User talk:Tony1/Archive06

Impressive
Hi Tony. I was impressed by your comments on Scouting FAR—they were marvellously succinct. I might read your manual when I get the chance. Happy new year. Rintrah 15:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Daniel10, his possible sockpuppets, and AjaxF
I didn't see your name over at Featured picture candidates so I thought you might want to know that because of this FPC concerning a lackluster picture of two guinea pigs, Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Daniel10 has been created. Explains a lot, I think.--Rmky87 02:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Pilot (House)
Well it took a long time, but I've been handling the objections to the FAC Featured article candidates/Pilot (House)/archive2. I've had Deckiller do a copyedit so I was wondering if you would take another look. Also, could you better explain your objection to the lead? Thanks. :) The Filmaker 17:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but could you better explain how the lead fails 2.a. and if there's anything I can do to gain your support? The Filmaker 18:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Germany
Hi Tony, you brought up new concerns about the prose on you last comment on the article's FAC page. Since then I have tried to improve the text. I also took your advice and contacted the League of copy-editors, and one of their representatives did a much more thorough copyedit of the entire article. Could you please take another look to see if it's ok now in that respect or if there are other problems. TSO1D 15:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I just read the comment on the Germany FAC page. It wouldn't be too difficult to add more information about East Germany, however I think that would make it disproportionately lengthy considering how concisely all other parts are presented. Right now the follow text exists: "East Germany established an authoritarian government with a Soviet-style command economy. It soon became the richest and most advanced country in the Warsaw Pact, but many of its citizens looked to the West for political freedoms and economic prosperity.[12] In 1961 the East German government began construction of the Berlin Wall to stop Germans from escaping from the East German capital to West Germany" I believe that addresses both the economic and political situation of the region (worse than in the West :)), and considering the brief period during which this existed (relative to the other centuries of German history) and the fact that this only represented about one fourth of Germany, I think that it's best to leave the details to subarticles. TSO1D 01:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you, Tim; but sometimes I feel as though I come across as a cranky old man. Tony 01:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

2006 SA election FA
Hi Tony, can you please review your objection and change to support if you feel that way, as everyone else has been convinced and as far as I can see yours is the only outstanding objection. Cheers. Timeshift 11:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

BAE Systems
Hello Tony. If you remember I nominated the article for FA status in August 2006. While it was unsuccessful the FA nomination did give me a lot to work on. If you have time I would really appreciate you giving it a quick look to see if the article is approaching FA standard. I believe all of the objections from the nomination have been addressed. I have also worked on your suggestions from my talk page: I realise I am asking a lot of you, any help you can give me would be much appreciated. Best regards Mark83 15:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Not interesting - I've worked on that, particularly using the intro to both summarise the article and provoke interest as per the MOS.
 * Short paragraphs - I think all the remaining short paragraphs are necessary, i.e. distinct points.
 * "Reads like a company document" - This is one point in particular where your opinion would be welcome.
 * Criticism - This section was two sentences at the time of the nomination. It is now much larger.
 * The company's position in the British military–industrial complex has been added.
 * I live in Northern Ireland where BAE has no presence. Therefore to get a picture I made a request which has so far been unsuccessful.
 * You asked about land-mines? The company does not manufacture land mines (it is illegal for any UK company). It has been involved in a cluster bomb contract, I've added that to the criticism section.
 * Other improvements were suggested on the Talk:BAE Systems page (To-do section). These too have been addressed. Mark83 15:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Featured Topics
Oh, it's okay; we had our differences there, so it'll be hard to convince you :) &mdash; Deckill e r 04:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

J. P. Morgan
Hello Tony - it's me again... At the moment I'm working on this article, can you copy-edit this when you have time...It would really help. Thanks again. — Wackymacs 13:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You can leave it for now - It's going to take me a few months to get this up to FA status anyway. — Wackymacs 15:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Bio infobox
There is a discusion off bio infoboxes at Featured article candidates/Fawn M. Brodie/archive1. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 15:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Turkey
Thanks for the comments. They should be easy to fix, I will do them in the next couple of hours. I will let you know when they are finished. Cheers! Baristarim 12:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * What do you mean by "minus for the below zero temperatures"? You mean that there should be or there shouldn't be? Currently they all have minus.. Baristarim 12:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I tried to address your concerns. I will try to remove unneccessary wikifications, but at the moment I am in a time crunch :) As for the generic masculin pronouns, I tried to remove some of them, I will peruse the article one more time and see what I can do. Can you see anything else? I am too used to seeing the article, so some things can slip my mind :) Baristarim 13:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The thing is, many editors have gone over the article as well. So if you could point out any other mistakes, then I can correct them. It is not that bad, right? :)) As for the wikifications, I am trying to cut them down (in fact I have been trying to reduce them and I had to fight with many editors who tried to wikify everything!) I will see what else I can do. Baristarim 13:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, I will try to contact some other users and try the copyeditors. Just on a side note: I practically rewrote the article, it was quite bad back in the day :) No worries, your comments are appreciated since I would like that article to be better, so the look of someone stranger to the article is important. I will leave a post to your talk page soon when more improvements have been made. Cheers! Baristarim 16:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

FARC - Tynwald Day
Hi,

Didn't actually know aanything about FARC, etc but now read up on it. What am I suppossed to do though?

Manxy3 17:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Tynwald Day
Thanks for the offer. Besides general politics on the Isle of Man, I haven't done any really big work with the article you asked about. - Thanks, Hoshie 18:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

SMH
I don't read the newspaper normally, is it online? --Peta 22:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sure I can find a paper copy here, so don't worry about an electronic version for my sake. Mostly I'm curious to if some of the less-enthusiastic things I said featured. --Peta 00:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Old comment of CUPS FARC
"I, for one, have had enough of bootlicking, or even the slight appearance of it" - just so we are clear - I am no bootlicker, never have been one, nor will I ever be. I say things as I see them, and try to fix things when I can, which is getting harder and harder these days. I'm also giving up submitting articles to FAC as its just getting far too hard these says, I neither have your ability with phrasing, nor the time to improve to your level! Even with your exercises I'm still no better. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Tony, I've tried, but no improvement! it's most disheartening :( I am running out of time however. I would like to get the USA PATRIOT Act to FA status, but I'm not sure I have access to more sources. I guess I'm just q bit disheartened by everything :( -Ta bu shi da yu 10:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, this is probably what I need to do... I'll probably pick up my game soon and put this funk behind me! Incidently, I do appreciate the enormously important and valuable work you have put in to Wikipedia, it may not seem that way sometimes, but I do! - Ta bu shi da yu 21:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Thomas Playford IV
Hey there Tony, hope all is well. I've recently finished work on an article; any chance you could take a quick read and tell me how the prose holds up? Getting the nod from you usually means a solid line of supports when an article is taken to FAC. michael talk 00:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That's nice of you to say so, but I hope it's not true. I'm learning new things all the time, and others have their own critical contributions. I'm very busy in real life at the moment, but will try to have a look soon. Tony 01:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

FAR
Tony, can you glance at Featured article review/Barack Obama? Sandy Georgia (Talk) 04:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Question
Tony,

You provided me with very helpful feedback for several sections of the Ohio Wesleyan University article on December 3. I've worked a lot on the article since then. I was wondering if you might have a minute to take a look at it? Thank you for your time! LaSaltarella 03:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi
Hi Tony. Here is a belated reply to the message you left on my talkpage.

I have considered both writing and editing, but have done nothing toward either—at least as far as vocational work. I shan't consider myself proficient in either until I've practised both for another two years. I don't have any formal experience past high-school. I chose to study Science and dropped Arts.

Perhaps I will take up editing and writing seriously once I've learnt Latin and French.

As for your other point, I think the League ignores requests quite well which don't interest it. We don't need any additional caution yet. I agree FAC advocates should improve the prose themselves before referring articles to the League.

Rintrah 08:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Is that a joke?
You really need to stop this sort of comment on your FAC reviews and you've done this often. Being sarcastic and condescending is not helping you, other editors, or the articles. Just because you're a good editor does not justify this behavior.Rlevse 12:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Your attempt at silliness is annoying and uncalled for. You do this all the time. It is you who needs to adjust their attitude and tone.Rlevse 15:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Re 1a page
I'm going to bed now. I'll make the changes tomorrow if I am online. Rintrah 15:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. I'm actually an insomniac. Rintrah 16:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, Australia. Rintrah 06:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Music samples
Tony, I didn't follow that whole music file problem; can you have a look at Featured article review/Punk rock? This "brilliant prose" promotion has received massive work from Ceoil, and is ready for a final look. Best, Sandy Georgia (Talk) 15:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

FA review assistance
Hi - SandyGeorgia has suggested your particular talents might be helpful for the Monty Hall problem article, which is undergoing an FA review (see Featured article review/Monty Hall problem). This article is one of the more oft edited FAs, at least in part due to the counter-intuitiveness of the solution. If you can spare some time to work on it, I'd appreciate it. I'm attempting to address the concerns myself, but am much more of a mathetician than copy-editor. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Christ Illusion
Hi Tony, could you review this article I've been working on? I wish to make it to FA, but since I've never got an article to FA before I'm a bit lost. It's the lead section and 1. a. I'd like to be looked at particularly. LuciferMorgan 22:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Are there any good lead sections I should take note of? I don't really know how to write the lead because the album isn't really historically or musically important. How long should the lead be do you think?


 * Which sections do you feel need filling out? I'll try seeing what I can find, but I've exhausted most avenues since it isn't a massive album. With the choppy paragraphs, do you mean certain paragraphs which only last for two sentences? Thanks for the help by the way. LuciferMorgan 11:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Tony, I've given the long inline references a thorough cleanup so they're shorter now but without losing any information - you're always welcome to give the article another edit should you have the time. Thanks for your help and advice by the way. LuciferMorgan 17:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Peter Jennings
Hey there Tony. I've been working on Peter Jennings for a while now, and I'm almost done with my rewrite. If you have time, could you cast your eagle eye over the prose, and comment on whether this is close to FA standards yet? The peer review is here. Many thanks, and no worries if you're busy! Gzkn 01:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks Tony! Gzkn 12:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Favor
Hi Tony. I've been trying to elevate A.J. Wright to Good Article status (it's nowhere near long enough to be a featured article). However, I've been rushing through the prose, so it needs a copyedit. Mind taking a look? I won't be offended if it's really bad, because I haven't given it even a minor audit. Thanks. &mdash; Deckill e r 18:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Dannii Minogue article
Hello. I was wondering if you could look over the article on Dannii Minogue. I have had a couple other editors look at it, but I feel that another good copy edit would help it along. Thanks so much in advance. -- Underneath-it-All 00:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

American Psycho
Hi Tony. If you have time, can you review American Psycho? I don't have any distance from the article; so I need an outsider. Rintrah 13:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Baby Gender Mentor
Hi Tony, I hope you are doing well. I am following up on a suggestion to ask your opinion on an FAC. If you have time to look at it I would be very appreciative.

I've been working with some other editors to bring Baby Gender Mentor to FA status. The article has already been designated GA and it has had two peer reviews. At Featured article candidates/Baby Gender Mentor, Opabinia regalis raised several questions which I have addressed.

Opabinia also suggested that you might provide some guidance on the direct quotations in the article. Opabinia felt that a previous version had too many direct quotes and this made the article too much like a news report. Therefore, I have taken out most direct quotations in favor of paraphrasing. I think the remaining quotes are more informative as direct quotations. I believe the actual words used by these subject matter experts is a valuable indicator of their opinion and I am reluctant to potentially dilute them by paraphrasing.

My basic question is: Do you think the remaining direct quotations are advantageous here, or do any of the remaining quotes need to be paraphrased? Also, do you think they are smoothly introduced into the article with respect to their relevance?

Naturally, I welcome any comments/concerns you have about other attributes of the article also. Thanks for your consideration, Johntex\talk 00:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Your message
I'm sorry not to have responded straightaway; I've been unable to edit for quite a while. I've just signed up (a bit reluctantly, in a way) to the proposal. --Phronima 11:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Superman
Superman has been almost entirely written, in a record long FAR: Featured article review/Superman. Can you glance at the prose before their time is up? Sandy Georgia (Talk) 21:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Energy: world resources and consumption
Could you please look at the brand new Energy: world resources and consumption and comment if it is ready to be a featured article? Thank you for your help. Frank van Mierlo 13:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Featured article review/The Quatermass Experiment
Hello. An article I have done a lot of work on, The Quatermass Experiment, is currently a Featured Article Removal Candidate at the above link, and it has been suggested to me that you might be a good person to ask if you could possibly take a look at it and highlight prose concerns? User:SandyGeorgia has told me that the references look good, and recommened you as a user to approach for a perspective on the prose. I see that you're on "light duties" at the moment, so I fully appreciate that you might not have the time for this. However, if you are able to spare a few minutes to take a look and point out the issues that may arise from my poor writing skills, I'd be very grateful. Many thanks. Angmering 21:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Eye movement in music reading
The article itself has a lot of good information, and I hate to see that get deleted, since it's clearly encyclopaedic. However, the way it is written suggests that it may be bordering on the fine line between "notable subjects" and "original research". Keep in mind that your work sourcing your statements is excellent, and while I wouldn't change a thing about that, the main point I am trying to make is that the wording in the article is fit more for a scientific journal, if you know what I mean :)

While I am in no way suggesting that you "dumb down" the article, it may be easier to read if several things were done:
 * Wikify terminology that laymen may not know (this is important.)
 * Start each section with a general overview, as it seems to delve straight into the subject. Introduce pertinent terminology, etc. (This one is less important...)

Reading over your contributions once more, here's my analysis (no offence meant): Your writing style is similar to that of a review paper, in that it criticizes or reinforces arguments presented in other primary papers (which you expertly sourced). While that isn't discouraged, it would be easier on the reader to understand and contribute if it were written in a more encyclopaedic style, if you catch my drift...

I found the article itself quite fascinating, and it gave me a good read, but given the right work and commitment (from you and other editors especially!), we could probably bring this article to FA status! Now wouldn't that be a big boost to your field of interest? :) Kareeser|Talk! 06:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * P.S. I just read the discussion above this one, regarding somebody asking you to reduce prose in The Quatermass Experiment... and here I am asking you to (indirectly) introduce more. Ironic, no? Kareeser|Talk! 06:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Superman FARC
At the SUperman FARC you wrote: Black-and-white as a triple adjective, like the existing "pants-over-tights outfit"

Can you clarify what you mean, I don't get what the triple adjective means. Thanks. Steve block Talk 00:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Never mind, I think I've got it now, you meant put hyphens in. Sorry for being so dense, I'm not really a grammartician. Steve block Talk 13:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

How are you?
I miss seeing your sig around. Marskell 21:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I echo that sentiment. LuciferMorgan 22:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * FYI, I've been playing with numbers again. Marskell 09:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi
I'm upset that you won't be around much this year. We're going to miss having such an influential user around. While you're on, could you pretty please take a quick look at A.J. Wright? It would be greatly appreciated :) &mdash; Deckiller 02:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Copy-editing with view to FAC
Hello. I've been working hard on Bart King with a view to making it an FAC in the not-to-distant future. Someone pointed me to your page on making it "compelling, even brilliant" in its prose. Can you give me any advice on where to go to make this happen? Thanks.-- Eva  b  d  14:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Campaign history of the Roman military
Hi, thanks for your comments on the above article. You mentioned that with regard to copyediting "Rintrah might agree to go through it". Is this an individual who might be abe to assist witht he copyediting? If so, how do I contact them? Many thanks - PocklingtonDan (talk) 08:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Demosthenes
Demosthenes was promoted to Featured Article in October last year. Reading through its FAC page, I found no input from you. The article is bulky and, in many places, awkward. Were I involved in the vote, I would have opposed its promotion. I should appreciate your reviewing the article. 211.28.237.149 06:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Issue at Restoration literature
Hey Tony. I'm really in a pickle over this FAR, and not because of all the bickering. It's written well, but in a very formal style; perhaps too formal for Wikipedia. The question is this: do I advocate a sweeping copy-edit, or just one to weed out minor issues? It's a tough political situation. &mdash; Deckiller 12:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Antioxidant FAC
Hi there, Tony. I wondered if you had time to review this article? A thorough copy-edit is always welcome. The FAC nomination is here. Thank you. TimVickers 05:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Gray Wolf
I don't understand Criterion 1.a.; it seems more symbolic than real. Gray wolf is full of verbal fluff, and will remain so until editors pluck it out. I need your help on this one, which, it might suprise you, is featured. Although editing featured articles doesn't interest me, I have been on Gray Wolf because of its sentences. I haven't done a thorough job; I don't want to. Perhaps you could resconstruct this article. Don't let it die from my scorn. Brainmuncher 04:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok. Sorry to bother you. I might get round to it once I've finished other featured articles. If not, I'll be mean and put a copyedit tag at the top of the article. Then all the enraged demons will fly to my talk page and complain. Brainmuncher 13:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Michael Jordan FAC
I know you're busy but if you have some free time could you look through or perhaps even copy-edit MJ. There have been complaints raised about the copy-editing during the FAC. The votes has been diverse enough that if issues are addressed it still has a chance to pass. Thanks in advance. Quadzilla99 08:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay SandyGeorgia made me aware of that, since the FAC is looking unlikely to pass at this point maybe you could look it over when we get back and we could then resubmit it. Quadzilla99 04:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The FAC was reset and is actually going very well now. Even though it will be an FA by the time your trip is over, I still would appreciate it if you would look it over when you get back. I'll leave you another message after the 29th when you return. Quadzilla99 23:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually I think the MJ article is fairly solid now. I could use your help with Lawrence Taylor moreso when you get back. Not sure how into American football you are though, but I'd love to have you read it and give some suggestions. I'm not really satisfied with it yet, as far as nominating it for FA. Quadzilla99 11:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tony
Tramping around with the beavers, eh? I've got a new one on the go: Featured article candidates/Norte Chico civilization. Any help appreciated. Marskell 13:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Lament
Just so you'll feel missed and know you're appreciated. There are 70 FACs listed right now (too many!), and I just reviewed several that are likely going through in terrible shape. I certainly can't wait for you to get back. Mark my words; January through March 2007 (Tony's absence) will be key FA nom dates for future FARs ! Sandy Georgia (Talk) 05:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed - someone needs to give these FACers a dreaded fright.. til March 29th I guess. Hope you're enjoying Canada. I hope Sandy's wrong as concerns her prediction; I wouldn't want my first FA to end up at FAR! LuciferMorgan 01:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but this is sad and revealing. No one needs a "dreaded fright" for contributing significantly, by way of FAC, to Wikipedia. – Outriggr § 00:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Outrigger, we're talking only of retaining and improving standards here, not a series of personal attacks. In any walk of life, people will be apt to become upset when their 'significant contributions' are challenged and criticised - I'm afraid that that's a necessary part of the process. I agree with Lucifer that FAC needs a broom. Where is Rintrah? Where is Hoary? I have limited (and expensive) online access at the moment. Tony 22:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I can't endorse the idea that FACers need a fright per se; my concern is with "fan support" from reviewers who don't appear to have actually reviewed the articles. (I seem to recall&mdash;I could be wrong&mdash;that Rintrah decided Wiki was taking too much time away from real life.)  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Sad and revealing? Hmm I hope that comment wasn't directed at me personally. When I said dreaded fright I meant that when Tony's around, nobody even considers nominating an article that doesn't wholeheartedly comply with criterion 1a. Typos, stubby paragraphs, snaky sentences - nobody would dare risk it. It's FAC reviewers like Tony who make me respect FAC - what are we meant to do? Not point out concerns incase they offend the nominator, and stroke their ego? Wikipedia is getting way too politically correct in my opinion - anything I say is taken out of context these days. I endorse the idea they need a fright, as FA is only as good as the standards that are endorsed and applied. FA is about quality, not quantity, and someone has to speak out if standards are slipping. LuciferMorgan 00:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * "Dares" and "frights" - says it all really. Why on earth would anyone want to write an FA anymore. Giano 22:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Gee, I don't know, but I can't recall the last time I saw 70 FACs at once, and so many promotions. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 04:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. My last FA got through far too easily. I only really had one serious review, and the article was promoted before I'd addressed everything raised there. If there are too many FACs and not enough reviewers, then it should be the throughput time that degrades, not the standards. Hesperian 04:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It's sporadic; I've seen articles with only 3 or 4 supports be promoted in four days, and others go on for a month. The review process is certainly uneven; my point was that, in Tony's absence, prose review lagged and there were too many FACs for each to receive a thorough review, because nominations seem to be at all-time highs.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 04:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I wonder where all the reviewers went? Oooooh, that's right!  They were shoved aside by the Universal Reviewer who imposes a numerical standard instead of a readings.  Promotions are, fortunately, still up to Raul, regardless of voters/reviewers.  If junk is getting promoted, talk to him about it.  Which ones are junk?  Why are they junk?  There is no such thing as "too many" promotions.  It isn't possible to standardize, and it isn't possible to say "Of 70, only X should be promoted."  Formulae are the problem, not the answer.  Geogre 10:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Formulas for how we format are good and necessary (though, so long as a given format represents the info properly, we needn't be uptight). Geogre, at least in your criticisms of Sandy, you've conflated demands for good formatting with demands for refs themselves; Sandy only occasionally asks for refs, but always pays attention to how they are laid out and whether sufficient source information is provided. This is a critical difference.


 * Formulas for how many FAs get promoted are certainly bad and unnecessary. I don't see anyone arguing for such formulas here. (Sorry, I prefer colloquial plurals.) Tony, despite your criticisms in that direction, has long argued this very point. Marskell 16:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Can't see where anyone said there were too many promotions anywhere in this discussion, nor have I noticed a lack of reviewers; I mentioned an unusually high number of nominations. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm leaving this discussion for personal reasons. I've made my statement, and people can read that statement and judge it based on their own feelings (and not that of anyone else's). Unfortunately, what was meant as a token of gratitude to Tony has descended into something else, and that something else isn't something I wish to be a part of. Goodbye (to this discussion). LuciferMorgan 17:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You actually said Sandy: "Mark my words; January through March 2007 (Tony's absence) will be key FA nom dates for future FARs" and I thought it was said with just a little bit of salivating and excited anticipation. Forgive me if I'm wrong Giano 19:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Forgiven&mdash;again. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * PS: Just in case anyone is wondering Tony and I get on OK - I think Sandy and Lucifer are elevating him to a status he would not wish to enjoy! Giano 19:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Seeing the cynical comments above, I would really recommend for certain people to start dealing with their addiction to both FAC and FAR. We don't need checklist-type reviewers who seem to believe that the general FA standards rest on their shoulders alone. Especially not when they have a clear and outspoken bias for a certain style of citation (and I'm not talking Harvard vs footnotes here) rather than exclusively valiant opinions about verifiability per se.
 * I can guarantee you that at the screwup rate you're at now, you're all headed straight into the "people you should ignore"-category to many editors. I sure know I wouldn't respect most of those bouts of general fact-tag sprinkling...
 * Peter Isotalo 10:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Linking dates
I am having a difference of opinion on the linking of dates. Should all dates be linked, for example, the article subject's birth and death dates, dates like 1930 and such? Sincerely, Mattisse 17:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Given the unfortunate technical situation, in which dates can't be autoformatted without linking them, I'm now refusing to link any dates. I suggest that you do the same until the situation is resolved. Tony 22:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your answers. When the situation is resolved (and I don't really know what you mean by "autoformatted"), what is your policy regarding the linking of dates? Some FA editors do not want dates linked unless there is a clear relevance of the date to the article subject. Therefore, I was under the impression this was a general stance. However, the MoS waffles. One situation I am talking about is this one: John Doe was born November 9, 1960 and died December 24, 2001. Sincerely, Mattisse 23:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The MoS waffles because, unfortunately, there's a band of WPs who get a charge out of blueing all dates. There's a host of reasons not to do this, including greater difficulty in reading the text, degraded appearance, and dilution of high-value links. The dates you cite will be autoformatted to whatever each logged on reader has chosen in their preferences (9 January 1970, vs. January 9th, 1970, etc.) But this will also link the reader to a useless page and blue the date. It's an ongoing, at times unpleasant, issue on WP. Check out the move to have the two functions (autoformatting and linking) technically separated: either at the top of the current MoS discussion page or, if it's been archived, in the most recent archive. Sign up if you wish. Tony 16:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with you completely and it is unfortunate not to have some official authority saying that. Everyone he has asked has told him the opposite. Very frustrating. I will check out weighing in on supporting to have the autofomatting detached from the date linking. Thanks for your answer and explanation! Sincerely, Mattisse 16:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Freak Out!
I took a look at the issues you've addressed, and I've taken care of them. (Ibaranoff24 23:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC))
 * I've listed the article at requests for copyediting. (Ibaranoff24 18:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC))

History of Sheffield FAC
Hi, thanks for your comments on the History of Sheffield FAC. Copy editing has never been one of my strong points but I have tried to address the concerns that you raised about the lead section of the article. Thanks again, —JeremyA (talk) 02:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Ipswich Town F.C.
Thank you for the excellent comments raised at the FAC. However, I was concerned by your sign-off. All we can do is respond to the criticisms received, which we're happy to do to make the article better. I'll review all the commas in the article, but other than that it's difficult for us to address unspecified concerns. If you could add to your list at the article talk page, where I'm about to go through the comments or fix things yourself in the article, that would be most appreciated. --Dweller 09:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * And we have had a copyedit by a respected copyeditor already so I would very much appreciate any further advice you may have. The Rambling Man 12:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Ahem - well, I do what I can, but none of us are perfect :) -- ALoan (Talk) 12:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * All-Tony never learns that we can not read his mind. He habitually says everything is junk, cites a few examples, then expects us to figure out the rest of his concerns. Yes, he's very good at copyedit, but most of us aren't and most of us aren't mind readers.Sumoeagle179 00:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * (1) You're right: I have acquired the habit of criticising prose, and while I usually make major requests for copy-editing (because most FACs are not professionally written as required by 1a), I don't damn "everything". Please get your facts right.
 * (2) Citing examples of problems in a small section shows contributors the density of issues in their work that need to be addressed. That seems like an efficient way of encouraging contributors to locate and motivate good copy-editors. I do not typically edit the articles I review; reviewers are under no obligation to do so; contributors, however, are obliged to achieve "professional" standards of writing in FACs if they want their work to receive a gold star.
 * (3) "Most of us aren't [good copy-editors]"—Then nurture collaborators who are, or don't present FA nominations. You seem to think that WP's standards should bend with the wind to accommodate any standard that's presented. No.
 * (4) The "mind readers" comment: I don't want you to read my mind; I want you to improve the prose in your nomination. It's not up to me to do that, it's up to you. Tony 01:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You're so smug, stuck on yourself, and arrogant, not to mention misguided and wrong in your conclusions that I won't even dignify it with further comment.Sumoeagle179 03:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey, lets chill before we continue with more of that. Message left for Sumoeagle179.  Daniel Bryant  03:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Any further spatterings by Sumoeagle on this page will be immediately deleted. What a rude little nark. Tony 04:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I missed all this, it seems to have gone out of control somewhat. From my perspective, anything Tony says is fair enough, it's his call. I would say that I don't believe saying "Don't just fix these specific problems" is encouraging in any way, it's demoralising to people who have put articles through peer reviews and FA noms, and in my case a copyedit from a good copyeditor. Anyway, the article in question was promoted regardless. Let's all remember WP:AGF and avoid personal attacks. The Rambling Man 09:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I've learnt that you have to say that; otherwise, people just fix the examples you've given, whereas they are only examples of wider issues in the prose. To set myself up as a copy-editor of all FACs would be a full-time, unpaid job, which I'm unwilling and unable to do. I think that I can have a greater impact simply by reviewing and advising. Sorry, Sumoeagle, if you think that's arrogant. Tony 10:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll edit any talk page I want.Sumoeagle179 22:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, let's see, just above here, Tony called Sumoeagle a "rude little nark" and here he called him a "low-down little tic". While Sumo may not have been totally civil, at least he didn't stoop to lowly name-calling.Rlevse 22:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, yeah. You should both have better things to do. Tony 23:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Lutoslawski 3
Hi. I wanted to let you know that I linked your image Image:Lutoslawski Symphony 3 excerpt.JPG over to the piece's article (Symphony No. 3 (Lutoslawski)), and more or less paraphrased your analysis from Witold Lutoslawski. I also updated the external link on the image page. Hope that's all ok.

Also a request: I couldn't find a list anywhere of precisely what the four percussionists are playing, so I fudged in the "instrumentation" sect. and just put "various instruments." if/when you get the chance, & if you still have the score laying about, if you could patch that up that'd be cool — Turangalila (talk) 17:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Grand Duchess Maria Nikolaevna of Russia FAC review
I appreciated some of your comments regarding this article and went through it and tightened up sentences per your suggestion and what I saw myself on a second read through. However, I was not inviting you to copy edit the whole article. Since you took the time to comment upon it, I thought you might be interested enough in the topic to consider doing so. --Bookworm857158367 22:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Glad to see you back
It's great to see you back in full swing! &mdash; Deckiller 02:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Three Bs
You're back? Good!

I agree: that three Bs business was trivial. Nevertheless, I edited "Bs" in the equivalent text at Beethoven and Brahms, to match Dudesleeper's change at the Bach article. Trivial concerning these composers in themselves, but perhaps a cultural fact that might interest some users.

Meanwhile, why not have a glance at the new article Diatonic and chromatic? Surprisingly tricky stuff; handle with care. There's a long and inglorious history to it in archives at Talk:Interval (music), Talk:Diminished seventh, and Talk:Diatonic scale.

–&thinsp; Noetica ♬♩&thinsp;Talk 03:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Tamil language
I don't understand a word of it; can you have a look? Featured article review/Tamil language Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Alizee
Hello, thanks for pointing out the problems with the text in the Alizee article at its FAC review. You are very right in saying it needs a proof-reading by an unfamiliar editor. We, regular editors, are so familiar with the text that such problems escape our eyes. Now that you have pointed out a few instances, I was thinking "Damn, how did I miss them?" :) I reread the text of the article and found a few more. Anyways, please let us know any other problem you find with it. :)

Btw, was going through your contribs history. You do an awesome job of catching similar stylistic problems in articles. Keep up the great work. --  soum  (0_o) 23:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I would also like feedback on a few points. Foremost section naming. We went against the more popular chronological naming of sections - mentioning years in section titles. And the second one is not having a separate Awards section (but integrate into Critical response section as a table). What do you think of those? --  soum  (0_o) 23:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The Song Dynasty Article
[sarcasm]

Crickey!

G'Day mate! I must a been drinkin some 'plonk' and some 'amber fluid' (had to be some Fosters) and had a 'gutful of piss' when I edited that Chiny Song article, cuz apparently I didn't give much notice to the parts I didn't write! (I recently had to split the article into several different articles, the latter of which I had edited the most, and provided the most details for) It was full of so many grammatical errors that, holy dooley, I musta seemed like quite a mug and a hoon to the refined such as yourself. Or in the least a kangaroo loose in the top paddock. But with my new edits, the article should look much betta. Apples, she'll be! I tell ya, it's in a good 'pozzy' to get FA status now, a real rip snorter!

[/sarcasm]

Now that I've got that out of my system, check out the article again. I actually have made some improvements, despite my smart comments.

Thanks for reading and reviewing, --PericlesofAthens 05:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Universal Translator requred! Tony 06:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * He agrees with you, he recently reorganized the article per my suggestions, most of the parts he wrote were moved to subarticles while the parts that stayed were written by others, there were problems, he fixed them, please have another look. How's that ?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 12:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it was just my attempt to be funny; will do. Tony 12:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I thought so, but I wanted to weigh in since I asked him to summarize. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 12:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey Tony (tips hat to sandy as well), I left a message for your last comment in the Song article.PericlesofAthens 17:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Homer's Enemy
This FAC has been a tough nut to crack (which is why I'm still opposed); I keep finding glitches with the prose. Mind chipping into the FAC? Perhaps I'm just being too nitpicky. &mdash; Deckiller 06:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Tony1/Draft of revised non-free content criteria

User:Tony1/MOS comparison

User:Tony1/MOS comparison: Italics and Quotations

User:Tony1/National varieties draft for MoS

User:Tony1/Colours for linking

User:Tony1/Substantive changes in MOSNUM overhaul

User:Tony1/Peter Watchorn draft

Peter Watchorn

Signature image processing