Please note that I do not 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.
The Guild of Copy Editors has a Requests page where editors can list their articles to request a copy edit. During January and February, the requests have been arriving at the rate of several every day, and we are getting a bit behind! We are putting out the call for a little help to get caught up. If you are interested in lending a hand, please select one or two articles from our Requests page and do a copy edit. Help a little or a lot; it's good karma! Thank you very much for any assistance you can offer.
The Featured Sound Main Page Proposal Voter Barnstar
I was truly humbled by the overwhelming community support for the recent proposal to place featured sounds on the main page. The proposal closed on Tuesday with 57 people in support and only 2 in opposition.
It should take a few weeks for everything to get coded and tested, and once that is done the community will be presented with a mock up to assess on aesthetic appeal.
Finally, I invite all of you to participate in the featured sounds process itself. Whether you're a performer, an uploader, or just come across a sound file you find top quality, and that meets the featured sound criteria, you can nominate it at Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates. Featured sounds is also looking for people to help assess candidates (also at Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates.)
Ancient Apparition has given you a tall pint! Pints promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a tall pint, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. I don't think I apologised to you properly for that little kerfuffle you and I got involved in on my talk page, please accept this pint with the same respect with which it is given :)†
Talkback
Hello, Tony1. You have new messages at Sadads's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Talkback
Hello, Tony1. You have new messages at NeilN's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Am concerned that there continues to be a view that both alternating sides and default width are "rules" that have to be followed. Also, concerned that it makes the articles often look worse than better. For instance, left justifying a photo in a small section, puts it right under the section break and plays hell with the sections below.
See here for discussion of the issue coming up on A330 FAC. (Also, just came up in the Manhattan Project FAC, a minute ago.) I thought we had moved on from this...
I am not suggesting you did it as a personal favour but my thanks to you and Dabomb87 for the prominence of the famous St K photo - and indeed your continued fine work on the Signpost. All the best, BenMacDui18:11, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, there wasn't much competition last week! I combed through the featured topic and as soon as I saw that 1880s pic, I knew it was the one. Just as well the res was sufficient for the big-ass one at the top. Congrats on your good work on the topic. Tony(talk)04:18, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Risker. You've given me the excuse I needed to speak my mind there; more precisely, you've reacquainted me with a key principle in Robert Harris's report to the Foundation Board. I'm certainly no prude in RL, but on WMF projects I'm acutely aware of the real-world political considerations, and not just in English-speaking countries. The main page is hugely exposed, and children see it every day in great numbers in its role as the gateway to WP. The f word is fine in many article contexts where the user has consciously sought out a topic, but the principle of least astonishment Robert Harris so ably examined plays sharply on the main page, where accidental exposure happens every second of the day. Why give individuals and governments a reason to curtail the reach of WP through what I regard as a pointy crusade against "censorship". Censorship is not black and white; it needs to be managed with skill and subtlety by the foundation and project editors. Tony(talk)07:15, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Image width
Because of the past problems, our DYK bot is set up to accept only 100x100px at the moment. It is easy to change the bot (and I'll try to widen that image on the main page directly, if I'm online), but the right way is to gain general consensus at talk:Main Page. Cheers. Materialscientist (talk) 09:13, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I know. I hope DYK people will carefully consider whether or not to support a more flexible system when I raise it again on main-page talk. Thanks, Ms, for your consideration. Tony(talk)09:15, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I would prefer to see him topic banned sooner rather than later. It's trivial to look at his block log to see that he's not working well with others; he just makes whatever changes he wants, and he runs completely roughshod over even majorities against him; people shy away because they don't want to get blocked at the same time he is.
I think if we started an RFC we could probably get him topic blocked from making changes to the MOS-related policies and guidelines, without any further edits by him.
He's just continually bullying the other users.
He's been at the centre of two policy locked down in just a few weeks.
Hi Rememberway, this is rather more dramatic than I had intended by merely posting a warning on the user's page. At this stage, I don't want to be mixed up in a move to protect the project from the kind of disruption we witnessed earlier today; I'll leave that to the judgement of other editors. Thanks for your message; in a cautionary vein, I do note that you've been involved in drama with this user at WP:TITLE, so it would probably be better if you weren't a prime mover. Tony(talk)11:02, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for Vinita Gupta
While I can only answer for myself (I'm not sure the other editor even watches the nomination) I hope I have answered your concerns regarding Template talk:Did you know#Vinita Gupta. It would have helped if you were clearer about your concern. Is it notability? COI? Am I missing something? --Muhandes (talk) 11:36, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your edit to U.S. Route 491 broke two things. Now, the first I'm willing to overlook as a misunderstanding, but the second I can't overlook. I think that you used a script to perform the edit, but you didn't check your results. If you'll notice, the script changed |country=USA in the infobox to |country=US. {{infobox road}} uses the ISO 3166-1 alpha-3 codes for country names, not the alpha-2 codes. That means USA is correct and US is not just as it would use CAN for Canada, not CA. The second problem that resulted from that edit was that it broke a category at the bottom of the page, changing [[Category:Gallup, New Mexico]] into [[Category:Gallup, New Mexico|Category:Gallup]], New Mexico.
The infobox change should have been apparent when the colors in the infobox header bars changed from white on green to black on light blue, and the "Route information" section of the infobox listed "Auxiliary route of [[Template:Infobox road/link/US|Template:Infobox road/abbrev/US]]" instead of "Auxiliary route of US 91". The category change should have been noticeable as well when the stray ", New Mexico" appeared below the navboxes and above the category list. Oh, and it only changed the location formatting of the termini in the infobox, "Shiprock, NM" and "Cortez, CO" were still listed as before for their junctions in the infobox.
You do many valuable things around here, but I think in this case you blindly applied a script and then missed two unintended consequences. The category issue should be fixed in your script for future usage. Imzadi 1979→17:55, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The script doesn't do those; I'm pretty sure I did those manually, and clearly I screwed up. The MoS says US not USA; does that mean the infobox template for roads needs an application to change this?
I will test on preview-only mode. But the two-letter abbreviations of US states: you have no objection to the states being spelled out? Otherwise, not many readers will understand them. Sorry to cause inconvenience. Tony(talk)18:07, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I've said on WT:USRD, this is quite ridiculous. U.S. postal codes are referenced all over this country, and frequently abroad as well. Adding the full names to the infobox wastes space for zero benefit. --Rschen775418:24, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The "USA" there isn't displayed, it's used to call up the US-specific subtemplates, just as "CAN" calls up the Canada-specific ones, and "GBR" calls up the UK-specific ones. The infobox uses the alpha-3 code for all countries, with a few "invented" codes for continents, not the alpha-2 codes. The alpha-3 code for the country known as the United States of America is "USA", and the alpha-2 code is "US". This isn't an MOS thing because the input isn't displayed and the template documentation clearly says that the template is using ISO 3166-1 alpha-3 codes. Imzadi 1979 [[User talk:Imzadi1979→]]19:07, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd dare to say quite a few of them. If not, it's quite easy to guess. If they can't even guess, then they can figure it out by looking at the article, where the answer is right smack dab in both the lead and the table of contents, not to mention the full state names being mentioned a few lines down in the same infobox. --Rschen775423:43, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And the links were to the "Gallup, New Mexico" piped to "Gallup, NM", etc., so the tool tip popup would provide another clue if the reader hovers the cursor over the link in the infobox. Imzadi 1979→23:47, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tony, I've commented there and I've looked at the edit you made here. Would you please consider removing the preamble that you wrote there? From the word 'And' to 'here'. The rest of what you wrote there looks fine, but that preamble is way off-topic for the FAC and also personalises it to an unacceptable degree. If you have concerns of that nature, you should be raising them in the correct location, not dragging them into that FAC. Furthermore, if the review was indeed a deliberate WP:POINT violation, you should consider withdrawing it and asking someone else to do a copyediting review. Carcharoth (talk) 03:26, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, striking it doesn't remove the effect it has had (and will continue to have), but as someone said at the ANI, it has the 'advantage' that people can read what you wrote and it might reflect badly on you. Up to you, I suppose. I have to do other things now, but this doesn't look resolved to me. If you can do anything further to help calm things down, that would be good. Carcharoth (talk) 03:57, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it wasn't done to remove text entirely; I've been criticised in the past for doing that. I don't mind its removal, but I'm certainly going to pursue the critiquing of bad text in FACs. Tony(talk)04:12, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Further feedback
Tony, I hope you're aware that I value your prose contributions at FAC and throughout Wikipedia, which is why it is a concern when you let interpersonal conflicts influence your reviews. This latest incident [2] of an inappropriate commentary aimed at another editor at FAC has prompted me to raise, again, with you an old matter that in my view was a bigger concern. I can overlook an unfortunate Oppose, but an unworthy "green light" for an ill-prepared article from a respectable prose reviewer such as yourself causes a bigger problem at FAC. Because of the respect your prose reviews command, when other reviewers see that you have given a green light to prose, they may apply less scrutiny and go on to Support the article without further scrutinizing the prose.
Specifically, please review Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mauna Kea/archive1 and your uncharacteristically non-committal commentary entered at 13:32, September 17, 2010, which appears to give a green light to the prose of the article, which looked like this at the time of your comment. The deficient prose in that version is quite apparent, typos and grammatical errors were present at the time of your comment, other editors had to point them out, Karanacs had to restart the FAC on 19 October since the article had to be completely rewritten at FAC (diff of almost 500 revisions between the time of your green light and promotion), and the FAC endured almost two months, taxing reviewers and contributing to the FAC backlog. Again, I can overlook an Oppose entered in anger or frustration, but this apparent "green light" to deficient prose carried weight at FAC, and a much bigger concern is reviews that may result in the promotion of a deficient article because of commentary from a respected reviewer.
Of note, you appear to have entered that supportive commentary to Res Mar's FAC specifically after and because of an interpersonal conflict in which you engaged with him, against me, beginning September 5, 2010 over similar prose deficiencies in Res Mar's writing occuring at The Signpost. (See User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch74#The Signpost and ownership).
Another concern is that your support of Res Mar's Signpost writing has been an enabling factor-- he continues writing deficient entries for The Signpost, as the editor had to recently point out.[3] I hope you will understand that the appearance is that you allow interpersonal issues to influence your commentary at FAC as well as your decision-making at The Signpost.
Your prose reviews are too valuable for you to allow them to be compromised by interpersonal issues, and the "green light" you gave a deficient article is a much bigger problem than the inappropriate commentary and behavior you showed towards Wehwalt, and I note that your trend towards recrimination of anyone who disagrees with you over anything-- no matter how strong the friendship-- is not attractive. Reasonable editors will disagree at times, and that you take such umbrage whenever any editor disagrees with you-- to the point of lashing out vituperatively at editors who considered you a friend-- is not an admirable quality. I do not condone calls for anyone to be banned from FAC, but I do account for any reviewer's history at FAC when reading their commentary, and I hope you will stop letting interpersonal issues affect your reviews. That you have done this on multiple occasions is now something I have to factor when reading your reviews. I hope you'll accept that reasonable editors will disagree, and acknowledge that repeatedly and vituperatively attacking someone each time you had a minor disagreement is not the way to treat anyone, much less a friend. FAC needs your considered prose reviews; I hope you will return to objectively reviewing all FACs equally, and refrain from supporting your supporters and opposing your opposers, and understand in all areas of Wikipedia that disagreements will occur among reasonable editors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:12, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
First, Sandy, let me say what a relief it is that you're talking to me after so long. It's a dialogue I'd dearly like to continue if you could find it within you to move on from your hatred of my work at The Signpost. I've felt very hurt that you've ignored my entreaties to communicate, all apparently because I write The Signpost's "Featured content" page in a way that rewards hard-working FC creators. When I redesigned that page, I thought you'd be delighted; what a shock it was to be battered for my trouble, and thenceforth ignored. Whereas we should be singing from the same song-sheet, as we did from 2006 until this unexpected falling out. I'll respond in point form:
"I can overlook an unfortunate Oppose"—But the Oppose itself wasn't unfortunate; it was entirely appropriate in reviewing that FAC, and the issues I raised still need to be addressed—plus any further issues I find in the article. It was the choice of FAC as the first among the ?40 in the queue that was pointy. That was the very reason I was quite open about this fact; worse would have been a pretence on my part that it was not pointy. Now we are faced with the galling fact that Wehwalt not only (1) thinks non-admins shouldn't be allowed to copy-edit blurbs, (2) reverted my improvements to the blurb on what turns out to have been his authored FA (very rude, frankly, not just to reinstate the two issues he had), (3) has demanded that the faulty original be reinstated, (4) has demanded that my "Oppose" at the FAC be overturned (as though my comments were fluff), and (5) has demanded that I be topic-banned from FAC. Give me a break. Relations with him will take some time to heal. It's over the top.
"which appears to give a green light to the prose of [Manu Kea FAC], which looked like this at the time of your comment". Looks fine to me at a quick glance through; am I missing something? As I remember, ResMario, a co-writer at The Signpost asked me to go through it before the nomination. I did this as a favour—actually to encourage a fellow journalist—a week or two before the FAC. Perhaps things were mucked up between this point and the FAC, but I felt at least on the clause level it was looking OK when I'd finished. I'd not have re-examined it for Cr. 1a as a reviewer in that situation, having given too much time already to it and in the expectation it would be passable. The diff is to my characteristic disclaimer about CoI, and was quite explicit: "I was please it last week" (my underline). Was this "a green light"? With a CoI, I wasn't going to weigh in: it's not proper. But I thought it was a reasonable nom, and wanted to encourage. Again, I disclose situations when I make entries at FAC (as with Wehwalt). I see now that there was a lot of tension between reviewers and nominator later in the nom period, but sorry, I didn't look again at the time. I apologise if somehow I caused stress through my brief comment (did I?). I'm confused.
"similar prose deficiencies in Res Mar's writing occuring at The Signpost. (See User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch74#The Signpost and ownership)"—the previous complaint here seems to be morphing into the same "Sandy is angry Tony is writing "Featured content" each week for The Signpost" thing you've bashed me over, much to my distress. We're going to have to agree to disagree on this: it's journalism, and the community seems to like the page a lot, even though there are a few issues with pics and the occasional glitch. It's a lot of effort that I find hard to sustain in busy periods, and I see it as supporting you and all of the featured-content writers and reviewers; you see it as undermining the system. I'm very careful to present it in a neutral way, even though I choose winners each week in a journalistic sense (the images, and sometimes little quotes by nominators/reviewers). I try to make it good for the readers and faithful to reality. OK, ResMario still needs to improve his writing skills and his attention to detail via the sources (memo to ResMario); but I'm not going to beat him over the head. At least he writes stories for The Signpost, which is more than I can say for most WPians. I'd hardly say I've been "the enabling factor"; our highly professional Managing Editor, User:HaeB (who gives me a talking-to over slip-ups, sometimes) can deal with that. Could you direct your comments to him? And ResMario, don't be discouraged if you're reading this ...
"the appearance is that you allow interpersonal issues to influence your commentary at FAC as well as your decision-making at The Signpost."—I think you're being very hard on me. I try to encourage a lot of editors; please remember we have falling participation at en.WP. I encourage DYK editors where I can. I'm old; they're young; mentoring is good.
"your trend towards recrimination of anyone who disagrees with you over anything-- no matter how strong the friendship-- is not attractive"—Oh boy, you're being hard on me. I don't know how you're forming these opinions, but is this what you back-channel to people? I'm feeling depressed right now.
"I hope you will return to objectively reviewing all FACs equally, and refrain from supporting your supporters and opposing your opposers"—It was an objective review. Could you please point out what, among those ?15 points, was subjective and slanted in any way? I really object to your unfounded smearing. I'm very careful to be even-handed in reviewing, and you know it. Are you out to damage my reputation? Is it something to do with my comment on Giano's page the other day, which I stand by? Remember that every point I made about Wehwalt's fault-ridden lead was written in exactly the same technical terms, irrespective of the authorship. You are being very unfair.
I'm not going to be intimidated by your threats to ignore my reviews at FAC. It's an extraordinary thing to say. My reviews are technical, and where occasionally they relate to personal prefs, I point this out, don't I? Sandy, you need to tone down the negativity and tone up the encouragement of other editors. Remember that what you say is very public. And you need to disregard Wehwalt's venomous back-channelling. Tony(talk)15:30, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sandy is stubborn as hell, and hasn't talked to me in a civil tone in years, Tony. I find no surprises with her anymore. It's always the same argument. Do I do crappy work? Sometimes. I'd say HaeB was more of an enabling factor; I used to not worry that I might miss a few things, simply because he always went back over it. I'm more careful, now, and I'll try to stay off of writing it "into the night" so to speak. My temper gets the best of me, sometimes, when it comes to Wikipedia, but I like to think I rebound from it well—I've yelled at Awickert and you too once, but Aw provides me with a sorts of papers I can't get otherwise via e-mail, and I think we have a working relationship at the Signpost. As for Sandy, I gave up the other day; I've tried to be civil with her many times and got bitten back each time. Sandy has favorites and she plays them well. I'm not one of her favorites. So I get the appropriate snobbish treatment. I take everything she says, now, with a grain of salt.
Sandy: if you even bother reading this, I'd like to point out that your abrasive and snobbish treatment of other editors has caused me to lose interest in Wikipedia several times already, and I think that it might well have chased several new editors, possibly very good ones, away. ResMar16:02, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The latest is that User:Ironholds, who dished out extraordinary abuse to me at main-page talk last week, during my complaints that the last-minute queuing of blurbs effectively shuts non-admins out of contributing to them ("screaming child", I think was one phrase), has said to me:
“
Tony1, just popping in to let you know that the ANI drama is entirely of your own making, and that if you don't want people to slap you on the wrist for giving an incredibly biased, WP:POINTy and personalised review you should maybe not patrol the wiki swinging your dick around and treating anyone who disagrees with you as your own personal cum-bucket. Just FYI.
”
Right. How did this person get through his RfA? When was it, I wonder? Why does the community condone such behaviour by admins, but not by non-admins? The statement is there for all of my colleagues at The Signpost to see. Ironholds just ... dropped in, dumped it, and left. Tony(talk)16:15, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ResMario, it was a painful process working it out. Someone at The Signpost newsroom will help. Perhaps a patch is required for your browser. See the "irc" and one other link in the lead. See what it says when you click it. Tony(talk)16:55, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
SandyGeorgia has her say. Wow, if I'd known she'd piped in to say she'd support an RfC on me, I'd not have responded in the way I did above. Here it is, from a few hours ago:
Nice to know who your friends are. So she's encouraging this Wehwalt character to launch an RfC against me? She'd like to conominate it? This might have been in response to something awful I said about Sandy at DYK yesterday:
A note on your above commentary on Sandy, by the way; are you honestly citing "you saying something nice about her" as a reason she shouldn't certify an RfC, or a reason you're not deserving of one? Do you really think that being pleasant on one occasion makes up for impropriety on another? Ironholds (talk) 17:01, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have nothing against you personally, Ironholds, but that's Wikilawyering. Context does not change the meaning of the message, and you have to admit, you were being a dick. ResMar17:02, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all; whether it has any relevance or should be brought up on-wiki - particularly in a format that violates policy - is entirely dependant on context. If you have a problem with my message, you are free to note that. On IRC. It has absolutely no relevance to ongoing en-wiki debates which I have no part in, however, and was made in response to Tony's own IRC commentary. Ironholds (talk) 17:15, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, well, picture this: I have three mental lists for other users: "Is a total dick", "Can sometimes be a dick", "Isn't a dick", and you're now on my "Can sometimes be a dick" mental list. That is all. ResMar17:22, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That shows remarkable naivety. everyone can sometimes be a dick. Many people just have the foresight or appropriateness to not do it where it can come back to bite them on the arse. This is precisely what I did, and I regret that Tony saw the need to not only bring an off-wiki discussion on-wiki, but also do so in violation of policy. I've yet to see you explain how telling them something in bald words to their face constitutes "backstabbing", however; not only is it the antithesis of backstabbing, backstabbing would require me to support or be friends with Tony. Unlike him - or, unlike what his above comments about SG make him seem to be - I do not think of people in terms of "friends" or "enemies", the former to defend me to the death and the latter to be kicked in the ribs. I support and oppose people on individual judgement calls, not simply as a matter of course because they are somebody I do or do not like. The wiki would be a better place if people focused on doing that rather than ganging up. Ironholds (talk) 17:33, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm entitled to my own opinions, irregardless of what you think of them. As for backstabbing, I think that having a good relationship with an editor, and then having them support a RfC on you, is at the least "not nice". I'm not arguing any further. Just don't be a dick and we wouldn't have this conversation in the first place. ResMar18:09, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Making a comment about someone, to their face, is the antithesis of "backstabbing" - it was in fact in relation to his commentary on IRC. Discussions over what happens in other forums does not belong on Wikipedia up to the point where it interferes with the functioning of the wiki or indicates some intent to breach policy on-wiki, neither of which are the case. Ironholds (talk) 17:06, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What an extraordinarily dysfunctional system is RfA
I say this on the revelation above by Adrian J Hunter that User:Ironholds's RfA was as recent as January this year (167/7/8)—apparently his third try. That an editor is allowed to behave with rank abuse so soon after making promises to the community is hard to fathom—no complaints yet from his colleagues, but maybe they think it's just fine.
"Ironholds (nom), has been a Wikipedia editor since early 2006 and has experience in WP:CSD and WP:AFD. His particular interest is current English law, and English legal history; he says among his best work is a featured article he "brought up from almost nothing", Court of Chancery."
The nom text for Ironhold's RfA claimed that he is "a solid image of a Wikipedian" and "has [never] failed to respond to criticism". Oh, but then the candidate admits, "In my last RfAs, I failed because I was uncivil." OK, so now we see. And then he says he's been on record as saying "RfA is broken, we must fix it".
Actually, he's quite a good writer. I see he did a piece for The Signpost in April on admins, in which I provided image assistance. And there was a co-authored story on efforts to improve editor retention (ironic). Nineteen featured items (and we need more legal articles; he's one I'd encourage). What has gone wrong to make a talented young guy turn so abusive so soon? Is this the effect of raw admin power, and the main-page arrogance that leads admins there to feel it's just tickety-boo that often no one but admins can edit blurbs?
One opposer at his RfA said "not all great contributors are suitable for adminship". Harry Mitchell (neutral) said, Ironholds "writes of policies as though they were legislation". Does Ironholds understand WP:CIVIL and the obligations he agreed to before the community at his RfA (WP:ADMIN)? Tony(talk)17:33, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To ask a question right back at you; since when has WP:CIVIL applied to IRC? To ask another; since we know it applies to en-wiki, would you please withdraw your comments alleging that my off-wiki actions are evidence of "rank abuse"? Ironholds (talk) 17:40, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Tony, how are you? Probably stupid of me to ask, seeing the above section. Don't worry, keep up the good work. I wanted to ask your opinion regarding something. I have nominated the above wiki-linked article for FLC. I believed everything was all right. Now looking at the lead, somehow the flow from the first para to the second para does not appear correct to me. Can you please help me out as to what I'm missing? — Legolas(talk2me)16:29, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tony1. I can understand your reasoning for requesting Sandy's recusal on Wehwalt's FAC nomination, given that it's been a centre of conflict and her comments mentioned that review in particular, but why ask her to recuse on something like Missouri River? Do you intend to ask for her recusal on every review you comment on? Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 20:37, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, no. Much to my disbelief, she has attempted to smear my reputation above on the basis of a conflict-of-interest declaration I made at an FAC last year, as required by the instructions, declaring that I'd copy-edited a nomination before the FAC. This, she interpreted, as giving the "green light" to the nom; I don't know how anyone could come to this conclusion. She has announced she will regard my reviews with prejudice; please read her words above. It's unseemly for an FAC delegate, and she must have realised she'd have to recuse from now on. Tony(talk)06:09, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
US 491 TFA
Tony,
Thanks for helping to get U.S. Route 491 ready for its time in the main page. This article went through FAC a few years ago, and has a few years of article rot on it. That's in addition to the fact that FAC standards have toughened over the years and honestly am not sure if this article would pass an FAC review today. I know if I had time I'd like to almost completely rewrite it. I appreciate people who try to fix things rather than just complain about them. Dave (talk) 16:49, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The latest GOCE backlog elimination drive is under way! It began on 1 July and so far 18 people have signed up to help us reduce the number of articles in need of copyediting.
This drive will give a 50% bonus for articles edited from the GOCE requests page. Although we have cleared the backlog of 2009 articles there are still 3,935 articles needing copyediting and any help, no matter how small, would be appreciated.
We are appealing to all GOCE members, and any other editors who wish to participate, to come and help us reduce the number of articles needing copyediting, as well as the backlog of requests. If you have not signed up yet, why not take a look at the current signatories and help us by adding your name and copyediting a few articles. Barnstars will be given to anyone who edits more than 4,000 words, with special awards for the top 5 in the categories: "Number of articles", "Number of words", and "Number of articles of over 5,000 words".
I found a NYT editorial that states this: "Varied and Deep-Rooted. Contrary to popular beliefs, this is not a problem driven mainly by the aging of the baby boom generation, or the high cost of prescription drugs, or medical malpractice litigation that spawns defensive medicine. Those issues often dominate political discourse, but they have played relatively minor roles in driving up medical spending in this country and abroad. The major causes are much more deep-seated and far harder to root out.
Almost all economists would agree that the main driver of high medical spending here is our wealth. We are richer than other countries and so willing to spend more. But authoritative analyses have found that we spend well above what mere wealth would predict.
This is mostly because we pay hospitals and doctors more than most other countries do. We rely more on costly specialists, who overuse advanced technologies, like CT scans and M.R.I. machines, and who resort to costly surgical or medical procedures a lot more than doctors in other countries do. Perverse insurance incentives entice doctors and patients to use expensive medical services more than is warranted. And our fragmented array of insurers and providers eats up a lot of money in administrative costs, marketing expenses and profits that do not afflict government-run systems abroad."[4] Do you have any recommendations for me on how to improve the hook? Thanks. Jesanj (talk) 17:18, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nice to have it explained in one bundle: it's just as I understood it. But just be a little careful about inciting political flack on the main page. I'm short of time at the moment, so see what the experienced admins at DYK say. If they're fine, I'm fine, and please link them here if you really need to. Tony(talk)17:29, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
