User talk:Tony1

Archive 1 – Archive 2 – Archive 3 – Archive 4 – Archive 5 – Archive 6 – Archive 7

Useful links

RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report No RfXs since 00:50, 23 June 2024 (UTC).—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online

This user is a member of WikiProject Manual of Style. ArbCom, not GovCom This user elected ArbCom to resolve disputes, not to govern. This editor is not an administrator and does not wish to be one. This user believes date-autoformatting is like lipstick on a pig.

Self-help writing tutorials: Exercises in weeding out fluff from article text Advanced editing exercises Spot the ambiguity Build your linking skills Using hyphens and dashes Copy-editing essentials, part of the Military History Academy edit

FACs and FARCs needing review FACs needing feedback view • MLS Cup 2022 Review it now Buangkok MRT station Review it now Starship Troopers (film) Review it now Fountain Fire Review it now Pre-automated archives (4 August 2005 – 25 June 2008) Archive 1 (4 August – 14 October 2005): Archive 2 (15 October 2005 to 5 March 2006): Archive 3 (6 March – 15 June 2006): Archive 4 (16 June – 6 September 2006): Archive 5 (6 September – 29 December 2006): Archive 6 (30 December 2006 – 6 April 2007): Archive 7 (7 April – 29 July 2007): Archive 8 (30 July – 7 September 2007): Archive 9 (7 September – 16 December 2007): Archive 10 (17 December – 18 January 2008): User_talk:Tony1/Archive11/Archive 11 (19 January – 30 March 2008): User_talk:Tony1/Archive12/Archive 12 (31 March – 28 April 2008): User_talk:Tony1/Archive13/Archive 13 (29 April – 7 June 2008): User_talk:Tony1/Archive14/Archive 14 (7 June – 25 June 2008): Real-life work-pressure: 4 1 = no work pressure 5 = middling > 5 = please don't expect much 10 = frenzied Please note that I do not normally (1) copy-edit articles, or (2) review articles that are not candidates for promotion to featured status. Current listening obsession: BWV1, first movement: Wie schön leuchtet der Morgenstern (JS Bach). Harmonising the first phrase of the cantus firmus must have been a headache, anchored to the tonic triad when you don't want to be; his solution only just works. Here's the beautiful Harnoncourt version, slower than most, but it brings out the intimacy.

Edward Drinker Cope FAC

I have contacted several users to provide another set of eyes on the article, but unfortunately it is unlikely they will be able to get to it in the immediate future. I have gone through the rest of the article with an eye towards eliminating redundancy and clunky phrasing. Can you take another look when you have time? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Noun phrases v nominal groups

Since you're familiar with Halliday's work, can you shed some light on Talk:Noun phrase#Noun phrases v nominal groups? (The CGEL's definition of "noun phrase" is in the second chapter, which can be downloaded from http://www.cambridge.org/uk/linguistics/cgel/sample.htm.) ― A._di_M.^{2nd Dramaout} (formerly Army1987) 02:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not trying to appear like a smart-alec, but: Noun phrase vs. Nominal_group_(language). I notice that at the top of the "Noun phrase" article is the banner: It has been suggested that this article or section be merged with Nominal group (language). I also notice that at the top of the "Nominal group (language)" article is the banner: It has been suggested that this article or section be merged with Noun phrase. If both suggestions were carried out simultaneously, would we still have two articles; or would we have none? Cheers.  HWV258.  03:01, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

"With" ({{merge}}) not "into" ({{mergeto}}): the suggestion is to have one article, but it doesn't specify what its title should be. (Anyway, Tony answered that they are different concepts, so that's moot now. But I'm not sure I get the distinction right, so I think the articles should mention each other with more than a bare "See also" link, so that the relationship between the two concepts is clearer.) ― A._di_M.^{2nd Dramaout} (formerly Army1987) 03:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I always try to remember the point that confused me when encountering something (in the hope of updating the article to help others who may have the same question).  HWV258.  03:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Brazil

Hello, Tony! I am currently working on the article about Brazil along with other editors. We have almost completely remade it from scratch. I noticed that you were one of the editors who were against the article's assessment to featured status. I was wondering if you could take a look in it, but not a serious overly detailed look because we are not finished yet. Just a quick look to see if we are going into the right direction. Thank you very much and regards, --Lecen (talk) 03:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

International Space Station

Hi Tony, taking up your concerns about the prose in the above article, I did a run through a few days back. I've also done a lot of work reducing the overlinking. Would you be willing to take another look for its current FAC? hamiltonstone (talk) 05:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 January 2010

• News and notes: Fundraiser ends, content contests, image donation, and more

• In the news: Financial Times, death rumors, Google maps and more

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Soviet invasion of Poland FAR

Hi Tony, can you have a look here? There is a dispute as to whether the prose is ghood enough. Thanks YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 03:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Here's the link: Wikipedia:Featured article review/Soviet invasion of Poland/archive1. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, you also voted "Delete". Also final Fantasy VIII has a pile of keeps, so a prose check needs to be done there YellowMonkey (bananabucket!) 04:27, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Noun plus -ing

Hi Tony, I hope all is well. I have thought of you frequently over the last few months because I now subscribe to The Economist, a British newspaper that seems to have a rather high standard of research and journalism. They incessantly use the "noun plus -ing" in their writing, so much so that I suspect it to be an editorial preference. I believe I witnessed you waffling about the issue a bit—any updates? --Andy Walsh (talk) 22:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Andy. Yes, latest thoughts are:

1. I don't entirely understand it, and nor does anyone else.
2. It seems to be the result of a collision over the past two centuries or so of two grammatical structures—one adjectival and one possessive. For example, "see the birds flying south"; i.e., "see the birds [that are] flying south" (what kind of birds? the ones flying south) versus "see the birds' flying south" (the act of flying south is that of the birds ... witness this act).
3. Often it's clumsy, and sometimes it's ambiguous or creates a vague relationship between the nominal group and what is meant to be describing it.
4. Where it's clumsy, ambiguous or vague, it should be avoided by rewording. The result is almost always better. There needs to be an analysis and guidance on where it's worth rewording.
5. Journalists all over have taken it up as a lazy way of writing: jamming together some kind of verbal adjective and a nominal group ("This would make the government being re-elected difficult"—erky). Occasionally you find just one slip-up in a text, but there's often a pattern of it among writers who get into this groove. Dreadful. The current FAC International Space Station was riddled with them; some are still there.
6. In a few decades' time, it will sadly have become a standard construction, free of criticism from snotty-nosed commentators like me. But it's not yet in that privileged position. Tony (talk) 23:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to usurp your talk page for a discussion not involving me, but actually it is already a standard construction, although the version with the genitive is more formal: see Huddleston (2008), A short overview of English syntax, subsection 13.2. And actually, the version with the accusative subject is older than the one with the genitive: see the discussion following the example (7) in Pullum (2004), Ideology, power, and linguistic theory. ― A._di_M.^{2nd Dramaout} (formerly Army1987) 13:55, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Huddleston mandates "We objected to them being given extra privileges." Yuck. "Their", please, whatever the formality of the register; or "We objected to the extra privileges they were given."

His version is all traditional grammar with extra layers of complexity that fold in on themselves. It's clunky, restrictive and superficial. It's not well written for someone who holds themselves up as a grammarian. Some of the examples are awkward. Try Halliday's Introduction to functional grammar—it's the only way. The 1995 edition is easier to plunge into than the 2004 edition. Tony (talk) 21:59, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

And look at this whopper in Pullum's lead: "There are few signs of any knowledge about grammar dating from after 1900 having become known to a broad cross-section of the general public or having had an impact on education." Oh puhlease. "There are few signs that any knowledge about grammar dating from after 1900 has become known to a broad cross-section of the general public or has had an impact on education." Even then, what is dating is unclear. Tony (talk) 22:37, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Mandating? What Huddleston actually says is:

In gerund-participials a personal pronoun Subject usually appears in accusative case, but genitives are found in relatively formal style: We objected to them/their being given extra privileges.

Here as elsewhere, he doesn't presume to tell anyone how to use English. Putting aside questions of superficiality and clunk, in what sense is what he writes "restrictive"? -- Hoary (talk) 07:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

That's certainly an awkward sentence of Pullum's; your revision is an improvement. (But this is a preliminary draft, I think.) What's new since 1900? Quite a lot: try this summary. -- Hoary (talk) 10:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Interesting: I'll read it soon. This caught my eye, under his Section 2: "The test of a word's being a noun ...", which is the possessive solution to the problem of "The test of a word being a noun ...". Using 's here is hopelessly old-fashioned, I think. Better to reword as "The test of whether a word is a noun ...". Tony (talk) 11:11, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Superficiality is hard to avoid when summarizing a 1842-page book into a 423.4-kilobyte webpage, I suppose. And Huddleston is doing descriptive linguistics: he's saying that native English speakers use that construction (which is indeed true—I don't think all the instances you found in the ISS article and all the instances Walsh found in The Economist were written by learners unaware of which construction would natives use), not that he likes it or that he recommends it. Saying that only the construction with the genitive is used, that would be incorrect. The previous sentence is an example of left dislocation, as described in section 15 of Huddleston's overview. ― A._di_M.^{2nd Dramaout} (formerly Army1987) 13:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Nature of WT:MOS

Hello! You recently commented on my talk page. I previously noted your good work with the ACE2009 volunteer team. Thus, I feel comfortable asking an unrelated question purely out of curiosity. I have been reading many of the recent MOS discussions. For example, I read through the recent discussion(s) on en dash spacing (or lack thereof). Are MOS discussions usually that... lengthy and mildly circular? They seem to be more prone to esoteric reasonings and general contention than other areas of Wikipedia. It (MOS in general) seems like an interesting area, but do you really feel that the repetitive and theoretical threads are productive? Thanks in advance for your thoughts. :) —James Kalmar 07:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Announcement: Silliest wikilink of the month awards

Users are advised that His Grace the Duke of Waltham has announced the Silliest wikilink of the month awards at WT:LINK. There are five monthly winners (August–December 2009) and an overall winner for 2009. The Duke's private secretary, Harold Cartwright, has emphasised that no correspondence will be entered into regarding the awards: His Grace's decision is final. Tony (talk) 10:25, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, How?

I am frustrated by the oblique nature of WP procedures. You seem to be authoring Administrator Review procedures, so perhaps you can help in two ways.

First, I was drawn here trying to seek review of an administrator--PMDrive1061-- who deleted one of my articles. I'm not keen on the back room ways WP operates, but I've certainly edited enough articles. An article should go through an AfD procedure and be discussed--direct deletion is only for a case that blatantly abuses a policy. When I went to this guy's talk page to complain, I notice he has polite complaints from a litany of other writers questioning similar, direct deletion of their articles. In short, this guy is habitually abusing his power as an administrator. The significance of my article is not the issue I wish to raise, but I think it will survive a notability challenge--it was about a small multi-grade Christian school that educates high school grades. From everything I've learned, a high school is notable. Period. Much more important, I wish to raise this administrator's Abuse of Power. We need to rid WP of administrators who unilaterally think their opinion is so important that they can simple delete knowledge from the database without anybody else getting to discuss it. Other editors might roll over, they might not know how out of line this is. I'm not going to tolerate this because we have to protect WP and its valuable information from people like this. How do we go about getting this guy out of the elite administrators pool?

Secondly, since you are deep on the inside, maybe you can address this. WP procedures are just too oblique for the common user to understand. This stuff is designed for geeks. It is difficult to find, difficult to understand and is thusly self limiting to the deep insiders who those who spend the time to figure this crap out. I wish to encourage you to think about simplification, from the procedures, to the search to find the procedures to the explanation of those procedures. If you note the vote for Global Sysops. Yes, something as simple as a vote, publicized on every page and we've barely got 1,000 people participating worldwide in WP procedures. WP has made itself into an elite old-boys club. Maybe you can do something to fix this.Trackinfo (talk) 23:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Trackinfo, I'm sorry but I'm not authoring Admin Review procedures. I suggest you raise this matter at ANI. It would be most effective if your post there were brief and non-emotional. You would need to provide example diffs. Tony (talk) 00:33, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/International Space Station/archive4

Would you have a look at the status update i've done at the bottom of this? I'm hoping you will check and strike your "strong oppose". Thanks. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 11 January 2010

• From the editor: Call for writers

• 2009 in review: 2009 in Review

• Books: New Book namespace created

• News and notes: Wikimania 2011, Flaggedrevs, Global sysops and more

• In the news: Wikipedia in British schools, Hitler's Downfall meme, and more

• Features and admins: Approved this week

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 09:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Brad Pitt

Hi, you raised comments about the quality of the prose on Brad Pitt in its FAC in June last year. I've recently undertaken a copyedit, at the request of ThinkBlue, the nominator, and I wondered if you would be kind enough to take a look and provide a little feedback- I wouldn't be surprised if I'd missed something, so any examples of prose needing improvement or general constructive criticism would be greatly appreciated. Thank you for your time, HJMitchell You rang? 22:04, 12 January 2010 (UTC)