User talk:Tony1: Difference between revisions
Nikkimaria (talk | contribs) →OTD RFC: new section |
→Talk:Middlesex (novel)#Intersex grammar: new section |
||
Line 171: | Line 171: | ||
I have opened an RfC related to an issue on which you recently commented: [[Wikipedia_talk:Selected_anniversaries#Year_wikilinking_in_OTD]]. [[User:Nikkimaria|Nikkimaria]] ([[User talk:Nikkimaria|talk]]) 03:19, 25 October 2011 (UTC) |
I have opened an RfC related to an issue on which you recently commented: [[Wikipedia_talk:Selected_anniversaries#Year_wikilinking_in_OTD]]. [[User:Nikkimaria|Nikkimaria]] ([[User talk:Nikkimaria|talk]]) 03:19, 25 October 2011 (UTC) |
||
== [[Talk:Middlesex (novel)#Intersex grammar]] == |
|||
Hi Tony1. As someone who has a strong command of English grammar, would you provide advice at [[Talk:Middlesex (novel)#Intersex grammar]]? Thank you, [[User:Cunard|Cunard]] ([[User talk:Cunard|talk]]) 04:22, 25 October 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 04:22, 25 October 2011
...
![]() Number signs
Her album reached #1 in the charts.
Add this to your user page by typing in {{Styletips}} |
Archive 1 – Archive 2 – Archive 3 – Archive 4 – Archive 5 – Archive 6 – Archive 7 – Archive 8 – Archive 9 – Archive 10 – Archive 11
![]() | This user is proud to be a financial member of Wikimedia Australia. |
No RfXs since 00:50, 23 June 2024 (UTC).—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online |
![]() |
---|
8 June 2024 |
FACs needing feedback view • | |
---|---|
2023 World Snooker Championship | Review it now |
Tornado outbreak of February 12, 1945 | Review it now |
- Archive 1 (4 August – 14 October 2005):
- Archive 2 (15 October 2005 – 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):
- Archive 11 (19 January – 30 March 2008):
- Archive 12 (31 March – 28 April 2008):
- Archive 13 (29 April – 7 June 2008):
- Archive 14 (7 June – 25 June 2008):
Real-life workload: 7.5
- 1 = no work pressure
- 5 = middling
- > 5 = please don't expect much
- 10 = frenzied
Please note that I don't normally (1) copy-edit articles or (2) review articles that are not already candidates for promotion to featured status.
Current listening obsession: BWV11, last movement: Wann soll es doch geschehen (JS Bach). Here's the Harnoncourt version, which is great in many ways, but the flutes needed separate miking—they're drowned out in the tutti passages.
Curing capitalitis--help!Dear Tony1, the discussion on capitalizing protocol layers in the article on the OSI model has still not come to a conclusion and frankly the guys are driving me crazy. They seem unwilling to recognize any argument nor do they make theirs explicit. I don't see how reaching an agreement is possible under these circumstances. Would you have some advice how to deal with this situation? Thanks, --EnOreg (talk) 20:34, 17 October 2011 (UTC) Lame RMsTony, why do you waste our time with RMs when PROD would obviously be a better route? Dicklyon (talk) 03:32, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
CopyeditsTony, I'm rushing to get an issue written and out a.s.a.p, but could use a second set of eyes to review/copyedit, as prose written pre-dawn has a tendency to turn to mush and fact checking is cursory. N&N, ITN, Arb and Tech need a look if you can spare the time. Skomorokh 06:29, 18 October 2011 (UTC) OK, within an hour. Tony (talk) 06:30, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 17 October 2011
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 11:23, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Slide show without purgeI wonder if you could weigh in at Talk:India#Rotation_vs._slide_show, where there is a discussion in progress about the possibility of having a slide show (a la the newspaper web sites) without a purge. You were mentioned as an expert. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:42, 18 October 2011 (UTC) one noteI moved HIV Rev response element, but not HIV ribosomal frameshift signal. Looks like "Rev" is the proper noun of Rev (HIV). I moved Henry Hub, since it's the proper name of an actual building. The pricing point is named after it. You might be interested in Talk:Ground_granulated_blast-furnace_slag#the_hyphen_between_the_first_two_words. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:38, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
ARMA modelsTony, you might be surprised that in autoregressive moving-average models, autoregressive is not a modifier of moving-average model. You got the hyphen right in your move, but if you really want it to be right, you need an en dash to signify that it is a model that is both autoregressive and moving average. This en dash is sometimes found in better sources (like this book), as is the hyphen, but I haven't found them both together, which is the only thing that is grammatically and stylistically correct. But people who use these buzz phrases forget that it might be wise to do their best to convey the meaning, rather than rely on readers being in the know. What do we do about that then? Dicklyon (talk) 21:56, 19 October 2011 (UTC) And your hyphen in Light-speed silicon chip makes sense, but the article and its title don't. I've put a merge proposal on it. Good thing I'm stalking you. Dicklyon (talk) 23:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
"Ryll-Nardzewski" is a hyphenated name!Hello. Please note that I have undone this edit. "Ryll-Nardzewski" is a hyphenated name of just one person. The result is not named after two people named "Ryll" and "Nardzewski". Michael Hardy (talk) 03:33, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure whether renaming "Multilinear principal component analysis" to "Multilinear principal-component analysis" was a very good idea either. It should at least match principal component analysis (i.e. the correct parenthesization here would be "(multilinear ((principal component) analysis))"). In this case I think the literature is pretty clear that it should be written without a hyphen. —Ruud 21:53, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Thank you very much TonyHi Tony. Thank you very much for editing and improving my first article. There's an ongoing Article for Deletion discussion on it right now. Your insights on the matter will be greatly appreciated. Kind regards, GuterTag (talk) 10:16, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Adding and removing, adding and removing...Tony, we've never had any interaction, but I've long respected you as an editor and admired your work here. I have to say that I found your comments to be both disheartening and inaccurate. Here is what happened, as I see it: I made a bold edit. I thought it was an improvement, and I left a detailed summary. I was reverted without so much as a word. While I don't edit-war, I have no problem undoing a revert when the editor can't be bothered to leave a simple edit summary, explaining why he or she felt I was wrong. When I was reverted a second time, I didn't continue to revert, but rather went to the talk page. The consensus there seemed (to me) that while the long-standing version may or may not have been more ideal than mine, it was preferable to the newer version. It was on this basis that I reverted to the long-standing version. After thinking it over, I soon decided to err on the side of caution, and self-revert. The "adding and removing" took place literally over a matter of seconds. The next day, I again went to the talk page. The editor who originally reverted me said it was fine to revert to the long-standing version, and this is what I was attempting to do when I inadvertantly removed "and topical", which you kindly corrected. So in summary, I made:
I feel that this is a far cry from your characterization of "adding and removing, adding and removing". My sole intention was to improve Wikipedia, as I'm sure your's is. Regards. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:34, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Blocking policyWriting new policies isn't something I'm particularly good at - so I'm going to leave it to you. Given the number of comments so far I doubt waiting a bit will make a big difference. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:15, 23 October 2011 (UTC) OTD RFCI have opened an RfC related to an issue on which you recently commented: Wikipedia_talk:Selected_anniversaries#Year_wikilinking_in_OTD. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:19, 25 October 2011 (UTC) Hi Tony1. As someone who has a strong command of English grammar, would you provide advice at Talk:Middlesex (novel)#Intersex grammar? Thank you, Cunard (talk) 04:22, 25 October 2011 (UTC) |