. --Ckatz^chat_spy 17:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

"CW has said no"—exactly where has CW said "no"?  HWV258  20:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

We can nit-pick over wording, but I would think "I'm not happy with the not-well-concealed implication on my talk page that I'm some sort of sock puppet", "why should I be paying the slightest attention to your fishing expedition", and "you come to my talk-page with a badly veiled yet evidence-free suggestion of sock-puppeting... stop playing silly buggers and go do something productive" are fairly strong rejections of your questions. I'm not taking a position on whether or not CW is an alt account. I am, however, pointing out that the manner in which you are pursuing this is problematic. Tony claims to have "compelling evidence", but if this is true, then that should be passed along to the folks who specialize in these sort of checks. Hounding CW in an effort to get a confession is just not kosher. --Ckatz^chat_spy 22:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to nit-pick, but the examples you give only demonstrate CW's willingness to deflect, as opposed to addressing the simple question I originally asked. I have asked CW two questions now (neither answered), and reject the suggest that those questions, or my tone, constitute "hounding". I would have thought CW would be pleased to have the opportunity to explicitly address the questions now raised. It is revealing to the community that CW continues to post on this subject, but only with the intention of deflecting.  HWV258  00:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The entire affair smacks of you three people poking around in contribution histories and speculating as to if there are sockpuppets hidden in them. The language used ("Could you please declare to the community any previous accounts that you have used at Wikipedia", "There are only two possible explanations" and "it is in everyone's interest that the matter be cleared up so that you and others can move on from it" for example) presumes that such events did occur, and the overall tone used by you, Tony and Ohconfucius here strongly implies that you believe CW is being purposefully deceptive. Why should CW be "pleased to have the opportunity" to answer your questions? Why is it "of great importance that it be resolved"? Why - when Arthur has said he simply used an incorrect name - are you persisting in pursuing CW? As I've said repeatedly, the manner in which this is being pursued is inappropriate and contrary to assuming good faith. Note that I'm not suggesting you ignore any suspicions you may have. If "strong evidence" really exists, then give said evidence to the crew who specialize in investigating sockpuppets, and let them sort it out. That keeps the matter neutral and unbiased. Don't continually press your point against CW, as you're now doing with making "investigations" into events from over three years ago. --Ckatz^chat_spy 00:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Holy strewth! Katz, please check the exchanges. I was merely reacting to an overaggressive post; bystanders often comment in such a manner on others' talk pages. I have done no poking around: I first saw that most aggressive post because I watchlisted Tony's talk page, and the above was my first exchange in the matter, and this will likely be my last. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:53, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but your one post did actually include the lines "I cannot understand how painful it can be to fess up to an old account, unless you had something to hide" and "I'd suggest you simply fess up and be done with it". Look, I'm not trying to come down heavy on you guys or anything... this isn't an admin action, it's just a "hey, friendly advice, watch where you're going with this" dialogue. As for naming you, chalk that up to addressing the overall dialogue to multiple editors while replying to an individual post. --Ckatz^chat_spy 03:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Dear Ckatz: thank you for registering your interest in this matter. Tony (talk) 06:52, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] WP:ANI for Rjanag

I have reported Rjanag at the ANI here based on what I believe was grossly uncivil behavior during the Epeefleche/Shells affair. You should know that I cited some of your comments. Regards - Draeco (talk) 06:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

So let's focus on getting to the bottom of Rjanag's upset, and how the likelihood of the recurrence of such a disturbance can be minimised. Of course, it's much easier to see it from the outside, as my own skirmishes demonstrate. Tony (talk) 09:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] TFA/R

Tony, do you know what "endline" refers to here? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] AdminReview

The problem with the kind of multi-step process you're thinking of is that unless you know your way around already you'll never find it and never be able to use it. I'd personally like a kind of simple "request for help" link that even new editors can use. This should be an integrated part of the block and deletion processes, so that any admin action automatically produces a simple way for the people affected to complain about it. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I see advantages in that. However, being cautious about the logistics of such a process, one of the main issues is to head off at the pass the trivial, unwarranted or vexatious complaints. Let's face it, most folk who are on the wrong end of admin action—such as the deletion of their pet page, or the highly emotive experience of being blocked—will be tempted to lodge a formal complaint if it can be made at the press of a button, regardless of the rights and wrongs of the admin action. AdminReview was designed as a multi-stage process primarily to filter out the less deserving applications at an early stage, and to resolve the simpler complaints at the next stage without requiring all hands on deck. Requiring all "staff" to be involved with all comers seems just too cumbersome and expensive in terms of time and skill.

Having said that, I would very much like to find a "slimmer" design and a shorter way of expressing it; perhaps Stages 2 and 3 could be merged. I'm also open to ways of deploying mediation before things become official and elaborate. It's a matter of protecting good admins in their everyday prosecution of their duties as well as reviewing the occasional questionable action in a neutral way (which is difficult at ANI, of course). My hope is that an ArbCom subcommittee might be created to take the mantle; but ArbCom has a lot on its plate at the moment. Tony (talk) 11:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I can see the advantages of that, but perhaps if you were to word a link from the block and delete interfaces as "Request help from another editor", rather than "Complain about this action" it would be less tempting to use it as a way of venting. Anyway, I'll watch with interest how this develops. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, it's the mediation option, at a click. I like that. I should rationalise the text soon, in time for the ArbCom election, so candidates might be asked whether they think it should be taken on by a subcommittee. Tony (talk) 16:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Talkback

Question A8UDI talk 16:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Inner German border crash diet

Thanks very much for the work you're doing on slimming down the article - it's great. Please could you see my response to your last post on the FAC page? -- ChrisO (talk) 23:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

By the way, in reply to your question about asking Raul654 to secure the 9th, see User talk:Raul654#Can you keep November 9th clear for a bit? - no reply from him yet, unfortunately. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I doubt if Raul would reply until after the promotion, and then probably only after your application. It's good, though, that he's been made aware at an early stage that the application will be made for that slot. Tony (talk)

Following feedback about the length of Inner German border, I've revised the article to spin content out into six daughter articles with summary versions in the main article. Please take a look at the results (which are summarised at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Inner German border/archive1#Article size update) and let me know whether you are content to maintain your support for the article being featured. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:28, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Tony, I hope it can be said that what started out looking like it might turn into a nightmare review has turned into quite a collaborative FAC effort. It's unusual for me to jump in with a commentary mid-FAC about something that reviewers hadn't noticed, but "that's my job". :) Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:32, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems to have been a model FAC so far, doesn't it? I'm very pleased about the way it's gone. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:54, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

This would be a model FAC. ;) ceranthor 23:04, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

As long as it never appears on the mainpage, where it will get destroyed by vandalism! By the way, Tony copyedited TS before it came to FAC; proof's in the pudding. Um, Ceranthor, while you're here ... what are your thoughts on Nov. 9?  :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I have the Illinois earthquake article nominated. Despite its 11 supports, I think Inner German border should get the main page. I can wait! ;) ceranthor 23:14, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Why Ceranthor, what a jolly sort you are ! Are there any other dates in the earthquake article? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:32, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Not really. There's always next year. ceranthor 23:37, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Rjanag Arbitration

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Rjanag and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requesting Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, --Epeefleche (talk) 22:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Senedd

Tony,

You mentioned of the above Talk Page on 30 July 2009, that you would be interested to provide feedback on the article. Today I have requested a Peer Review. Seth Whales (talk) 12:44, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Courtesy notification

I mentioned you here. I'm aware that you have not been following this issue, and probably are unaware of the problems, but I don't intend to expound, as one arb has effectively silenced input. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:22, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Sandy, it's true: apart from seeing the user's name pop up occasionally at FAC pages (I tend not to read other reviewers' comments), I feel distant from it. I'm sorry for all parties that it has turned out to be an ongoing problem. Tony (talk) 15:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] FA review, thanks

Greetings Tony1, just thought you might like to know, the Boeing 777 article has been edited to reflect the suggestions you made on the article's FA review page. Any further comments on those changes, or suggestions in general, are most welcome. Thanks again for your assistance. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 22:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to look soon. Tony (talk) 09:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Tony1, I realize your work pressure has gone up, and wish you success in real-life endeavours. If you have a moment to comment on the Boeing 777 FA review page regarding the changes made, that would be appreciated. To summarize, we've 1) rewritten the sentence, 2) replaced 'dub', 3) fixed links, and 4) changed image sizes as per your suggestions. Thanks SynergyStar (talk) 20:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Amador Valley High School

Hello Tony,

Amador Valley High School did not pass FAC nomination. However, I do plan on renominating the article, so I addressed all of the comments you left on its FA nomination. I invite you to read over the article again and tell me what most needs to be addressed. I appreciate your comments and I thank you for your time. - Deltawk (talk) 04:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Thx for your note. I'm afraid my hands are full right at the moment. Perhaps this in the meantime? Tony (talk) 09:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Invitation

WT:Sock_puppetry#Interview_for_Signpost. - Dank (push to talk) 17:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Attachment theory

Hi Tony. I don't expect much (i see you're at a '6' on pressure), and this is a recent previous FAR that is about to go right back in for the second round. One problem is the around 10,000 'and' uses (already suggested User:Tony1/How_to_improve_your_writing#Achieving_flow to the promoter) - but I think a few concise words of advice would help greatly too. Mind giving a quick glance to see how to take it further? JoeSmack ^Talk 00:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Missed messages

Hi Tony,

Just realised I missed a couple of messages from you, now in archive 6. Not sure how, since I had this page on my watchlist – same way I missed this, I guess :( Obviously I'd have worded this edit differently if I hadn't missed your response.

"We now seek timing of the release of the next draft of ArbCom's policy" – well, I'm not formally trained in grammar, but to me that just sounds odd. I had to re-read it to make sense of it. "The" would help a little, but I don't like it regardless. Maybe it's the way "seek" is used; maybe it's just too many ofs.

Re sleeping: it doesn't seem to have become widely known yet, and might not be confirmed, but it's thought that exposure to bright sunlight for 30 minutes or more in the morning can help shift a person's body clock backwards.

Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 15:30, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] FYI

In case you want to help (feel free to edit); I've only updated the top part of the page-- the bottom is all old, a copy from last year. User:SandyGeorgia/ArbVotes2009 SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:04, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Dispatch for 2 November edition of The Signpost

Sandy, Skype interview done. Will write. Asked Sage about whether we can have an image—I hope so. I could never get it right about the draft page. It's beyond me to set it up and the rest. I'll write it off-wiki for the moment. Tony (talk) 09:39, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Tony, per WP:FCDW, could you put the Dispatch at WP:FCDW/November 2, 2009? I'm not aware of any reason that you can't include images, but I will ask Ragesoss. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:12, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I've done this. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:01, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Tony, I have little doubt that Raul will schedule the article for the 9th, but until he does so, saying that it will run on the Main page on that date is premature; is there a way you can re-word? Candidate for the Main Page or similar ? Since the article comes out a week before that date, Raul might not schedule by then, so the wording could appear presumptuous. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:41, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, will change now in the two inline places. Chris has just gone through it as well. We an always edit it back again after publication if Raul gives the OK. Tony (talk) 10:34, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] ArbCom Election RFC courtesy notice

A request for comment that may interest you is currently in progress at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee 2. If you have already participated, then please disregard this notice and my apologies. Manning (talk) 08:38, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
You received this message because you participated in the earlier ArbCom secret ballot RFC.

[edit] PerfectIt (computer program for easier copyediting)

I have discovered a computer program for easier copyediting. See Intelligent Editing - Cleaner, Smarter, Better Documents.

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Check Wikipedia/Archive#PerfectIt (computer program for easier copyediting) (no reply)
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fix common mistakes#PerfectIt (computer program for easier copyediting) (no reply)
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Grammar#PerfectIt (computer program for easier copyediting) (no reply)
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Archives/2009/July#PerfectIt (computer program for easier copyediting) (some discussion)

This talk page is on my watchlist, so I am watching here for replies. -- Wavelength (talk) 20:12, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll take a look. I presume they work on a Mac. Tony (talk) 01:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

"PerfectIt requires Windows 2000, Windows XP or Windows Vista. It works with MS Word 2000, MS Word 2002, MS Word 2003 and MS Word 2007." [2] -- Wavelength (talk) 16:32, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, so no-go Macs. I notice a few glitches in their prose on their website. Tony (talk) 16:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Let's face it, I don't think the people writing the web pages are the ones creating the spellchecking software, although it doesn't really help their marketing :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 01:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Some other copyediting programs are listed at http://www.google.com/Top/Arts/Writers_Resources/Software/Spelling_and_Grammar/, and the fifth one (http://linguisoft.com/) can be used on a Mac computer. -- Wavelength (talk) 01:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll try it. But please forgive my cynicism: computers' understanding of grammar and their ability to improve suboptimal prose has decades to go before we could ever trust it. Just look at Word's grammar checker. One of the issues on the site I visited was "people that ...", rather than "people who". Doesn't augur well. One easier place for programmers to start is the extension of spell-checkers so they understand enough grammar to flag possible misspellings of homonyms (to vs too, its vs it's), without flagging a raft of false positives. That would be useful. Tony (talk) 02:29, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Your cynicism is acceptable. Incidentally, http://linguisoft.com/ says that corporate America is extremely concerned about the abysmal level of writing ability among its employees. Corporations include the mass media, which often use incorrect English themselves and mislead readers, listeners, and viewers, many of whom lack the necessary education in correct English to alert them to the errors. (I grant that some examples involve American and British English differences and disputes in English grammar, but still there are very many mistakes that can not be counted in those categories.)

A radio or television station seems to be afraid to pause, lest the listeners change the station, so many people use too few commas when they write. That fear of pausing applies to announcers, talk show hosts, and advertisers. There seems to be much confusion between "due to" and "because of" (http://web.ku.edu/~edit/because.html), as you can see from my recent contributions. (If there is a motive to save time and space, the saving is minimal, and the method is a "cheating" one.) There seems to be too much reliance on "tried and true" and overused clichés, and too little venturing into the use of expressions which can expand the vocabularies of producers and consumers alike. Maybe the Manual of Style should encourage editors to be wary of journalese, as well as legalese, motherese, and any other such varieties of English. Maybe it should encourage editors to become more familiar with correct spelling, grammar, and so forth, and to spend more time immersed in literature which sets a good example in the use of English.

Also, I have found that some of those mistakes have been copied by English-language services of foreign-language media.

-- Wavelength (talk) 20:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

[I am correcting the spelling of "immersed". -- Wavelength (talk) 23:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)]

Here are some links to pages with information about commas (mentioned above) changing the meaning of text.

• National Punctuation Day - Punctuation Changes Meaning
• Commas

-- Wavelength (talk) 23:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

More about punctuation is in the book Eats, Shoots & Leaves: The Zero Tolerance Approach to Punctuation.
-- Wavelength (talk) 01:24, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Hah! I chose "Commas" from Wavelength's tips above. It's written by somebody who's selfconsciously fastidious, yet it starts: Comma usage is one of the most complex, and most misunderstood, questions of proper punctuation. With my fastidiousness DIPswitch OFF, none of this matters (cf global warming, etc); with it ON, I wonder how usage can be a "question". ¶ The very first "incorrect" example: After many years as a criminal prosecutor she ascended to the bench. We're told it must have a comma. The notion of requirement is, in a word, bollocks. Consider: After traipsing about in the fog they found the grave sure enough. / After an interval Mr Dedalus raised his grog[...] / After a brisk exchange of courtesies during which a smart upper cut of the military man brought blood freely from his opponent's mouth the lamb suddenly waded in all over his man and landed a terrific left to Battling Bennett's stomach, flooring him flat. / After this homily which he delivered with much warmth of asseveration Mr Mulligan in a trice put off from his hat a kerchief with which he had shielded it. And so forth, all from a single well-respected novel that I surely don't need to name. ¶ Our comma requirer also informs us After all, the last thing a senior attorney wants to do is correct a junior attorney's comma usage. This surprises me: I'd have guessed that a senior attorney would prefer this admittedly dreary chore to, say, pleading to creditors to avoid imminent bankruptcy, or explaining the presence in the connubial bedroom of exotically unfamiliar underwear. ¶ Meanwhile, if you want to find out about commas, why bother with the obsessed when you can consult people who know what they're talking about? (Here's one.) -- Hoary (talk) 03:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

My Google search for "punctuation checker" reported 2,700,000 results, including Punctuation Checker | Gregory's Writing Site

and English Punctuation Comma Checker - Correct Usage of Commas!. -- Wavelength (talk) 21:09, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

There is a discussion about "due to" and "because of" (mentioned above at 20:59, 3 November 2009) at User talk:Wavelength#"because of".
-- Wavelength (talk) 06:39, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I mentioned above (at 20:59, 3 November 2009) the overuse of clichés (I meant the use of clichés, the overuse of figures of speech) by people in the mass media. The overuse of figures of speech can be like the overuse of italics or boldface or underscoring in printed text, or the overuse of spice on a delicious meal. (Mathematicians and chemists continue to use the same symbols literally in hundreds of formulas, without any need for fancy variations.) However, it is possible for one person to become tired of a figure of speech before another person encounters it for the first time.
Lake Superior State University, in the American state of Michigan, is famous for its Banished Words List. (See http://www.lssu.edu/banished/.) There is archived at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2009 February 8#what words are you allergic to? a somewhat related discussion.
-- Wavelength (talk) 21:50, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
My Google search for "cliché checker" did not find an online cliché checker. -- Wavelength (talk) 03:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Some clichés are snowclones. -- Wavelength (talk) 18:13, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Questions at ArbCom elections

Thoughts on this modification and the implications it has on possibly reducing the burden on candidates much appreciated; if you feel this is sufficient to alleviate all concerns about the prospective amount of time it will take to reply to my questions, please copy the modified wording over to your very snazzy "themed" question page.

Cheers, Daniel (talk) 11:17, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Gulfton FAC comments

While putting up Gulfton, Houston for a peer review, I found that you made comments at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Gulfton,_Houston/archive2 - I am unable to respond on that page since it is archived. I'd like to address a few:

• "Parts of it are overcited. Here's a doozler: ... Really contentious statement, that one. Can it be conflated into ONE ref. note?" - No. The Houston Independent School District has individual boundary maps for different schools, one. Two, I needed reliable sources that stated that the schools were in the Gulfton area. That means I used three boundary maps and three other sources that describe the schools as being in Gulfton. What I did do was split up the refs by the piece of the sentence, i.e. "A[], B[], and C[]" so it looks neater.
  • I think successive refs sentence after sentence look defensive! Readers will assume that a ref number after the final sentence at issue applies further back, unless there's reason not to assume this. There's a bit of give and take on this—there's allowance for a degree of editor taste, but it looked over the top.Tony (talk) 07:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
• "Is the huge caption at the top all relevant to the pic? Can't some of it be in the main text?" - the big caption was a response to BuddingJournalists's remarks at the beginning. He said "I question the choice of the lead picture (or at least the caption needs some rethinking). The caption is quite specific, but there's no tie to the greater article. Is it a famous landmark in Gulfton? Is it indicative of Gulfton's economic troubles?" - That was when the lead was "The Lantern Village Apartments, formerly Colonial House Apartments, became well-known through television advertisements and then experienced bankruptcy and foreclosure." So, how would I make the sentence shorter while not running afoul of his suggestion?
  • Unsure. Drop the second sentenceand include the info in the body of the article somewhere? It's 10 lines long, and one map below has a 12-line caption—they're like skyscrapers. Tony (talk) 07:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
    • I'll play around with those two captions... BTW the details about the Colonial House apartments are already within the article. WhisperToMe (talk) 08:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
• Date shortening: Done as per your suggestion
• "Why is "US dollars" linked? Is it exotic, like the Tibetan razu?" - Well, people in Tibet would think the US dollar was exotic. Anyway, I just shortened it to "dollar."
  • Actually, Tibetans know exactly what US dollars are.Tony (talk) 07:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
    • I figured they would know; it might still seem exotic to them. WhisperToMe (talk) 08:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
• "Acres convert to hectares, please, not square metres." - Done
• "For pity's sake, why is "English language" linked?" - In some contexts it ought to be linked. -- "said in a newspaper article that a lack of confidence in English language abilities and time consumed by work prevented many area residents from creating soccer leagues." - The English language ability bit is not a coincidental factor, but one of the main points of the sentence.
  • I removed my grouchy phrase. English language ability might be the point of the sentence, but what part of English language is useful to the readers at this point, given that they speak English well enough to consult en.WP? I don't think it's worth a link at all, but if you were going to link here, please consider a more focused article (English-language education/training?). Tony (talk) 07:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
    • English as a foreign or second language works, so I linked to that. It is exactly the context that fit the sentence. WhisperToMe (talk) 08:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
• "No hyphen after -ly adverbs. See MOS." done.
• The article had been through 3 good article attempts, 1 peer review, and 2 FAC attempts (in that order), so it looks like it will take more peer reviews and possibly more FAC attempts before it can reach featured article status. Also it may need other editors to edit it because it may help having others edit the work; I mostly edited the one article.
  • Good luck. You might also consider reducing the number of images and increasing the size of a few of them. The rules on the sizing of thumbnails have changed. The lead image needs brightening: is it possible to modify it at source? I have to say that it's kind of unremarkable. I'd even prefer the map of Houston. Please see the MoS on en dashes for year ranges. (I'd spell out "1950s to 1979", and subsequently use "1980–92", "1992–2009". Why is 1992 in two ranges?) Tony (talk) 07:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
    • I'll see which images I could pare; I think the schools section is fairly heavy in images, but other areas have relatively few images. I could brighten the lead image with a basic image editing program. As for 1992, the first section has material that ends in 1992 while the second has material that begins in 1992. I mainly did that for balance reasons, as I didn't want to have all of the 1992 material in the middle section and have the last section have relatively little content. "1950s to 1979" - I'll see the MOS in regards to year ranges. WhisperToMe (talk) 08:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
• WhisperToMe (talk) 07:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Arthur Rubin Dispute

I'm concerned that Rubin's status as a fellow administrator is making things difficult, and I want to ensure fair review.

I read the comment of yours on Arthur Rubin's talk page regarding the laundry list of people complaining about his reversion practices, and I'm requesting that you continue to monitor my formal complaint on the Notice Board. I would appreciate it if you would be willing to go through and focus on the original part of my complaint, even though this is asking a lot. If I thought this was a matter of someone simply making valid reverts in a manner that some might find offensive with a vanadalism tag, I wouldn't have bothered making this complaint to begin with. I think it goes beyond that, and this is also not an edit war on differences of opinion on content. I can't tell you how offensive it is for an editor, particularly an administrator, to do batch reverts of good faith contributions by contributors and label them as vandalism, and then chase them to the other recent pages they've contributed to and do the same thing. And then after the offended editor provides proof that it's not vandalism, it's followed by new excuses for removing the material. And in my case, as if that's not enough, I argue that his conduct extends to hounding and disruptive editing. Georgewilliamherbert responded to this dispute in a manner that I found to be inappropriate. Thank-you. MeSoStupid (talk) 08:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

My post was a plea to Arthur to cool it: I think he is a highly skilled editor and has provided valuable leadership in chronological articles. There's been an element of incivility for a long time, but it seems more recently to be accumulating into a considerable problem. It is particularly important that we avoid turning off new editors, given the flattening of the participation curve. It is disappointing that Arthur isn't taking a mentoring line with new editors. What is going on? I'd rather not get involved, but I'll take a look at your complaint. Tony (talk) 09:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] TFA blurb proposal for Inner German border

Could you possibly have a look at the Main Page blurb that I've proposed at WP:TFAR#November 9? I'd appreciate any copyediting advice you might have. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 220 rollout

I see Roan has taken up the baton. I'd have thought the spike would be more gradual (a cactus?) but hopefully not a barrier... mikaul^talk 18:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

At least we know that something's happening. I'm disappointed nothing happened until I huffed and puffed; guess those developers are flat out. Tony (talk) 09:15, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] hyphen question

In the phrase "a microtiter plate-based assay" is the hyphen placed correctly? I tried looking through your helpful examples on the hyphen help page, but I'm still not sure I have it right. Thanks, Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 20:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Is it a microtiter plate that the assay is based on? If so, "a microtiter-plate-based assay", with two hyphens. Alternatively, "an assay based on a/the microtiter plate". Tony (talk) 01:13, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Arbcom questions

Replied on my talk page, 'cause I'm lazy.--Tznkai (talk) 18:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for birddogging 220px

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		Thanks for birddogging the increase of default thumbnail widths from 180px to 220px. As you may recall, I had some qualms about the increase, but the consensus was quite clear and the task ought to get done. Without your efforts I'm not sure that it would have gotten done before the next leap year. (Come to think of it, maybe we should increase it 10px every leap year?) Eubulides (talk) 04:42, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I came by here to say the same thing. Admirable dedication to the cause. mikaul^talk 05:33, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Johnbod (talk) 05:45, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, guys! Tony (talk) 06:07, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 1997 Qayen earthquake

Could you look at 1997 Qayen earthquake again? If you still think it's not ready, tell me. ceranthor 18:38, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Test your World War I knowledge with the Henry Allingham International Contest!

As a member of the Military history WikiProject or World War I task force, you may be interested in competing in the Henry Allingham International Contest! The contest aims to improve article quality and member participation within the World War I task force. It will also be a step in preparing for Operation Great War Centennial, the project's commemorative effort for the World War I centenary.

If you would like to participate, please sign up by 11 November 2009, 00:00, when the first round is scheduled to begin! You can sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIV (October 2009)

The October 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] James Joyce

Tony, what is the status on the date delinking script? James Joyce was really deteriorating, so I reverted it a few days ago to the last FAR-reviewed version, and so far, the revert has held. But this means dates are now linked throughout. Are you able to de-link? If so, it uses international dates (day month year). Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Delinking is no longer prohibited. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Dabomb! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Linking

Hi Tony, thanks for your comment. Yes, dictionary words are linked all over Wikipedia. Many thanks. Black Stripe (talk) 13:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

BlackStripe, there's faulty grammar, poor expression, bad formatting all over WP too. It means we should fix it rather than adding to it. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary and WP:LINKING. Tony (talk) 13:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Arbcom Questions redux

Tony, thanks again for the work you've done in sorting the questions for candidates. I took your categorized list and coded it into {{ACEQuestions}}, which candidates transclude into their question pages. Could you check and make sure that I got all of the questions, including any last-minute ones? Thanks again! UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 21:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

That's fine - you might even want to collapse the guidance for candidates, since they probably only read it once. Last year, we still had General questions coming in for the first 7 days of nominations, so people could ask both while candidates were already answering - but since we split them this year, that's not an issue. Go for it. Thanks! UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:08, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] The Wikipedia Signpost: 9 November 2009

[edit] Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Author's Farce/archive1

Hi. I'm under the impression that you're the go-to guy for FAC prose comments. Fowler&Fowler has offered several insightful comments on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Author's Farce/archive1, but I'm unclear with regards several of Fowler's comments and am wondering if 1(c) in FA? is really that precise. If you get a chance, could you take a look? Thanks. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR _{talk // contribs} 00:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Tony, it would be helpful if you could look in on this FAC (and several others stalled towards the bottom of the page). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:59, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop

As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 08:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] <Bleepin'> MOS again

<grrrr ... > Tony, can you please tell me where WP:ITALICS went? It used to have a list of things to italicize; now it's just general commentary. Band names aren't in italics, right? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll answer for Tony: no. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:34, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

But where did the list that used to be at WP:ITALICS go? I refer to it all the time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:41, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (titles). Dabomb87 (talk) 03:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, my: that's confusing. I reference WP:ITALICS all the time. What else have I missed? Why did we shuffle that off to titles, when it applies to text? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:45, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Apparently it's 'titles' as refers to titles of things, not titles of articles. Confusing. And what a whopping big list of examples for italics—paring that down to something readable now. Nobody needs 50 examples of how to use an apostrophe character to format italics onwiki. Yeesh. Maralia (talk) 04:14, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

If WikiProject MOS were more active, I'd go straight there and get them to coordinate a rationalisation. Tony (talk) 05:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

32 examples of how to put two apostrophes before and after text to italicize it. Now largely summed up by the single sentence "To display text in italics, enclose it in double apostrophes." No wonder people don't read this shit. Maralia (talk) 05:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• I'll try to look at your good work later today, Maralia. This is more like what we need; editors at large are daunted by bloat in style guides; we need to get to the point nice and easy. Tony (talk) 07:58, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] FAR

Hi Tony, can you check in and have a look at the two at the bottom of each section? Thanks YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (help the Invincibles Featured topic drive) 01:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Hoaxes

Hi Tony, I recently became aware of an unusual set of hoax edits to Wikipedia and have compiled a little write-up of the affair here. I was wondering whether there might be enough interest in the story to make a Signpost article of it. I've not written for the Signpost before, so I'd need some hints as to the house style to get the story into shape.

I enjoyed your article the other day on Inner German border. --JN466 14:40, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] pared down principles

Hi Tony, you have often complained about the proposed principles in cases. If you have time, feel free to viciously attack them once more. ;-) John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:27, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] An old invitation, and more recent comments

An old invitation.

And saw comments re Roman Polanski article (eg)

Do you mind if I ask you a few questions about how the information in the documentary Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired can be used in article? Note: I have been informed at WP:RSN that the documentary is RS secondary.

Please feel free to disregard with impunity if busy or not interested. Cheers Proofreader77 (talk) 05:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, very busy and was only a passing comment. Thanks. Tony (talk) 05:55, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks. Cheers. Proofreader77 (talk) 05:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

• PS. I remember a moment of conflict where I stuck my nose in ... My apologies. (Writing from the GG doghouse with fresh perspective and a 100-word limit :) No reply necessary. Proofreader77 (talk) 06:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

No problem: they were testy days. Does your name suggest you are the person to go to for copy-editing? If so, do you have particular interests that might resonate with the temptation to refer FAC, FLC nominators to independent copy-editors? Tony (talk) 07:34, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

(Excuse delay in reply ... whining to Jimbo. :) User name is more symbolic than mark of trade. (You can probably stop reading there:) You are clearly in the realm of real work of Wikipedia—whereas I had to check to even know what FAC/FLC are. lol ... I've put in the obligatory 5,000 edits of poop cleaning, and spent time "current events wrangling" on talk pages (socially highly contentious Roman Polanski most recently, leading to doghouse after "extraordinary measures" countering heavy negative bias in "consensus";). Now that I've given up rollback, will shift attention ... but doghouse has tight leash. Proofreader77 (talk) 10:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Question: Roman Polanski article quality

I know you're very busy, but perhaps a quick question. A film director bio amidst a culture war is probably not one that could be lifted to FA class. But would it make sense to attempt to "learn the ropes" of the quality system (I'm making up phrase here) working on it. Perhaps attempting to get it from B to A class?

Perhaps my thought is that if the contending editors had another goal than defeating each other (I've lost 10 lbs), something beautiful might happen. (Just thinking.) Thanks. Proofreader77 (talk) 10:21, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

It does make sense to try raising it to A class. There is nothing in principle stopping an FA nomination beyond the stability issue, which is covered by one of the criteria. It would be a test of WP's ability to be NPOV. It would be held to high standards—lot of editors would pick the minutist holes in it at FAC for other reasons. But first things first. Tony (talk) 11:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks. (And retrospectively for your old invitation.) Whether anyone else editing Polanski thinks trying to get to class A is something we should do, I will use this example to focus my own attention ... while I learn what the FA (quality) process is all about. Cheers. Proofreader77 (talk) 23:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Arbcom question 2

Hi Tony. Many thanks for all the work that you've done on the Arbcom questions. I do have a question about the question you have posed (number two on the list) - what kind of evidence are you looking for? For example, are you looking for writing in the article space (I could link my FAs for that), policy-related matters or something specific to dispute resolution? I'm not trying to get you to answer the question for me, but I want to make sure I present the material appropriate to your question. Best wishes, Fritzpoll (talk) 10:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Fritz. This is only a wish-list of possible suggestions: diffs/links to policy-related matters, preferably the discussion or editing of policy or guideline text, or to your intervention to resolve disputes, or examples that show you can write concisely with good control of tone, and/or have the ability to see faults in text (argument, logic, wording). FAs (preferably where your role is clear) would be second best, but usable as examples if there's nothing else. FAs are no mean achievement; it's just that they might have been the subject of a different question. Good luck in your candidacy. Tony (talk) 14:31, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Question

[3] - there is a difference between "great demand" and "in great demand". Do you know of any reword that could keep to the more specific meaning of the latter or do you feel that it is unnecessary? Ottava Rima (talk) 15:07, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

By the way, my spell checker still insists that "afterwards" (with an "s") is wrong. ;/ [4] doesn't really settle it. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 15:08, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Got to flop into bed. Will return tomorrow, but later only. Tony (talk) 15:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

That is fine. :) I'll go through the page and leave those as is until we can talk. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I have rewritten The Author's Farce#Background. Please check to see if that clarifies any concerns. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] The Wikipedia Signpost: 16 November 2009

[edit] Criteria for judging ArbCom candidates

These are the criteria against which I will judge the suitability of each candidate in the upcoming ArbCom election.

Essential (1) Experience. At least two years’ experience as a Wikipedia editor. (2) Analytical skills. The ability to analyse written evidence in relation to the pillars, policies, and guidelines that are relevant to users' behaviour, including the ability to distinguish relevant from irrelevant evidence. (3) Writing skills. The ability to write concise, clear, plain English, including a reasonable amount of content editing. (4) Knowledge of ArbCom. A detailed knowledge of Arbcom's policy, structure and procedures. (5) Neutrality. Familiarity with the principles of conflict of interest as they would apply to oneself as an arbitrator and to other users. The ability to interpret and act on evidence in an even-handed way. Desirable Strengths in either or both of the following areas are an advantage, but not a prerequisite: (6) Drafting skills. The ability to draft judgments, motions and injunctions, including the ability to identify potential ambiguities and unintended consequences in draft text. (7) Management / dispute resolution skills. Demonstrated experience of dispute resolution, mediation, or acting in a responsible role on Wikipedia, that shows the ability to deal in an even-handed way with parties in heated situations, and to work effectively towards the resolution of behavioural disputes.

I am posting this because the current electoral process presents voters with a vast quantity of noise, in many cases concealing the evidence of each candidate's skill-base. It is up to voters to filter out the noise. Feedback is welcome below; I am open to suggestions. Tony (talk) 11:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

You won't say that the ideal candidate has a minimum of 15 FA's, including at least five having to do with Richard Nixon? :)--Wehwalt (talk) 12:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

It's six on Nixon; you just missed out! Tony (talk) 12:48, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

It's the media, they're the enemy!--Wehwalt (talk) 13:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Tony, work in the mediation area, in the absence of significant content contributions, could be less than desirable. We need people with dispute resolution skills in conjunction with content building. Otherwise, we could end up with more mediators and less arbitrators, and decisions that aren't workable in the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and where tendentious editors can disrupt content contributions. That is, No. 6-- without ample evidence of 1 thru 5-- could be problematic. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Sandy, (1) is mandatory, as far as I'm concerned; so are 2–5. 6a or 6b would be a bonus. Is that different from what you understood it to mean? Tony (talk) 16:12, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't read that way now; it seems to give equal weight to No. 6, which is where I see the problem-- a big problem. We don't need a mediating Arb Committee-- that is what other steps in dispute resolution are for. Readers may see 1 thru 6, and miss "advantage, but not a prerequisite"; you might solve that by changing the numbered bullet points, so that 6 is clearly distinct? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

That's better ... do you have that posted somewhere on a subpage? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:48, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I've posted this as a subpage here, with its own discussion page. Tony (talk) 01:34, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Seattle Sounders FC FA review

First, thanks for your comments on the review page. I've addressed all of your specific comments and have attempted to do a more thorough copy edit of the entire article as you suggested. I discovered your tutorials and they have helped me immensely. That said, I'm definitely still a novice at this, so I look forward to any further comments you have on the article. Thanks again! --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 07:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Candidate Statement

Hiya Tony, Thanks for the note about my candidate statement, ill trim it down right away. When i first posted I was under but then made changes so I must have gone over then. Seddon ^talk|^WikimediaUK 09:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] GovCom

Hi Tony. First, check out my talk page. I've replied to your comment regarding the length of my statement. Second: I read with interest your GovCom box. As a matter of principle that I care a lot about, I would agree that the committee is elected not to govern but to resolve disputes. But it's important to distinguish between government and its role as an influential "executive committee" (for want of a better description). Would you say that the committee is to some degree a kind of steering committee, simply by virtue of its high exposure across the project and of its not-negligible capacity to influence the workings of the encyclopedia? I've always held such a view, even if I think that it probably shouldn't be (project governance should be strictly within the remit of our community), but I'm interested in yours. (For clarity: take this as just a curious by-stander questioning you on one interesting aspect of your views, rather than as a candidate trying to canvass votes :-).) AGK 10:39, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] My candidate statement

I undid your one word trim, because it took my statement down to 399 words. Having assumed you counted my redundant signature as a word, I remvoed that instead. Hope that's ok - Fritzpoll (talk) 11:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Just a note

I'm finding the questions very helpful this year on my "undecided" candidates (didn't even read them, though, for the candidates I know well :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

You mean the General Questions that we rationalised and presented thematically? I have misgivings about the way in which the so-called Individual Questions are undermining users' succinctness in the GQs. Tony (talk) 03:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm finding both helpful in the undecided cases. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:17, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

By the way, Sandy, I've put in a request to Manning Bartlett that he be a candidate in the ArbCom election. I don't like to do this, as I'm supposed to be an election coordinator—a civil servant without fear or favour; but I hope people might allow me this latitude just once. Tony (talk) 03:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

It's hard to pick eight candidates right now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:26, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] MOSNUM edit doesn't change the meaning

> Was "to either Johnson or to architecture" ungrammatical?

Yes. You can say "to either Johnson or architecture", but you can't have one "to" before the "either" and the other after it. There's no difference in meaning between "A to either B or C" and "A either to B or to C", where A, B, and C are sentence fragments. Either way, it's just a shorthand for "Either A to B or A to C". I guess "but not both" is suggested by both forms, but I've seen them used the other way too. —Codrdan (talk) 11:55, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the second "to" definitely needs to be removed in whatever form. I prefer the previous form thus. Tony (talk) 12:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Hawaii hotspot

Issues fixed. I have to argue about two of your points, however. ResMar 17:49, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] FAC backlog

Tony, the FAC page is seriously backlogged. Could you please revisit your oppose at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1997 Qayen earthquake/archive1? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:49, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Link audit

When I saw your edit to the Switchfoot article, I wasn't quite sure about some of the changes you made. Could you explain (or at least point me in the direction of the relevant guidelines) why links shouldn't exist in the references, and why you removed links to surfing, Grammy Award, and YouTube? Thanks —Akrabbim^talk 23:07, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind if the links to publishers go back in the references; but their website is given anyway. A link to "Daily Nebraskan" doesn't seem helpful when http://www.dailynebraskan.com/arts-entertainment/switchfoot-breaks-mold-with-modern-rock-album-hello-hurricane-1.2059264 appears too. But I don't mind.

"Surfing" is a common-term dictionary word that should rarely be linked. Please see WP:LINK, especially since it's within a quotation.

[[Grammy Award|Grammy]] nomination for [[Grammy Award for Best Rock Gospel Album|Best Rock Gospel Album]]"—this is a "chain" link, where the more specific, second link will itself link to the more general, first one. There is no reason to link both. Thanks for your inquiry. Tony (talk) 04:12, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Alright, that makes sense. Thanks. —Akrabbim^talk 11:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] From WikiProject Military history

		The WikiChevrons
		I have the happy duty of presenting you with these WikiChevrons for contributing "Copy-editing essentials" to the Academy. Thank you for participating in the 2009 Academy Content Drive. We appreciate your help in building this valuable resource! Maralia (talk) 04:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, it's a delight to receive this. Thank you indeed, Maralia.Tony (talk) 07:38, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] RFC

Well, it's looking kind of closed here. I've seen the discussion about whether it should be closed, but no-one has re-opened it, which kind of means it is closed. Hiding T 11:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] The Wikipedia Signpost: 23 November 2009

[edit] FAC backlog

We sure could use some help. [5] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] So...

Anything further on this? ResMar 13:04, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Are your original comments resolved? If so, can you please close 'em up? The length is starting to get out of hand and I want to get the done stuff closed :) ResMar 23:01, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Query

Hi Tony, do you have an opinion on whether is it proper (or acceptable) to use whose as a possessive form of which? Should it be used solely in reference to animate subjects (i.e. possessive form of who)? Эlcobbola _talk 14:14, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Yep, the lack of a single word for "of which" is bad engineering in the English language. I think it grates with people to use "whose" as a substitute, although I've been sorely tempted to do so on several occasions. Might be OK orally, but in writing I'd play safe and recast the clause. Tony (talk) 14:38, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

See Definitions of whose - OneLook Dictionary Search. -- Wavelength (talk) 16:07, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The following articles may be of interest.

• A Metric America: A Decision Whose Time Has Come (book)
• List of places in Hungary whose names were changed
• List of places in Italy whose names were changed
• List of countries whose capital is not their largest city
• List of places in Romania whose names were changed
• List of novels, the action of which takes place within 24 hours (redirect from List of novels whose action takes place within 24 hours)

-- Wavelength (talk) 19:13, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Cato June FAC

I have replied to your concerns.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:27, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Urn lead

The lead of the poem was altered after a few people decided that they did not like the standard formula used for most poem pages. This is a somewhat accurate diff for the previous version. I would love to bring back that first paragraph, but I don't like to get in between conflicting reviewers. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:26, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I rewrote the lead to get rid of things that I felt were inappropriate or just blah. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:33, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I feel more confident about the lead as it is now. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:16, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review vs. FAC Signpost Dispatch needed

See Wikipedia talk:Featured content dispatch workshop#Peer review vs. FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:17, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] ACE: copyedit/review needed

Tony, if you get a chance today, can you take a look at {{Arbitration Committee Elections comment page}} and copyedit/expand as needed? Thanks in advance,  Skomorokh  08:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I appreciate it. The personnel for the elections have been finalized, so I hope we won't have to bother Tim any more. See Wikipedia_talk:ACE2009#Finalized. Can I leave the business of emailing these editors with our expectations of what they should be doing to you? I've told them to expect something tomorrow. Roger Davies ought to have advice from the AUSC elections if it helps.  Skomorokh  02:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Links

Not true. I add links only when appropriate. Deb (talk) 12:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Signpost election report

Hey, seeing as Manning has retired would you be up for writing our weekly election report at the Signpost? — Pretzels ^Hii! 13:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

• I was going to throw one together now-ish. It's best to check with Sage, User:Ragesoss, he's the chief. If he wants to delay until tomorrow, let him know I can publish at 10-ish UTC with the usual flaw-filled performance. Hiding T 16:16, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Yeah, pushing back until 10-ish is fine.--ragesoss (talk) 17:27, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Hang on, this means you're still going to write it, yes? Hiding T 18:20, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
      • Are you still able to write the election report up? I think everyone got their wires crossed before, it looks like. I thought you were asking for a delay to be able to write it, was that not the case? Hiding T 09:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
        • Wires crossed, it looks like. I'll just note briefly in News and notes that the elections have started. If anyone thinks there's something really important that needs to be included, that can be added post-publication.--ragesoss (talk) 12:12, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
          • Not a problem. I'm not sure it's better than what you could have put together, but thank you. Good luck with all your work, hope it goes well. Now, how are you fixed for next week? :) Hiding T 14:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] The Wikipedia Signpost: 30 November 2009

[edit] Archive search box

Here is an archive search box for your talk page. You can modify it and place it according to your preferences.

-- Wavelength (talk) 17:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Stuart & Sons

I see that back in October you were following the Stuart & Sons article, however you may have missed that a sidestepping article, Stuart and sons, was created by Rainbow1000 in late October. There is now a discussion here about merging it into Stuart & Sons.shaidar cuebiyar ( talk | contribs ) 22:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Chain linking?

Another article I was tinkering with had the city state Wikilink question come up. Totally unrelated, it came up art the help desk, too. I was wondering if you had a style guide line you could point us to. See: Wikipedia:Help desk#Guideline for location wikilinks. Looks like you have tons on your plate IRL so no problem if you don't get to it.Cptnono (talk) 10:49, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] more information

Hi Tony,

you were going to send me "more information" "the other day" - just a friendly reminder :) effeietsanders 15:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Replied to Effeietsanders at WP.nl Tony (talk) 04:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

Not seen you "around" for ages. Hope you're well. Did you see my post at the Arbcom Noticeboard? --Dweller (talk) 16:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)